I printed Goff's piece out and read it a couple of times and agree with a lot of it. He's good at analyzing how the neocons and "cruise missile liberals" are just different faces of the same problem, which is the industrial north bleeding the developing south. I don't really care at this point whether Saddam is a fellow anti-imperialist or not; it's doubtful he'll have much to do with whatever resistance movement emerges in Iraq while he cools his heels in a Moscow apartment (or wherever). There does seem to be a danger that the US will cynically tap ex-Baathists who remained for leadership roles--we'll see in the coming months how anti-imperialist the party is/was. I do like that term "anti-imperialist" for those of us who question US militarism; it sounds so much better than "isolationist," which has a bad ring in our therapy-drenched culture. ("Don't isolate yourself; talk to me.") I've never been isolationist in the sense of the US doing business abroad (fairly, if that's possible); I just disagree that we have to have military bases in every country in order to participate in a global economic system. I realize Goff is saying the system (including Europe, Canada, and other exploiters from the West/North) is a rigged game, dependent on our continued power; I guess I'd argue for a phased transition to a healthier system of international trade. In other words, major swords-to-plowshares, and screw Paul Berman and his attempts to scare us with a new "implacable enemy." Such a transition has got to be possible, but for sure we'll never get it with CheneyCo in charge.
|
- tom moody 4-27-2003 9:53 pm