Wednesday, October 09, 2002

George W. Sharon and Ariel Bush One of the things I like about blogs is the cross readership between the U.S. and the U.K.  During the 1960's and 1970's, the U.K. had a strong anti-Vietnam war movement, but here in the U.S. we almost never had any contact with it, and there was little cross pollination of ideas. With the internet it is different today, and we are well aware of the anti-war movement in Britain.  I was reminded of this by an email from Alan Boyd, who wrote how he follows my blog in the UK, and then suggested I look at George Monbiot's story Tuesday in the Guardian. Monbiot documents the way in which the U.S. has thwarted several recent attempts to get Inspectors back into Iraq with carefully timed military strikes and disruption. Who on the world stage has cemented his reputation for calling in a new military strike whenever there is a whiff of relaxation in conflict.  Why Ariel Sharon of course.  Sharon has no plan for peace, only a vision of a greater Israel devoid of Palestinians, who have conveniently been ethnically cleansed and forced into Jordan or Egypt. But Sharon cannot publicly admit his desire to conquer the West Bank, so whenever there is a lull in the fighting, and negotiations may break out, he conveniently bombs a civilian building, shoots a missile, or does some other provocation to keep up the endless cycle of war. Monbiot, while not making the obvious connection, says that the U.S. has essentially engaged in the same strategy vis a vis Iraq.  Whenever there was negotiated progress, the U.S. tried to sabotage any gains, so it could keep Iraq targeted as an implacable enemy.  It's not seemly to have your sworn enemy offer to negotiate.  Like in the comic Calvin and Hobbs, if Calvin won't fight, its just no fun.  If Bush can't make his enemy state act like an enemy, there is no war. What is behind Bush's strategy of war at any cost.  I think he fears peace.  A peaceful outcome in Iraq means that the U.S. cannot achieve its imperial ambition of client states with military bases astride the great oil fields in the Middle East and Central Asia.  The original rationale for American bases in other countries, other than Japan and Germany, was the cold war and the containment policy against Russia.  With no enemy to contain, there is no need for forward bases, right?  Wrong.  The bases can now be put to new use and expanded in the service of empire.  To create empire in an interdependent, economically connected world, you have to manufacture enemies and scare your population, who otherwise will just yawn and go about their business.  To their credit, this is still what the majority of Americans want to do.  But to counter this, Bush needs an enemy, just like Sharon.  His political survival is now tied to war.  How many Americans must die as a result??     12:09:25 AM   comment []

© Copyright 2002 Toby Sackton. Last update: 12/26/2002; 9:30:22 PM.