|
Beating the drums of war
POUNDING THE WAR drums, the Bush regime is hell-bent on war
against Iraq. If the US superpower launches a military strike, it would ‘open
the gates of hell’, as an Arab diplomat has said. Whatever the US’s military
tactics, Iraqi people will suffer horrendous deaths, casualties, and
destruction. US forces are also likely to face significant casualties, far more
than in Afghanistan. Explosive repercussions will shake the whole Middle Eastern
region, with shock waves spreading far and wide.
The executive of the lone superpower is mustering all its
resources for a military strike. Military forces are being mobilised. There is a
remorseless propaganda campaign to justify action. Unsubstantiated, alarmist
claims are being made about Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), which
undoubtedly posed much more of a threat before the 1990-91 war than they do now.
Bush is desperately trying to link Saddam to the attacks on 11 September,
warning of "the danger" of al-Qa’ida becoming "an extension of Saddam’s madness…
You can’t distinguish between al-Qa’ida and Saddam when you talk about the war
on terror". (Washington Post, 28 September)
Bush went to the United Nations (UN) on 12 September to
deliver an ultimatum: support immediate regime change in Iraq, or the US will
take action anyway. The US is exerting intense pressure on security council
members to support a single resolution giving Saddam a provocative ultimatum
backed up by the threat of force – effectively giving the US carte blanche to
attack. "He can either get rid of his weapons and the UN can act", Bush told
contributors to the Republican party’s election campaign, "or the United States
will lead a coalition to disarm this man". (International Herald Tribune, 28
September)
Bush is also demanding a blank cheque from the US Congress.
His proposed resolution claims at length that the president already has
constitutional, congressional and UN authority to use force. For good measure,
it concludes: "The president is authorised to use all means he determines to be
appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the UN security council
resolutions…" In the run-up to the mid-term elections on 5 November, Bush is
demagogically trying to blackmail the Democrats, who control the Senate,
claiming they are "not interested in the security of the American people".
Meanwhile, additional US forces (including the headquarters
staff of Central Command) are being deployed in the Gulf, or prepared for
departure. The Pentagon now reportedly has a ‘blueprint’ for a ‘tight, intense
attack’. (Washington Post, 23 September) In planning its offensive, the US has
cold-shouldered Nato. "The idea of America’s principal military alliance playing
a part itself has not been pursued by senior US authorities…" (24 September)
Given this determined drive by US imperialism, war against
Iraq appears to be a foregone conclusion. The Bush regime, however, faces some
serious obstacles and complications.
Under pressure at home and abroad to take a multilateral
approach, Bush was constrained to take a reluctant detour through the UN.
Despite his ultimatist approach, this has extended the timescale and complicated
his position. The US was wrong-footed by Saddam’s immediate acceptance of
‘unconditional weapons inspection’. It is far from certain that a majority of
the security council members will accept a single resolution calling for a
provocative weapons-inspection regime, an ultra-short deadline, and a blank
cheque for US intervention.
Negotiations over a resolution may take some time. With the
notable exception of Bush’s poodle, Blair, most of the European powers are
opposed to pre-emptive US military intervention, as are many regional powers.
They fear the repercussions of a war, but they are also under intense pressure
from public opinion at home. This is particularly true in Germany, where for
historical reasons there is a deep aversion to war. Schröder’s blunt opposition
to the US position played an important role in his survival in the recent
election. The US defence secretary, Rumsfeld, attacked Schröder for ‘poisoning’
relations between the US and Germany.
Public opinion has not been persuaded that Saddam’s regime,
however dictatorial and militaristic, poses a special, imminent threat to the
rest of the world. Blair’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction, sprung
on MPs only four hours before it was to be debated (24 September), contained
nothing new. Next day a whole array of experts dismissed it as strong on
assertion, devoid of evidence, a string of ‘ifs’ and ‘perhapses’. In the US,
claims by Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice to have ‘proof’ of links between Iraq
and al-Qa’ida were contradicted by off-the-record briefings by US intelligence
officials. (US Evidence Still Unclear, Washington Post, 28 September)
Bush’s attempt to stampede Congress has also begun to
backfire. Up to now, Democrat leaders have been timid, not to say cowardly, in
opposing Bush’s drive for a pre-emptive strike. Their tactic was to concentrate
on economic issues. Charges of ‘disloyalty’, however, have enraged Daschle,
Gephardt, and other Democrat congressional leaders. Above all, the sharp
challenge to Bush by the former vice-president, Al Gore, may open the floodgates
of congressional opposition. Bush’s determination to oust Saddam, said Gore,
will ‘severely damage’ the overall war on terrorism and ‘weaken’ US leadership
in the world. Bush was targeting Saddam because the hunt for Osama bin Laden and
al-Qa’ida terrorists had become bogged down. Referring to the German election
campaign, Gore said "it revealed a profound and troubling change in the attitude
of the German electorate towards the US". Gore opposes Bush’s resolution to
Congress as ‘too broad’.
The Bush regime, moreover, continues to face sustained
opposition from veterans of the Republican foreign policy establishment (see
Socialism Today 68), retired military leaders, and many serious strategists of
the US ruling class. As Gore was firing a political salvo at Bush (24
September), three retired four-star generals spoke out against unilateral US
military action against Iraq. John Shalikashvili, ex-chair of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Wesley Clark, ex-Nato military commander, and Joseph Hoar, ex-chief of
US Central Command, were testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"What’s the sense of urgency here?" asked Clark. "There is nothing that
indicates that in the immediate next hours, next days, that there’s going to be
nuclear-tipped missiles put on launch pads to go against our forces or our
allies in the region".
An editorial in the Washington Post, voice of the Washington
political elite, accuses Bush of "cynical and irresponsible manipulation of the
[Iraq] issue", using it "as a partisan instrument on the campaign trail". (27
September) This criticism is not motivated by a love of world peace or sympathy
for the people of Iraq. These bourgeois voices fear the consequences for US
imperialism, both internationally and at home, especially if the US is plunged
into a war without any real debate on the likely cost to US society. These
strategists favour the exhaustion of containment of Iraq. They are not against
intensifying the pressure on Saddam through weapons’ inspection, but they fear
the consequences of unilateral US action. "Picking up the pieces in Iraq after a
war", says the New York Times (27 September) in a similar editorial, "and
installing a government that commands the respect of Iraq’s fractious
population, could prove more difficult than unseating Saddam".
War seems likely. But at the moment the equation has too
many unknown factors for the result to be certain.
Savage wars of peace
THE BUSH REGIME has now openly spelled out its
military-strategic doctrine in its National Security Strategy (20 September).
This is a crude assertion of world supremacy, baldly based on the primacy of
unchallengeable military power and readiness to launch pre-emptive strikes
against any state deemed to be a threat to the US. No power, whether a
strengthening China or diminutive rogue states, will be allowed to develop
weapons that in any way challenge US hegemony. Overwhelming superiority will be
maintained in nuclear weapons, conventional weapons, in space, and rapid
intervention forces. Armed might will be the primary element of US foreign
policy. Allies will be welcomed, but if they hesitate in their support, the US
will act alone.
The US, says Bush, has "no empire to extend or utopia to
establish". But what is the Bush doctrine if not a commitment to wage ‘savage
wars of peace’ (to use Kipling’s phrase), beginning with an attack on Iraq, to
enforce an imperial ‘Pax Americana’? Under the high-gloss varnish of the noble
ideas used to justify this policy – defence of freedom and human dignity, etc –
lurks the economic egotism of US capitalism. The security statement explicitly
elaborates the aim of extending ‘free-market capitalism’, policed by
US-dominated agencies like the IMF and WTO, to every corner of the globe. The
strategic power of the US will be used to ensure US corporations privileged
access to the world’s markets, resources (particularly oil), and cheap labour.
The neo-conservative right closely linked to Bush’s
Republican Party faction, openly advocates the promotion of a new American
empire. "People are now coming out of the closet on the word ‘empire’," says the
neo-conservative newspaper columnist, Charles Krauthammer. "The fact is no
country has been as dominant culturally, economically, technologically and
militarily in the history of the world since the Roman empire". (International
Herald Tribune, 1 April)
This drive for empire is the counterpart of the parasitic
finance capital of the late 1990s bubble, of Enron-style fraud and theft. The
Bush doctrine represents a more aggressive, rapacious phase of US imperialism.
Many of the serious strategists of the US ruling class, however, fear the
consequences of the Bush faction’s recklessly short-sighted policy. Given the
tortuous complexities of the present world crisis, even the US superpower cannot
hope to police the globe without allies. How will military power "ignite a new
era of global economic growth", recognised by the security statement as being
vital to US national security interests? In reality, military strikes and even
threats of intervention will further provoke political turmoil, economic crises
and social upheavals. Imperialist aggression will rebound on the US. It will
open up deep fissures in US society as the working class is forced to shoulder
the burden of economic decline and military adventures. Internationally, events
will provoke mass movements of the working class, the peasantry and the poor and
dispossessed, impelling them towards a transformation of society. It is social
forces, not the force of arms, which will determine the future of the world
No cakewalk
THE US HAS the military power to smash Saddam’s regime and
occupy Iraq. The strength of Saddam’s military, clearly diminished since
1990-91, is unpredictable as is the likely resistance from the army’s ranks and
civilian forces. But the US is unlikely to achieve the kind of walkover victory
it had in Afghanistan, where the Taliban regime had nothing like the same
military apparatus as Saddam. The concentrated US assault necessary to quickly
defeat Saddam, despite claims that it will be primarily targeted against ‘regime
targets’ (command centres and key units such as the Republican Guards), will
inevitably mean massive destruction of cities and heavy deaths and casualties
amongst the civilian population. While there is deep resentment at Saddam’s
dictatorship, many may nevertheless fight to defend their country against US
occupation. Whatever the mood of the people, the Iraqi regime is likely to
defend the main cities, attempting to draw US forces into high-risk urban
warfare. "Take the desert", says one Iraqi minister. "What’s in the desert? If
they want to change the political system in Iraq, they have to come to Baghdad.
We will be waiting for them here". (International Herald Tribune, 28 September)
The White House hawks imagine that decisive US intervention
will provoke a revolt of Saddam’s generals and possibly an uprising against the
regime. Yet there are still bitter memories of what happened at the end of the
Gulf war in 1991. Bush I broadcast appeals for an uprising. But when the Kurds
in the North and the Shias in the South rose against Saddam, the US sat back as
Saddam’s forces massacred the rebellions. As much as the US wanted to get rid of
Saddam, they were not prepared to support a mass insurrectionary movement.
In July 70 former Iraqi military officers met in London to
discuss ways to oust Saddam and run post-Saddam Iraq under the name of the Iraqi
Military Alliance. They denied any links to the US, but who can doubt they were
financed by the US? Now opposed to Saddam and courted by the US, these former
military leaders are hardly champions of democracy. Even the organiser, former
major-general Saad Obeidi, warned that any attempt to change the regime would
risk heavy bloodshed. (BBC News, 12 July)
General Nizar Al-Khazraji, head of the Iraqi army when it
invaded Kuwait, is also eager to lead a revolt against Saddam (though not
present at the July meeting). He recently warned, however, that "any idea that
America could stay in Iraq to rebuild the country was very dangerous". (BBC
News, 24 September) Fears that the US intends to stay 20 or 30 years to control
Iraq’s oil "damages the will of the people to overthrow the regime". Claiming
that he stands for a ‘democratic regime’, Khazraji insisted that Iraq would have
to be an independent country, otherwise "it will be a very dark future for all".
The US has also supported the Iraqi National Congress,
created by the CIA and lavishly funded from the US. This is clearly intended to
be the nucleus of a future puppet regime. Its leading light is Ahmad Chalabi, an
exiled businessman who has played no part in opposing the regime inside Iraq.
After the collapse of his Petra Bank in 1989 he was sentenced in Jordan to 20
years jail for embezzling at least $60 million.
The US claims it will restore democracy in Iraq, but under
US military occupation, the country would effectively become a US protectorate
run by a client government directed from Washington DC.
The price of war?
CONTROL OF IRAQ’S oil reserves, second only to those of
Saudi Arabia, is clearly a major US objective. Representatives of the major oil
companies have been intensively lobbying leading members of the ‘Iraqi
opposition’ to stake their claims in the hoped-for bonanza. Chalabi says he
favours "the creation of a US-led consortium to develop Iraq’s oilfields…
American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil". (Washington Post, 16
September)
Russian, French, and Chinese oil companies fear they may be
squeezed out by the US giants. Bush is ruthlessly using this as a lever against
France, Russia and China in the security council. "They should be told", said
James Woolsey, a former CIA director, "that if they are of assistance in moving
Iraq towards decent government, we’ll do the best we can to ensure that the new
government and American companies work closely with them. If they throw in their
lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the
new Iraqi government to work with them". In other words, vote for the US
resolution, or else.
The White House is playing down the likely cost of war
against Iraq, putting it at ‘only’ $50 billion. Even the president’s own
economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, predicts that a war might cost between $100
billion and $200 billion. Unlike the 1990-91 Gulf war, which initially cost $61
billion, the US is unlikely to recover much from its allies (Kuwait, Saudi
Arabia, Japan and others contributed around $50 billion). In the short term, the
US can undoubtedly carry such a burden, between 1-2% of GDP. But working people
will increasingly question such expenditure, as long-term unemployment rises and
workers’ incomes are cut back – especially as Bush is pushing ahead with massive
tax cuts to the super-rich, despite the rising Federal budget deficit and
sharpening austerity.
The economic shocks from the war, moreover, could be much
greater than currently anticipated. "The Bush administration", comments the
Washington Post (21 September), "has failed to face up to the economic
consequences of its longer-term struggle against terrorism. The burden of a
bigger defence budget, an ambitious homeland security agenda and expanding
commitments in areas such as intelligence and foreign aid imposes a clear strain
on the budgets; unlike the one-time cost of fighting an Iraq war, it represents
new expenses that stretch out indefinitely".
The feeble recovery in the US economy is stalling. "There is
still no sign of the strong, durable and broad-based recovery that policy makers
were expecting". (Financial Times, 21 September) Investment and profits are
stagnant. Only consumer spending currently sustains positive growth, but this
rests on record levels of debt and a housing bubble that may not last much
longer. Commentators are waking up to the fact that the US now faces the spectre
of prolonged deflation, the Japanese stagnation syndrome.
The only buoyant sector is armaments. "These are halcyon
days for military contractors". Increased military spending and moves towards
war against Iraq are "sending the shares of Lockheed Martin Corp, Northrop
Grumman Corp and others skyward". (New York Times, 16 September)
The worldwide flood of capital into the US has subsided
sharply, and capital flight has been accelerated by recent developments. Middle
East governments and wealthy investors are said to have as much as $1.2 trillion
invested in the US, with perhaps half of that held by Saudis. Reports suggest
that, after Saudi Arabia was described as the ‘kernel of evil’ in a Pentagon
briefing paper, Saudi investors pulled assets totalling hundreds of billions of
dollars out of the US. (International Herald Tribune, 22 August) War and its
repercussions could trigger a much bigger capital flight from the US.
Though the biggest economy, the US is a debtor country. As a
result of accumulated trade deficits, the US economy’s net foreign indebtedness
is $2.5 trillion or nearly 25% of GDP. Economically, the US is a giant on shaky
stilts.
The whole world economy is in a sickly state. Japan’s GDP is
likely to fall by at least 0.5% this year, and the government has conceded that
"prospects for growth are bleak". (Financial Times, 21 September) For the first
time a new issue of ten-year government bonds was undersubscribed, raising a
question mark over further rescue packages to bail out the bankrupt banks.
The head of the IMF, Horst Koehler, pronounced that military
action in Iraq might even have a ‘positive effect’ on the world economy by
eliminated the current uncertainty. Rivalling Greenspan for contradictory
statements, Koehler then said that a protracted war would create
"unpredictability, and that is the downside risk". (International Herald
Tribune, 20 September) A few days later, the IMF issued a report lowering its
earlier world growth forecast for next year, warning that "risks to the outlook
are primarily on the downside". (26 September)
Even a short war in the Gulf will push up the price of oil,
further depressing world growth. A prolonged war, however, could prove a major
economic shock to the world economy.
|