Review: Foreign Affairs

Dear Chevron & of course Lockheed Martin Marietta Military Industrioil Complex:

Thanks for the info drop, really. Your Minister doesn’t usually read foreign affairs; why bother, deck chairs on the titanic and all.

Still the article you want read about Iraq deserves mentioning.

Messrs. Biddle, O’Hanlon and Pollack may think themselves well meaning bourgeois internationalists, the sort of people MIM would like to give a pass to but. But no, they aren't. They might be trying, but, alas, fail.

Robert Kagan in counterpoint should just be taken out and shot. Metaphorically speaking, of course.

MIM appreciates the bourgeoisie’s strategic ineptitude in every sense of the word appreciate (lol capital). The problem is, though your strategic ineptitude is laughable, it also carries a cost in blood no one particularly likes.

Biddle et al. argue for 50% U.S. troop withdrawels by 2011. Those figures are simply unacceptable. Their argument is that an earlier withdrawel would result in more bloodshed. What they cannot recognize due to an absence of class analysis is:
1) The U.S. started the Iraq war and is the source of Iraq instability because it sequentially supported and betrayed each and every political force in Iraq. NO ONE LIKES YOU.
2) MIM isn’t trying to unify all sides in Iraq to carry out military strikes against imperialism whether in Iraq or elsewhere. MIM Could do that. So the last year of peace and stability hasn’t been due to the surge. It’s been due to MIM working for war prevention in Iran rather than war escalation in Iraq (and elsewhere). This Minister has already argued that we have nothing to lose: so the strategic analysis of Messrs Biddle is wrong.
3) All those U.S. armed and trained Iraqis? Thanks for the weapons, gtfo.

Basically, the least bloody option is complete immediate withdrawel. MIM has not tried to tie down the imperialists in Iraq to exacerbate their sorry fucked up global slouch. MIM could easily pump up the volume for propaganda and political line to bring on a full scale war between the Arab (and even Moslem) peoples and the imperialists. MIM doesn’t want that because MIM wants peace. However the sort of back-sliding presented by Messr’s Biddle et al. is a “combat enabler” for This Minister.

While we are on the back channel: MIM is pleased to note the brilliant development idea of turning Guatemalen cane sugar into bourgeois SUV juice. Run with that. MIM doesn’t like brutal military dictatorships. However, MIM knows that development leads to peace. When MIM sees effective healthy bourgeois policies that reflect and cause reduced violence in the Third World we are ok with that. Guatamala has a brutal record of human rights atrocities. Probably a bunch of poor, angry, desperate people struggling to have a decent life. While corn based biofuel isn’t viable cane based fuel is. MIM predicts that a decent living standard for all Guatamalans will be healthy for everyone even people pigmerika. We'll whine less about Guatamala if we see progress in life expectancy, caloric intake, i.e. real improvements in the living standard for the poor.

Your Minister is simply pointing out that contrast between flailing bourgeois politicos who are strategically blind and correct bourgeois tactical private sector economists with a hope that we can see a better tactical vision in Guatemala (end death squad government). Rather than bourgeois intellectuals MIM continues to contemplate whether in fact the bourgeois corporate sectors have the better vision. This issue of foreign affairs seems to indicate that is the case.

Finally a caveat: I'm an artist not an expert on the mideast or latin america. MIM is always free to countermand or order this Minister to do or refrain from doing anything. I just try to make it clear.

Also: there is a really cool wall art displayed on Brattle street. It's worth a lookie.