Note: People are free to print and/or circulate this article, as long as proper credit is given. -- Martin
------------------------------ This is one fight 'we' have to lose! By MARTIN SCHREADER Written: March 19, 2003 IN SPITE OF everything, George W. Bush has committed this country to waging war against Iraq. He has made this decision against the wishes of the American people and the people of the world. He has made this decision even though it was shown repeatedly that the United Nations weapons inspections were working. George W. Bush, the unelected tyrant who came to power by robbing tens of thousands of African Americans in Florida of their democratic rights, now seeks to wage an illegal, immoral and predatory war of conquest to bolster the profit margins of his friends and business partners like Dick Cheney, Ken Lay and his own father. What is it that makes Iraq such a "threat" in Bush's eyes? "Weapons of mass destruction," they say. Well, who gave him those weapons? The American government. Who trained the Iraqis to create and maintain them? Again, the American government. In the 1980s, Saddam Hussein was one of the United States' best friends in the Middle East, and he was fighting against the Iranians, who had only recently overthrown another American puppet regime. Washington's solution then was to send Baghdad all sorts of biological and chemical weapons. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, at the time a lowly operative in the Reagan administration, went to Iraq personally to meet Hussein and present him with the U.S. government's "gifts." (If you don't believe me, I have the photo.) This, if anything, is why the American government has been so adamant in their view that Iraq still has "weapons of mass destruction:" Washington's tally of what they gave Iraq does not match what they say they have or had. However, the fact is that this war has nothing to do with such weapons. It never did. Nor does this war have anything to do with "liberation" or bringing "democracy" to Iraq. How can a government that was never elected -- that came to power by decision of an unelected tribunal of "justices" -- "liberate" anyone? How can a regime that has enacted the most undemocratic and anti-democratic legislation in American history -- the USA-PATRIOT, Homeland Security and Domestic Security Enhancement acts -- bring "democracy" anywhere? So, why is America going to war? Is it ... oil? If you said yes, you are partially correct. Certainly, the fact that Iraq has some of the largest petroleum reserves in the world is a motivating factor in Bush's dirty little war. One look at his closest partners in crime, the companies they run and the "projects" they oversee, connects those dots. But oil, in and of itself, is only one part of a broader picture. It is not so much the oil as the spigot. That is, if the U.S. is controlling the flow of oil to its friends and enemies, it can use that position of power to extract any kind of concessions it wants. Without control of the oil spigot, the U.S. would have a hard time playing "battle of the bank accounts" with European and Asian capitalists. Water is also an important commodity. What is the climate and terrain of the Middle East? Mostly hot, arid desert. However, Iraq has two great freshwater rivers -- the Tigris and Euphrates -- cutting through their country. What better way is there for American capitalists to boost their bottom lines than to sell the Iraqis and other Middle Eastern peoples their own water? Oh, but that's not all! Let us not forget the millions of people who live in Iraq, and are, in the eyes of American capital, great sources of cheap, expendable labor. Why would the bosses pay us decent wages when they can go to Iraq and get the shell-shocked survivors of war to work long hours for 12 cents a day? And speaking of shock.... Have you heard of "Shock and Awe" -- the government's plan for the opening hours of the war? "Shock and Awe" is a plan cooked up by Pentagon desk jockeys to throw thousands of bombs -- including hundreds of cruise missiles -- at Iraqi cities in order to create a general paralysis in the country. To put it another way, the U.S. is going to lob thousands of tons of explosives into Iraq's major cities to create a state of "shock and awe" among the population, while at the same time not "targeting" them. If you believe that, you should know that there is a bridge in Brooklyn looking for a new owner (and the price is cheap!). Most people in the U.S. are against this war. The polls may look like the antiwar movement is the minority, but what else can you expect from a "service" that is owned by the media monopolies? War equals ratings; ratings equals profits.... You do the math. Regardless of the outcome of the occupation of Iraq, one thing is certain: If Bush and his "coalition of the killing" win this war, it will only be the opening act of a long, bloody campaign around the world. Today, it is Iraq; tomorrow, it could be Iran, Syria or North Korea ... or Russia or France. That, my friends, is World War III. Unlike Iraq, Russia and France do have nuclear weapons, and there is nothing that says they will not use them -- whether or not the U.S. uses them first. This is why the United States must be defeated in this war. If the U.S. invasion of Iraq were to fail, it would be very difficult for the American capitalist war machine, and its government, to try it again somewhere else. The drums of war would only echo across silent battlefields. Most importantly, we would all be able to begin looking to solve the outstanding political and economic issues -- starting at the top. "But, we must support the troops," someone will inevitably say. "We must hope for a quick victory with the least loss of life." Such a shortsighted and chauvinist position only merits disgust. A "quick victory" will only fill the warmongers in Washington with the bravado to launch another war. On the other hand, a quick defeat or protracted conflict will make these brigands think twice before committing to war again. And, while we are on the subject, "the least loss" of whose life? Americans? Iraqis? Innocents caught in the crossfire? Giving such backhanded support to war is closing one's eyes to the bigger picture. As the pictures of murdered Iraqi civilians flash around the world, as video of burning mosques and bombed-out hospitals are broadcast, millions of people throughout the world will find only bitter hatred for the United States. Many of these people may form or join terrorist groups. Others may act as "lone wolves," committing individual acts of terror (remember Tim McVeigh?). The attacks of September 11 could very well look like a picnic compared to the potential attacks that would flow from the invasion of Iraq. That means that tens of thousands of innocent people -- including you -- could die because of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The same can be said of innocent people in dozens of countries around the world. A "quick victory" will not matter to the survivors and families of victims of future terrorist attacks. The only reasonable and principled way to "support the troops" is to demand that they all be brought home and demobilized. If that cannot be done, and the war goes ahead, then a quick defeat of invading forces is the only viable way to insure that innocent people are not massacred on an altar of oil barrels. (It should also be said that there is no guarantee a "quick victory" will be relatively bloodless. Such a "victory" could just as easily cost the same number of lives as a protracted conflict or defeat -- possibly more.) All the above having been said, it should be understood that there is "defeat" and there is "defeat." A military defeat alone is not enough, as it could result in a horrific escalation. The defeat of the United States requires a political defeat as much as it does a military one. The onus is on us -- as antiwar activists, as political oppositionists -- to inflict that political defeat on the Bush regime. Just as the conflict in Vietnam was brought to an end through a combination of military and political defeats, so it will be in this case. This is why the slogan, "regime change begins at home," holds some special meaning. The only way for us -- as American citizens and citizens of the earth -- to bury this campaign for war and profit is to bring about real, lasting "regime change" in all the belligerent states, starting with the country in which we live, the United States. The kind of "regime change" that takes place, the system that develops from it and the doors to the future it opens are, of course, up to the people who make it. That is why we need to start seriously discussing what "regime change" would mean, in the U.S. and in other members of the so-called "coalition." -30- _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
