Socialist Action /November 2002
Bush Presses for Iraq War Despite Public
Outcry
By GERRY FOLEY
In the face of mass opposition to war with Iraq throughout the world
and even broader fears among both U.S. politicians and the public, the Bush
administration is continuing to flaunt its preparations for a devastating
assault on the Middle East's second largest oil producer.
Whatever the outcome of the UN Security Council debate on the U.S.-sponsored
resolution, designed to give international cover for a U.S. attack, Bush
and his advisors are claiming that the congressional resolution passed in
mid-October gives him sufficient authority to occupy Iraq. This is even
though the Pew poll released a few days before this writing shows that only
27 percent of the American public are prepared to support a go-it-alone
war against Iraq
There are continued reports of U.S. troops training in simulations of
Iraqi targets, including Baghdad, and of U.S. military equipment and personnel
being moved into the Middle East. Gen. Tommy Franks, the head of U.S. central
command, has announced that he will be moving his headquarters in December
from Tampa, Fla., to al Udeid base in the oil sheikdom of Qatar.
The British Guardian reported in its Nov. 3 issue, "According
to defense sources and independent analysts, all the evidence points to
U.S. forces being readied for war by mid-December at the latest."
The New York Times published a lengthy report in its Nov. 3 issue
about U.S. airplanes carrying out practice runs in southern Iraq. What Pentagon
officials have termed the best time of the year for launching an attack
on Iraq, December to February, is now very close.
Up until now, the refusal of most U.S. allies to go along with its war
plans has been the major obstacle for Bush, not so much because Bush needs
them but because the U.S. public is opposed to a war in Iraq without them.
Three of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council-France,
Russia, and China-have been opposed to the U.S. resolution as long it gives
automatic authorization to Washington to invade. All three countries have
their own good reasons for opposing the Bush's war plans. China is facing
U.S. military encirclement. And France and Russia could lose important financial
stakes if the U.S. gained exclusive control of the Iraqi oil business.
But neither singly or together are these countries prepared for a confrontation
with the United States. Thus, they have not threatened to use their veto
power to stop the U.S.-sponsored resolution. So, their opposition remains
hollow.
France, as the strategically weakest of the great powers, has traditionally
tried to undercut its rivals by maintaining more friendly relations with
the Arab oil-producing countries. But while it has been leading the opposition
in the Security Council to the U.S. resolution, its position is beginning
to look more like a hypocritical ploy to try to save some face and maybe
some room for bargaining.
The French president opposed the aspect of the U.S. resolution that gives
Washington the right to automatically claim the authorization to attack
Iraq without a second resolution specifically for that. But recent reports
indicate that the U.S. government thinks it can get France to approve a
compromise resolution that will essentially accede to its demands. The question
may only be how big a bone Chirac thinks he can get Bush to leave him when
the U.S. devours Iraq.
In its Oct. 22 issue, the Italian daily Il Manifesto cited a report
by the Energy Information Agency (EIA) in Washington that there are vast
unexplored oil resources in the western desert of Iraq.
At present, Iraq has a confirmed capacity of 112 billion barrels as opposed
to 262 for Saudi Arabia. But the EIA thinks that Iraq's real capacity is
220 billion barrels, and with the new resources likely to be discovered
in the Western desert, at least 331 billion barrels, which would make Iraq
by far the world's biggest oil producer. From a prey as fat as that, the
U.S. ought to be able to spare a few tidbits for even for so ornery an ally
as France.
An excuse for occupying the oil-rich western desert of Iraq could be
that this is the area from which missile attacks could be launched against
Israel. If, according to the rumors that Il Manifesto cited, the U.S. is
prepared to accept a joint operation with Israel in western Iraq, it means
that Washington is not very much concerned about the reaction of the Arab
governments.
If the United States can successfully carry out its war against Iraq,
it is going to have even less reason for conciliating the Arab regimes.
An attack on Iraq will be part of a general assault on Arab nationalism
intended to change the relationship of forces in the Middle East in favor
of imperialism.
What the U.S. rulers and their willing or unwilling accomplices have
to fear is the reaction of their own populations and the populations of
the countries they dominate to the attempt by the United States to take
major steps to restoring colonialism in the Middle East and instituting
U.S. overlordship over the world.
The popular opposition to such an adventure by Bush is already impressive
in the imperialist countries themselves, as well as the Arab states and
the colonial world.
The October demonstrations in Europe and in this country have already
raised the political risk level very high for the U.S. ruling class. Moreover,
as the polls indicate, mass opposition is growing. The fact that the U.S.
moves against Iraq have been coupled with statements indicating that the
U.S. intends to claim the right of peremptory strikes against any development
that threatens its interests has deepened the opposition.
In a world that is more and more unstable because of the crisis of world
capitalism and its magnified effects on the Third World countries, it is
unlikely that even a smashing military victory for the United States in
Iraq will end this opposition. The effects can only give more impetus to
it in the long run, and maybe even in the short run.
Socialist Action /November 2002 |