DIALOGUE

Professor Roland Simbulan's Reply to questions by Mr.Marc Jayson Cayabyab, Philippine Collegian feature staffer, Jan. 23, 2009:
 
Mr. Cayabyab: SCHOLARS SPEAK OF THE U.S. TACTIC OF WAGING WARS AS A WAY TO SOLVE ECONOMIC CRISIS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT HISTORICAL EVENTS SUCH AS THE WORLD WAR II AFTER THE GREAT DEPRESSION, AND THE COLD WAR AFTER THE RECESSION. HOW EXACTLY DOES A 'WAR ECONOMY'HELP IN AN ECONOMIC CRISIS?

Prof. Simbulan: 
  We cannot make this statement into a mechanical
 proposition, because it would be absurd. The wars that have
 overstretched the U.S. empire have in fact led led in no
 small way to the present crisis. Usually, we can say that
 the big business of armaments/weapons industry have
 benefitted from wars, but not necessarily to resolve the
 economic crisis besetting the working people. Only the
 coterie of the elite tycoons have really benefitted. In the
 case of Iraq and Afghanistan, it is estimated in recent book
 by the Nobel Prize economist Stiglitz that the U.S.
 government has spent $ 1 trillion for these wars so far
 since 2002. That's a lot of drain from the U.S. budget,
 which now needs to be rechanneled to assist the ailing
 corporations in the American homefront.
 
Mr. Cayabyab: WILL THIS TACTIC ALSO BE DONE BY OBAMA, CONSIDERING HIS MOVE TO WAGE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN IN THE FACE OF A NEW ECONOMIC CRISIS?

Prof. Simbulan:  The Afghanistan war to seek out the real perpetrators of
 the 9/11 attacks is really a low-intensity war, not
 requiring large conventional forces, but elite
 unconventional forces for surgical operations. You don't
 need planes or missiles for this which may only victimize
 civilians. They key is good intelligence, both technical and
 human, so that it shouldnt be very expensive nor demanding
 large forces. Again, it's absurd to use this war to
 solve an economic crisis.
 
Mr. Cayabyab: DO YOU THINK OBAMA MIGHT BE  INTERESTED IN AFGHANISTAN'S  STRATEGIC LOCATION (THAT IS THE SHORTEST ROUTE TO THE PERSIAN GULF FROM THE OIL RESOURCES OF TURKMENISTAN AND UZBEKISTAN THROUGH PIPELINE PROJECTS?  WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE HIS INTERESTS IN THE REGION?

Prof. Simbulan:  Afghanistan, is naturally located at the centerpoint in
 what are considered to be new U.S. allies from the former
 Soviet Union which have indeed rich economic resources
 especially oil. But more important are the setting up of
 additional U.S. military bases in Afghanistan for the
 projection of U.S. military power in central Asia. There are
 converging U.S. security and economic interests here.
 
Mr. Cayabyab: CONSIDERING OBAMA'S OVE TO WAGE WAR  IN AFGHANISTAN FOR U.S. PRESENCE IN THE REGION, DO YOU THINK OBAMA'S GLOBAL "DIPLOMATIC" POLICIES WILL BE IN A WAY, SIMILAR TO BUSH'S?

Prof. Simbulan:  Unlike former U.S. Presidents, Obama comes in fresh and
 does not yet have vested interests since he is a neophyte
 politician. He has no deep linkages with the Israeli lobby,
 the arms lobby lobby or the oil industry lobby. The American
 people elected him because of a clear platform that is
 anti-war, and an international perspective that will depend
 more on diplomacy and alliance building and consensus, as
 against dependence on the military and coercion (as Bush
 did). This is where their approach differs greatly, though
 the objective is the same: to keep the superiority of the
 United States as an economic, political and military empire,
 including being the superior in softpower( cultural,
 ideological, etc.)
 __________________________________________________________________.