As Bush falters on world stage
Enter the 'anti-war' war criminal
By Fred Goldstein
President George W. Bush, whose popularity is sagging along with the U.S. effort to subdue the Iraqi resistance, delivered a contradictory speech to the United Nations on Sept. 23. He both upheld Washington's position as the supreme master of the world, with the right to wage a "preemptive" war of colonial aggression against Iraq, and at the same time came asking for "multilateral" assistance from his imperialist rivals and other countries to bolster the faltering and increasingly costly occupation. But he didn't offer to cut them in anytime soon.
Meanwhile, the big business media was busy touting retired Gen. Wesley Clark as the new "anti-war" candidate. What they don't mention is that Clark's conduct as NATO commander during the 78-day aerial bombardment of Serbia and Kosovo in 1999, which was heavily directed at civilian targets, fully qualifies him for indictment as a major war criminal.
In his speech, Bush declared that "The Security Council was right to demand that Iraq destroy its illegal weapons and prove that it had done so. The Security Council was right to vow serious consequences if Iraq refused to comply.
"And because there were consequences, because a coalition of nations acted to defend the peace and credibility of the United Nations, Iraq is free. And today we are joined by representatives of a liberated country."
Freedom to sell the country
An announcement on Sept. 20 had clarified the new "freedom" to be enjoyed by the Iraqis. Finance Minister Kamel Keylani, who is wholly subordinated to the U.S. overseer, Paul Bremer, announced a new law allowing foreign investment and 100 percent foreign ownership in all areas of the Iraqi economy, except for oil. This was described by Iraqi merchants as a permanent "world occupation" of the Iraqi economy, which would render the Iraqi people as "immigrants in their own land." (Los Angeles Times, Sept. 23)
Just before Bush delivered his speech, news had come that Iraqi "freedom" included the dictatorial outlawing of Al-Jazeera and Al Arabia news services. This measure bans a major source of news not controlled by the occupation and its puppets, strengthening the U.S. stranglehold on information.
On the same day came news that the 82nd Airborne Division had called in air strikes on a farmhouse in the town of Sichir after being ambushed. In the middle of the night fighter jets had poured missiles into the house, where 15 people were sleeping, killing three and wounding three. No arms were found. (International Herald Tribune, Sept. 24)
Multilateral plunder
The session at the UN took on the character of a debate between the French imperialists, represented by President Jacques Chirac, and Bush. The French are demanding that "sovereignty" be turned over to the Iraqis in "a matter of months" and that the UN be in charge of the political process. All this is in the name of multilateralism. The Bush administration, on the other hand, is saying that it will determine the timetable and that the Iraqis must go through a lengthy constitutional and electoral process before Washington is willing to relinquish its control.
But the truth is that Chirac and French imperialism have no interest whatsoever in a truly sovereign Iraqi government. What concerns Chirac is that political representatives of French bankers and transnational corporations get in early enough on the political process to build influence in the new colonial regime. The French are in a hurry to create a UN cover so they can intervene in the process of plundering Iraq before the U.S. corporations get a complete lock on the process. This is the meaning of "multilateralism" to French imperialism.
'A failed address'
Washington is perfectly content to hold on to all the strings until it has a firm grasp on the new state apparatus. The problem is that the Iraqi resistance has deepened. U.S. soldiers are dying in increasing numbers and Bush has had to drop an $87-billion price tag on the people at home, who are already suffering. U.S. imperialism needs help, but the Bush administration is loathe to take any steps that would imply any limitations on the supreme imperial authority of Washington and the Pentagon.
In an editorial entitled "A Failed Address," the Washington Post wrote on Sept. 24 that Bush "refused to dilute the present monopoly of power over the occupation administration, the reconstruction program or the contracts that have been awarded almost exclusively to U.S. firms. Not surprisingly, that formula doesn't appeal to any of the governments that have been discussing the possible contributions for Iraq, and one by one they have dropped out."
What the Post did not say is that the entire plan of the Bush administration has been overturned by the Iraqi resistance, which is the fundamental fact on the ground. The Post's appeal to multilateralism and to bring in the United Nations to help "stabilize" the situation in Iraq is an appeal to Bush to give some concessions to Wall Street's rivals in order to strengthen imperialism in Iraq before the whole colonial enterprise crashes.
The 'anti-war' war criminal
Retired Gen. Wesley Clark has plunged into the presidential race to try to take advantage of the sinking popularity of Bush, based on the Iraq crisis and the deepening economic hardship. Clark has been dubbed the "anti-war" candidate.
It is a measure of the cynicism of bourgeois politics in the U.S. that a four-star general who has commanded NATO forces in a murderous air war, did the military planning for the invasion of Haiti in 1994, and was a company commander during the colonial Vietnam War could be considered an "anti-war" candidate.
Clark is an arch militarist and his claim to be anti-war is the ultimate in election demagogy. He commanded the air war in Yugoslavia, in which every target and plane and every missile or bomb was approved at the command level. Some 35,000 cluster bombs were dropped on cities and towns. The Chinese and Greek embassies were bombed after both countries opposed the war. Bridges and factories, schools, hospitals and churches were destroyed with people in them. The strategy of targeting civilians from the air in order to demoralize the people of Serbia was Clark's policy. (See the book "Hidden Agenda: U.S./NATO Takeover of Yugoslavia," International Action Center, 2002)
But what is also on the record is that Clark got in trouble with his superiors because he fought with the Pentagon and demanded that the U.S. send in ground troops. In Clark's view, one of the negative after-effects of the Vietnam War was the reluctance to take casualties. ("Hidden Agenda," p. 162) He regarded the war in Yugoslavia as a chance to get over it.
He has dangerous, adventurist qualities, which flared up during the Yugoslav war when the Russians sent a tank contingent to occupy Pristina airport towards the end of the war. Clark issued the order to the British general in charge, Lt. Gen. Michael Jackson, to block the runway. "I'm not starting World War III for you," said Jackson, and refused the order.
Aside from Clark's history in other wars, his effort to project an anti-war record on Iraq is a complete fabrication. Before the war his most "anti-war" position was "Let's Wait to Attack," the title of a Time magazine article published last Oct. 14. Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting has dug up his earlier pronouncements.
On Jan. 21 he said on CNN, "I think the president is going to have to move ahead despite the fact that the allies have reservations." By Feb. 5 he told the same network that "the credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, ... we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us." He told CNN's Miles O'Brien that Saddam Hussein "absolutely" had weapons of mass destruction.
By April 10, the day after the seizure of Baghdad, Clark wrote an ecstatic article for the London Times declaring that "already the scent of victory is in the air." George W. Bush and Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," he continued, and the military planners had "made the right call" in moving fast and light.
By the next day, Clark was writing in the Times that "If there is a single overriding lesson, it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."
Which only underscores the critical role of the independent, mass anti-war movement, which is mobilizing for another huge demonstration on Oct. 25.
Reprinted from the Oct. 2, 2003, issue of Workers World newspaper
(Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED]. Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
