Socialist Action /September 2002
NO U.S. WAR ON IRAQ!
By GERRY FOLEY
The U.S. administration and its closest international ally, British Prime
Minister Tony Blair, have been on an all-out campaign to whip up the political
atmosphere for an assault on Iraq. The arguments are extreme and vague.
It is necessary to crush Iraq, Bush and his cohorts claim, not because
of anything the Iraqi regime is doing but because it might acquire "weapons
of mass destruction." But the country has been ruined, and hundreds
of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result of the military attacks and
economic sanctions the U.S. and its allies have imposed since 1991.
The entire Muslim world is already seething with rage at the sight of
the suffering of the Iraqi people. And the Western imperialist rulers are
displaying their total ruthlessness by talking coldly about actions that
could result in millions of deaths and the destruction of a people.
Bush proclaims that he has the right and duty to act as he sees fit regardless
of the consequences: "Doing nothing about that serious threat is not
an option for the United States." He argues in effect that the U.S.
needs to unleash a holocaust to prove its power, and proclaims: "The
world must understand its credibility is at stake."
By "world," Bush of course means the U.S. rulers. Even Bush's
imperialist allies have been notably unenthusiastic about a full-scale assault
on Iraq, and Blair has found himself on the defensive in his own party on
the issue.
If a country as impoverished and wrecked as Iraq might acquire "weapons
of mass destruction" to wreak revenge on its tormentors, how many other
ruined Third World countries might do the same? Why would the threat be
limited to Iraq?
In fact, Bush is clearly trying to use the Iraq example as a basis for
establishing the right of first strike without warning at any country thought
to threaten U.S. interests. Even the Pakistani dictator Musharraf, up until
now a firm ally of the U.S., has said that he fears that India could take
Bush's doctrine as a justification for a first strike against Pakistan.
Far from increasing world security, Bush's war campaign threatens to
make the world immediately a far more dangerous place. It is clear in fact
that in general the bourgeois politicians and governments are not buying
Bush's arguments for a war on Iraq.
Bush's real argument, which is not being stated openly, is that the U.S.
has the military power to run roughshod not only over the Iraqi people and
other Third World peoples but over its imperialist allies as well, whose
interests run counter to such a war. That is the proposition that Bush's
"fellow statesmen" are giving way to. And the result cannot be
more international collaboration but rather the international rule of terror
by a savage top dog.
The very extremity of the Bush administration's war campaign and its
persistence in the face of so much doubt even in its own camp, indicates
that its objectives go far beyond Iraq. It aims to establish a new international
order in the Middle East and on that basis in the world. This campaign can
be the opening guns of the gravest aggression since World War II.
World politics have become overshadowed by the U.S. threat of invading
and occupying Iraq. Symptomatically, voices in the Israeli press say that
this prospect makes any serious talks with Palestinian leaders impossible.
A full-scale U.S. war would turn the entire region upside down. It could
open the way for the Zionists to strike far more deadly blows against the
Palestinian people, perhaps even expel a large percentage of them.
The implications of a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq are momentous.
It would mean a return to outright colonialism, the occupation of a middle-sized
semi-developed country in a strategic area and the imposition of a puppet
government. This would be a return to the policy that the U.S. practiced
in the 1920s in the Caribbean, with the occupation of Haiti and Nicaragua,
but on a much vaster scale.
In this context, it is worth remembering that in the name of establishing
"responsible" governments in these Caribbean nations, the U.S.
in fact set up police states that lasted for decades, dictatorships no
less repressive and corrupt than that of Saddam Hussein, himself a former
U.S. protege.
Secondly, the direct subjugation of Iraq would give the United States
tight control of Middle Eastern oil and thereby a whip hand over the entire
world capitalist economy.
The United States gets only 11 percent of its oil from the Gulf, while
its major capitalist rivals, the European Union and Japan, are much more
dependent on the region (27 percent for the European Union). Germany, the
central economy of the European Union, gets 35 percent of its oil from the
Gulf and is also the most vociferous opponent of a U.S. invasion of Iraq.
The European capitalist powers would be losers in a U.S. occupation of
Iraq, and this undoubtedly underlies their reluctance to support an American
war against the country.
The U.S. administration's talk of war on Iraq already represents an important
political shift, in that the Bush government gave signals it was considering
a unilateral operation. This again corresponds to the dreams of the Zionist
pundits, who have been cautiously advising the United States to ignore the
concerns of its European allies, since they lack the military force to back
up an independent policy.
If the United States could successfully wage a unilateral war to subjugate
the Middle East and gain control of its oil resources, it would end the
contradiction between the unequalled military power of the U.S. and the
long-term decline in its economic strength relative to that of its capitalist
rivals.
The U.S. threat of unilateral war against Iraq, moreover, comes in the
context of deepening crises of all the capitalist economies and increasing
tensions among them, as indicated by a recent World Trade Organization decision
to fine the U.S. $4 billion for violating its free trade agreements.
Launching a major war against Iraq without strong and firm political
support would be an extremely risky endeavor. However, the U.S. imperialist
rulers may calculate that they have a historically rare combination of
favorable circumstances-the disappearance of Soviet power, the fading of
the Iranian regime based on an anti-imperialist revolution in that country,
the fact that the anti-imperialist movement in the Middle East appears
dominated by Islamists who do not inspire much sympathy in other parts of
the world, and the corrupt and brutal character of the Saddam Hussein regime
itself.
The U.S. rulers could look forward to an easy victory over the Hussein
government if they brought overwhelming force to bear against it. It is
not very likely that a corrupt bureaucratic regime maintained by police
terror and clique loyalties would fight to the death for the sake of principle.
A decisive blow could shatter it, and the oppressiveness of the regime has
made it very difficult for a new leadership to emerge from below.
The rapid collapse of Iraq would be a demoralizing blow for the Arab
nationalist masses who have no revolutionary leadership to turn to. Washington
could hope that their rage would burn out impotently. There is the precedent
of the Israeli victory in the June 1967 war, which led to a general demoralization
of the Arab people and prepared the way for the capitulation of Egypt to
imperialism.
The Zionists, moreover, need a this sort of victory over Arab nationalism
to stabilize their hold over Palestine, which they can only do if they can
carry out a new massive expulsion of the Palestinian people.
From a successful blitzkrieg against Iraq, the U.S. rulers could not
only hope for a historic victory over the anti-imperialist movement in the
region and in the Third World in general but clear away many of the obstacles
that American formal democracy poses to their operating as the world policeman
for capitalism. Thus, Bush has been claiming that he has the right to launch
a major war against Iraq on his own without the approval of Congress.
So, the stakes in a U.S. war on Iraq would be extremely high. It is possible
that the expected gains are so high that the Bush administration is ready
to take very great risks to achieve them. But it is hard to predict what
they will do. They probably do not know yet themselves. That could be one
reason for the blowing hot and cold that the Bush administration is doing.
The long-term policy of the U.S. toward the Saddam regime has been to
try to foment a military coup, and the Washington may well hope that the
threat of a massive American attack will prove stronger than the fear by
which the Iraqi dictator maintains his control of the military.
A pro-imperialist coup under the shadow of U.S. power would achieve most
of Washington's objectives at a minimum cost and minimum risk. Thus, the
U..S. rulers may keep putting off major military moves against Iraq, while
reiterating their threats of invasion and occupation, precisely in anticipation
of such an event.
On the other hand, given the risks of invading and occupying Iraq, it
is obvious that the U.S. rulers are going to do a lot of testing of the
waters before they move, even if they are ready to proceed unilaterally
at some point.
The Bush administration first insisted that it had the right to strike
Iraq without congressional approval. Then, it reassured Congress that it
would not act without getting at least some kind of endorsement from them.
Likewise it blows hot and cold about the need for support from its allies.
This dance, which the French call a "hesitation waltz," has
already prompted an columnist in the influential Israeli daily Haaretz to
characterize the U.S. threats against Iraq as "hot air." It is
possible that they will turn out to be mainly a form of psychological warfare.
But there is also the terrible possibility that the U.S. rulers will be
so tempted by the prospects of an historic victory for U.S. imperialism
and by the arrogance that they derive from their high tech arsenal that
they will cast caution to the winds.
The present period is one of testing. And public opinion and the mass
opposition to imperialist war and terror are important, potentially decisive
factors in this test. Despite its arrogance and reactionary truculence,
the Bush administration knows how great a danger public opinion in the U.S.
and other imperialist nations is for their plans.
Therefore, it is essential for all defenders of peace and democratic
and humane values to make the maximum effort to build protests against Bush's
war threats. Right now the most important of these are the protests scheduled
for Oct. 26 demanding no U.S. intervention in Iraq.
If Bush succeeds in his plan, Saddam Hussein will be the least of the
losers. The big losers will be the fight for the right of self-determination
of the oppressed peoples and for the democratic rights of the peoples of
the imperialist countries themselves, including in the first place the people
of the United States.
Socialist Action /September 2002 |