Date: Tue, 16 Jul 1996 12:42:58 -0700 (PDT)
From: "James F. Miller" <jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org>
Subject: Cold war


RESPONSE TO DOUG

   When I said:

>The political leaders who
>quote 60-year-old texts are the allies of imperialism...

   Doug responded:

>Is this a disguised confession that you are an ally of imperialism?

   I think there is a misunderstanding here. I thought that Doug
had been referring to the Stalinist regimes when he used the
phrase, "political leaders who quote 60-year-old texts." Sorry
about that.

   Another topic that came up in this discussion was the 1990-91
Persian Gulf war. Rahul said:

>2. If Hussein was overthrown and a "legitimate" government installed, the
>US wouldn't have a leg to stand on in imposing all kinds of conditions on
>Iraq. Obviously, there's the question of military stockpiles, which bothers
>them, but perhaps more important is the desire to directly appropriate much
>of Iraq's oil profits through rules about how much must go to "restitution"
>to the Kuwaitis, for example. It's conceivable they didn't realize that
>Saddam didn't mind letting his people starve for five years before thinking
>about agreeing to their terms.

   Rahul's point here is well taken. I think the question of
whether or not the U.S. would have "a leg to stand on" in the
post-Gulf war arrangement was very much discussed all throughout
the Desert Shield phase of the war. The U.S. had some ideas about
replacing Saddam, but they were aware of the drawbacks as well.
   When push came to shove, they pulled back from an assault on
Baghdad. This decision was not easily made. But it reflects the
fact that they felt that going ahead and militarily toppling
Saddam had more minuses than pluses.
   If the U.S. had converted Iraq into a thinly-disguised
protectorate, it would have stirred up great conflicts, not
only between the U.S. and the Arab regimes, but also between
the U.S. and the European powers.
   On a deeper level, this shows the weakness of imperialism.
It can no longer practice the kind of colonial policies that
prevailed before WW II. Now the question is: which way is the
world going? Toward the gradual re-emergence of colonialism,
or toward increasing difficulties for the imperialist powers
on a world scale?
   Actually both are true. The world is polarizing, and
capitalism is forced, willy-nilly, to make stronger moves
to restore its former glory. But thus far, its boldest
strokes, such as in the Persian Gulf, have netted little
in terms of power, profits or stability. It will take a
lot more than wars of that type to reverse the situation
to imperialism's favor.


   

Jim Miller
Seattle
jamiller-AT-igc.apc.org


     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---