Jim Devine wrote: > > > The problem, it seems, is that those who are pushing the "Salvador > option" theory of what's going on in Iraq are falling for an old trap: > it's like the people who think that those outside the United States > can't think up ways to torture their enemies without U.S. help. Iraqis > aren't smart enough to develop death squads on their own? Is the > Cheney Gang a bunch of puppet masters?
It is amazing how often conspiracist theories or moralizing analyses in general tend to have (hidden or 'unconscious') racist premises at their core. [There is also a broader problem here: the tendency to fall for simplistic notions of "learning from history," especially in terms of the myth that history repeats itself. Marx's comment on ape and man in the Grundrisse sets the perspective right on this. That's another whole topic though.] > > The fact is that what the "School of the Americas" and similar U.S. > institutions do is _form alliances with_, _encourage_, and _steer_ > existing groups in Latin America and elsewhere so that they more > closely fit with the power elite's goals. (On moral grounds, BTW, this > is just as bad as _creating_ death squads. Aiding and abetting is just > as bad as actually committing a crime.) We have to analyze the > class/ethnic/relgious/economic situation in the dominated countries > rather than simply focusing on the perfidy of the U.S. power elite. One need not be a marxist to focus on such concrete analysis but it helps. We (marxists and non-moralizing non-marxists) know already the destructiveness of capitalism and we don't have to endlessly search for individual evil-doers to explain what is happening. There is no need at all to find such evil-doers in order to establish from the front pages of the New York times the criminal nature of the u.s. invasion of Iraq. > The U.S. elite may be encouraging death squads in Iraq, either > directly or indirectly, but if so, it's a self-destructive policy, > since it encourages civil war. They may be supporting death squads not > because of some metaphysical drive to support death squads (reflecting > the deep immorality) but because they _need_ allies like the current > Iraqi Minister of the Interior. The U.S. has been well known to ally > with "Sons of Bitches" as long as they are "their" (the elite's) SoBs. > But it's a mistake to see this as being without any _cost_ to the US > elite. A civil war would keep Iraq's oil resources from being useful > as power tools, among other things. It's true that the U.S. elite can > pull its troops behind the walls of their permanent bases. But if they > don't actually control the country, Bush's "splendid little war" is > pretty pointless (from the elite perspective). Possibly. But controlling the country, though important and/or desirable "(from the elite perspective)," may be less important than preventing others from controlling it for core u.s. aims. The establishment of more or less impregnable permanent bases within a fragmented Iraq would be sufficient for that purpose. I'm not quite ready to see the Cheney/Bush policies as _that_ much of a departure from core u.s. strategic aims in the area at least since the overthrow of Mossadegh. The Iraqi fragments outside those bases still couldn't sell their oil except through Exxon etc. And we have to remember that the u.s. itself does not need mideastern oil, and has never needed it, but has always during the post-ww2 area striven to control it (or to bar others from controlling it). Carrol
