More war to come?

Tariq Ali, never one to be shy, calls the occupation of Iraq recolonisation. A student of mine, last week, suggested the same thing. Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri have contended that we live in an age of empire (albeit a decentred one), with the power of empire facing what they call 'the multitude', a world-wide proletariat. Certainly, the continued Western presence in Iraq faces armed resistance. But can we call it 'colonisation'? In one sense, no. No Western power is claiming to rule Iraq, not the United States and certainly not such allies as Poland or Denmark. However, it is not clear how the United States in particular is going to disentangle itself from the mess it created. The Bushies assert that withdrawal from Iraq would be a sign of 'weakness', inviting renewed terrorist attacks on the US (since those elsewhere apparently don't count). On the other hand, why are American (and other Western) soldiers dying there, since the initial war aims have turned out to be based on falsehoods? What good does the occupation do, except to Halliburton and other profiteers? The incipient civil war certainly does not suggest that democracy (whatever we may mean by that) has taken hold in Iraq. So, if the US isn't about to pull up stakes, is Iraq in effect a colony with the Iraqi government asking 'How high?' every time the US ambassador says 'jump'? It may well be so. And that would be empire in effect, a neo-colonial puppet state in the heart of the Middle East's petroleum reserves. That brings us to Iran. Is the US preparing for war with Iran? Certainly, president Ahmadinejad has a tendency to shoot from the lip. There do seem to be straws in the wind, though, hinting that US public opinion is being prepared for war, even though there's still at least one chance for a peaceful outcome. Sanctions could become the first step to a war to 'liberate' Iran from its religious leaders. A ver.