FS List
Jim Rovira
jrovira at drew.edu
Wed, 02 Apr 2003 22:06:07 -0500
--------------414A8543E1B1FF1A3B96BF29
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Pretty interesting thesis, Mr. Peters, and credible too. What I would watch out
for is limiting motivations to one. Language like this:
> there has been interesting debate about the imperative behind its urgency.
>
can be a bit misleading, as you talk about *the* imperative behind the war,
rather than *one of* the possible imperatives behind the war. I think the real
problem with this war, and the reason the Bush Admin. couldn't make a convincing
case of the need for it to the international community (even though every bad
thing that's ever been said about Hussein is probably true), is that the motives
behind the war are *overdetermined.* There are too many motives, too many
pressures from too many quarters, too many reasons, so that a single one can't
be clearly elucidated.
First, there is the simple fear element. Bush harps on that in public speeches
about the war -- "we're not going to live in fear," "waiting until we are
attacked is suicide," etc. The fear, of course, being that Hussein will align
himself with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups as the Taliban did, offering
the resources and protection of an established state for terrorist activities.
If you think this is incredible, look at the growing sympathy for Hussein in the
Arab world. Even rivals, even those who hate him, want him to at least put up a
good fight and kill a good many American soldiers. Not because he's a good
Islamicist, or because they particularly care for him, but the rhetoric seems to
be that "Arab pride" is somehow at stake.
Then there's the need for the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and other
parts of the Middle East to be a bit less visible than it is at present. The
National Defense University's Institute of Strategic Studies released a paper
describing the need for the US to maintain a less visible footprint in the
Middle East without diminishing its forces significantly or withdrawing from the
region completely. It argued that the establishment of a democracy in Iraq was
one good means to do so.
The article is online...I can send you the link in the next couple days if you
want it. The Village Voice was the first to write about it, I think.
Furthermore, there are the fears of Hussein's ability to eventually destabilize
the region. If he was stupid enough to think he could win a war with Iran, and
stupid enough to think he could successfully invade Kuwait without suffering
international reprisal, then he's probably stupid enough to think the
development of nuclear or bio/chem weapons will give him a tactical advantage
that would allow him to successfully wage these wars in the future.
The sheer economics of the oil situation may require a regime change. It's not
that the US needs to sit on the oil itself -- of course not. It's cheaper to
buy the oil than take it, and if Iraq maximized production and started pumping
out oil like it was able to, worldwide oil prices -- and for the US as well,
whether they sold to the US or not -- would drop. The real problem is with
growing international demand for the sanctions to let up (which were starting
more and more to unravel) while Hussein is still in power, giving him the funds
to develop dangerous weapons programs and rebuild his military for future
invasions.
You can add your speculation about Euro based oil vs. Dollar based oil here too.
We could probably think up a few more. The "liberation of the Iraqi people" is
a nice afterthought at best.
Jim Rovira
"Peters, Mike [HES]" wrote:
> Anyway, on the war - there has been interesting debate about the imperative
> behind its urgency. It seems economically driven. At least this is the most
> plausible explanation to me (but don't rush to make accusations at me for
> this - it's just based on impressive evidence). One of the compelling
> arguments is the US fear that China, Russia etc may follow oil-pricing in
> Euros. Iraq broke away from pricing its oil in dollars (the rule since
> 1971). If this spreads (Venezuela has tried this too and Chavez has been
> subject to a textbook US-sponsored destabilization), then this augurs a
> crisis for the US economy, since dollars being effectively backed by oil can
> be printed at will. An Australian writer nicely likened this to writing
> cheques for all your consumption without them bouncing because they are
> recycled to buy oil and never reach the bank, so to speak. This argument
> (I'm simplifying it) appeals because it explains the need to wipe out Iraq's
> threat to oil price 'stability' (sc. dollar hegemony). I've not been
> convinced the motive for the war is simply to secure US control of oil
> supplies per se, but this explains much more.
>
> The Negri/Hardt discussion seems to lead nowhere because it's too abstract
> and doesn't engage with any facts. There is a nice critique of Negri by
> George Caffentzis on the Web which exposes much of the vacuity of his
> language. James Petras has made another good critique. These postmodernist
> speculations are terribly empty.
>
> Any other ideas about the causes of the war - its likely outcomes, etc?
>
> Is there anyone there still familiar with the Pollock/Neumann/Kirchheimer
> debates in the original Frankfurt School in 1940 (the State Capitalism
> versus Totalitarian Monopoly Capitalism) ? Those issues were debated
> seriously - philosophically as well as in terms of political economy. I'm
> not saying they weren't flawed debates, but we could learn from them
> perhaps?
>
> Mike Peters
--------------414A8543E1B1FF1A3B96BF29
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Pretty interesting thesis, Mr. Peters, and credible too. What I would
watch out for is limiting motivations to one. Language like this:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>
<pre>there has been interesting debate about the imperative behind its urgency.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p><br>can be a bit misleading, as you talk about *the* imperative behind
the war, rather than *one of* the possible imperatives behind the war.
I think the real problem with this war, and the reason the Bush Admin.
couldn't make a convincing case of the need for it to the international
community (even though every bad thing that's ever been said about Hussein
is probably true), is that the motives behind the war are *overdetermined.*
There are too many motives, too many pressures from too many quarters,
too many reasons, so that a single one can't be clearly elucidated.
<p>First, there is the simple fear element. Bush harps on that in
public speeches about the war -- "we're not going to live in fear," "waiting
until we are attacked is suicide," etc. The fear, of course, being
that Hussein will align himself with Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
as the Taliban did, offering the resources and protection of an established
state for terrorist activities.
<p>If you think this is incredible, look at the growing sympathy for Hussein
in the Arab world. Even rivals, even those who hate him, want him
to at least put up a good fight and kill a good many American soldiers.
Not because he's a good Islamicist, or because they particularly care for
him, but the rhetoric seems to be that "Arab pride" is somehow at stake.
<p>Then there's the need for the US military presence in Saudi Arabia and
other parts of the Middle East to be a bit less visible than it is at present.
The National Defense University's Institute of Strategic Studies released
a paper describing the need for the US to maintain a less visible footprint
in the Middle East without diminishing its forces significantly or withdrawing
from the region completely. It argued that the establishment of a
democracy in Iraq was one good means to do so.
<p>The article is online...I can send you the link in the next couple days
if you want it. The Village Voice was the first to write about it,
I think.
<p>Furthermore, there are the fears of Hussein's ability to eventually
destabilize the region. If he was stupid enough to think he could
win a war with Iran, and stupid enough to think he could successfully invade
Kuwait without suffering international reprisal, then he's probably stupid
enough to think the development of nuclear or bio/chem weapons will give
him a tactical advantage that would allow him to successfully wage these
wars in the future.
<p>The sheer economics of the oil situation may require a regime change.
It's not that the US needs to sit on the oil itself -- of course not.
It's cheaper to buy the oil than take it, and if Iraq maximized production
and started pumping out oil like it was able to, worldwide oil prices --
and for the US as well, whether they sold to the US or not -- would drop.
The real problem is with growing international demand for the sanctions
to let up (which were starting more and more to unravel) while Hussein
is still in power, giving him the funds to develop dangerous weapons programs
and rebuild his military for future invasions.
<p>You can add your speculation about Euro based oil vs. Dollar based oil
here too.
<p>We could probably think up a few more. The "liberation of the
Iraqi people" is a nice afterthought at best.
<p>Jim Rovira
<p>"Peters, Mike [HES]" wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Anyway, on the war - there has been interesting debate
about the imperative
<br>behind its urgency. It seems economically driven. At least this is
the most
<br>plausible explanation to me (but don't rush to make accusations at
me for
<br>this - it's just based on impressive evidence). One of the compelling
<br>arguments is the US fear that China, Russia etc may follow oil-pricing
in
<br>Euros. Iraq broke away from pricing its oil in dollars (the rule since
<br>1971). If this spreads (Venezuela has tried this too and Chavez has
been
<br>subject to a textbook US-sponsored destabilization), then this augurs
a
<br>crisis for the US economy, since dollars being effectively backed by
oil can
<br>be printed at will. An Australian writer nicely likened this to writing
<br>cheques for all your consumption without them bouncing because they
are
<br>recycled to buy oil and never reach the bank, so to speak. This argument
<br>(I'm simplifying it) appeals because it explains the need to wipe out
Iraq's
<br>threat to oil price 'stability' (sc. dollar hegemony). I've not been
<br>convinced the motive for the war is simply to secure US control of
oil
<br>supplies per se, but this explains much more.
<p>The Negri/Hardt discussion seems to lead nowhere because it's too abstract
<br>and doesn't engage with any facts. There is a nice critique of Negri
by
<br>George Caffentzis on the Web which exposes much of the vacuity of his
<br>language. James Petras has made another good critique. These postmodernist
<br>speculations are terribly empty.
<p>Any other ideas about the causes of the war - its likely outcomes, etc?
<p>Is there anyone there still familiar with the Pollock/Neumann/Kirchheimer
<br>debates in the original Frankfurt School in 1940 (the State Capitalism
<br>versus Totalitarian Monopoly Capitalism) ? Those issues were debated
<br>seriously - philosophically as well as in terms of political economy.
I'm
<br>not saying they weren't flawed debates, but we could learn from them
<br>perhaps?
<p>Mike Peters</blockquote>
</html>
--------------414A8543E1B1FF1A3B96BF29--