Re: What does the US want?

First, the US has in the postwar period consistently done everywhere
"whatever it believes to be in its best interest."   And  Europeans have
frequently chaffed, France and Russia in particular, far more so in the
past than they are now.  Nothing new about that.

If Iraq had started gassing the Kurds again, then there would be far
less resistance to US action.  In fact, there would be so little
resistance that US threats to invade wouldn't even be described as
"unilateral."  Leaders would be hailing, as we did in the Gulf War and
NATO operations, the great cooperation among the core powers.  This is
one reason why this coming war isn't about US unilateral action per se,
or is so only on the surface of it.

France and Russia are using the media-hype about Bush's plans for global
empire to their advantage in bargaining for cut of the oil wealth and to
get greater say in future operations.  Why?  Because greater power means
they get a greater share of the pie, whatever the particular
circumstances.  

Lastly, just as US policy has changed for the worse with Bush's team
coming into power, it may not be in power after the next elections,
which means that the hawks' *impatient* empire-building policies may not
be indicative of a middle-run pattern for the US.  Another Clinton or
Gore would see renewed "compassionate centrism."

Elson Boles


> -----Original Message-----
> From: wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu 
> [mailto:wsn-owner@csf.colorado.edu] On Behalf Of Threehegemons@aol.com
> Sent: Friday, October 04, 2002 11:03 AM
> To: wsn@csf.colorado.edu
> Subject: What does the US want?
> 
> 
> It looks like my last effort to post failed and I lost the 
> message I had written, so, briefly...  This war is more about 
> the right of the US to do whatever it believes to be in its 
> interest than about oil. It is consistent with Bush's 
> economic policies in places that have little to do with 
> oil(Argentina, steel tariffs). This stance is as much in 
> opposition to local opponents (Powell, Gore),who believe in 
> the US maintaining a hegemonic posture as world leader, as to 
> any international foes.  
> 
> No one in Europe has any interest in supporting the US in  
> this direction.  Tony Blair has taken the position that by 
> getting close to the US he can influence it, but he has 
> little to show for his effort. The real question now is how 
> dangerous would it be to break with the US.  The dominant 
> strand in the US government is acting like it couldn't care 
> less what Europe thinks.
>   Europe's present manner of exercising power is highly 
> ideological, adopting a number of substantive issues of 
> concern to the world (global warming, ICC, etc).  Part and 
> parcel of this is the bitter feeling among European liberals 
> that Rwandas should not be allowed to happen.  This war may 
> finally discredit anyone in Europe who wants to remain 
> friends with the US, and then we will see a full fledged 
> strategy emerge.
> 
> Steven Sherman
>