Marvin Gandall wrote:
You seriously misunderstand the nature of the conflict when you state that
"the US ruling class opted for war." The US ruling class was and remains
very divided over the invasion of Iraq, over whether it served or hurt US
strategic interests. I think its closer to the truth to characterize the
Iraq invasion as a hubristic adventure by the Bush administration, acting in
maverick fashion against the wishes of a large, probably major, part of its
own ruling class and the international bourgeoisie. That operation, as
anticipated, turned into a debacle, and the Bushites have since been reined
in and their early foreign policy doctrines discredited.
If the invasion went as well as the invasion of Panama or Grenada, there
would be no differences. The differences, such as they are, have not
been reflected in the choice of candidates. I don't recall huge amounts
of money being directed from Wall Street to Howard Dean.
I don't think you would argue the "sanctions were becoming ineffective" in
terms of the harm they were inflicting on the Iraqi population. It's true
that they had been ineffective in fostering the hoped-for coup, and were
being evaded and loosened in negotations through the UN. Nevertheless, it
doesn't follow from this (and there is no evidence to indicate) that a Gore
administration would have launched an invasion, especially when this would
have precipitated a rupture with its traditional and would-be allies and
weakened the authority of the UN, which the Democrats and many Republican
leaders properly view as a useful instrument of US foreign policy.
I have no idea what Gore would have done or not done. The main point I
was stressing was his counter-revolutionary appetites. How such an
execrable creature can be refashioned as some kind of leftist is beyond me.
--
Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
