On 8/7/06, Marvin Gandall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Carrol writes:
> Marvin Gandall wrote:
>>
>> Well, Iraq was a test case of the neocon hypothesis, was it not? - both
>> in
>> terms of how easy it is to secure control of overseas oil fields, even in
>> a
>> broken defenceless country, and to break up the national oil company and
>> redistribute its assets to the multinationals.
>
> It is NOT a neocon thesis; the invasion of Iraq was and is supported by
> the totality of leading forces in the u.s. The dream that it is merely a
> neocon aberration is a pleasant one, allowing u.s. leftists to avoid
> facing the realities of u.s. policy.
==============================
Ok, I'll proceed on the assumption of your deeply mistaken view (and wishful
one, in order to bash "US leftists") that there was unanimity within the US
ruling class about a land invasion and occupation of Iraq.
Is there still unanimity within it on the necessity and, more important, the
feasibility of the US securing military control of all oil being shipped
overland and by sea from oil-producing states?
Unanimity would be an overstatement, but the fact is that US troops
are still in Iraq and that there is no concrete plan of pulling them
out, which is evidence that dissenters in the ruling class are still
marginal.
--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>
