Re: oil

Gunder Frank suggests that Kosovo (and Congo) did have an oil connection.  I 
appreciate the correction.  

However, I would be skeptical about explaining the entirety of NATO's 
involvement in Kosovo through the oil connection--lets not forget that a:  
liberal opinion in North America and Europe was demanding US intervention, 
and one could argue that the US's credibility as Robocop was in jeopardy if 
it did not and b:  George Bush himself (generally regarded as something of a 
spokesperson for oil interests in the US) ran against such involvements, 
arguing that 'humanitarian' missions wasted US resources.

As for Afghanistan, here is the original sentence from Ted Rall's piece I 
objected to:

<Realpolitik no more cares about the 6,000 dead than it concerns itself with
oppressed women in Afghanistan; this ersatz war by a phony president is
solely about getting the Unocal deal done without interference from annoying
local middlemen.>

If Bush's job is not to safeguard the well-being of the US capitalist class, 
many of whom perished on September 11, what is it?

Oil interests may well exploit the current situation--I actually saw a 
similar report on CNN last night--but I also suspect there are many people in 
Washington who are reminding Bush that Afghanistan is a great place for your 
enemies to be fighting a war...

In general I recoil from efforts to pin US imperial actions on one group of 
capitalist interests as it fails to capture the all-around hegemonic dynamic.

Steven Sherman