I think C. G. Estabrook's analysis of the Iraq situation is pretty
accurate. I doubt that the recent saber-rattling is in any way part of
larger plan to distract attention from Fast Track, etc.--I'm not at all
convinced Fast Track is in trouble, despite the substantial popular
opposition to it. Comparable opposition existed with NAFTA and GATT, and
they were rammed through anyway...as will Fast Track--it's simply too
important to corporate power to have it otherwise.

"Middle-range" strategy, I think explains a lot about US policy in Iraq,
and the retention of Hussein in power. Aside from preventing any sort of
democratic movement to take control, Saddam serves US interests by
protecting our allies in Turkey and Saudi Arabia, as Saddam can be counted
on to suppress the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south,
respectively....US clients in the region have no interest in seeing these
people enjoy any sort of autonomy, and the Iraqi regime is very much in
accord.

The real story in Iraq, I think, is the massive number of deaths that have
resulted from the US destruction of Iraq's infrastructure (power grid,
water system, sewage treatment plants, etc) and the sanctions we insist on
maintaining. Check out the latest issue of The Progressive for a synopsis;
the death toll among children alone is, by the UN's own account, in the
range of 500,000. Yet this story, one of the great humanitarian tragedies
of the 1990's and one the US is largely responsible for, gets almost no
coverage in the mainstream media--and Madeline Albright can assert that
the number of deaths is "worth the price" of achieving US aims in the
region, and there's no outcry or questioning. A real testament to the
functioning of the "free" press......

Robert Goodby
Barrington, NH  USA