Congress caves in but anti-war movement grows
Bush plans colonial occupation of Iraq
By Fred Goldstein
Millions of people who are opposed to the Bush
administration's plan to go to war against Iraq watched with
anger and dismay last week as the U.S. Congress voted to
authorize the president to do just that. Many of those in
Congress who voted for war tried to justify their capitulation
on this crucial issue, saying they were hoping that a strong
position would reduce the prospect of war.
This hypocritical posture was exposed the very day of the
vote, when the administration leaked plans for an outright
colonial military occupation of Iraq. Furthermore, at the time
of the vote, the Pentagon was moving key military personnel and
supplies into position for an attack.
The vote in the House was 296 to 133 for the war. Those who
gave Bush what he wanted included 81 Democrats, led by minority
leader Richard Gephardt, while 126 Democrats voted against the
Bush resolution. But the Democratic Party leadership made sure
to add a pro-war amendment, the Spratt amendment, that required
a new vote for war if the UN Security Council disagreed. The
amendment was defeated, but 147 House Democrats voted for
it.
"We want to make sure our actions are interpreted
correctly," said Democratic Rep. Susan A. Davis from San Diego,
who voted against the Bush proposal but for the Spratt
amendment, according to the New York Times of Oct. 11. "I think
it's important that military action get the support of the
United Nations and we retain an ability to go back and take a
second look at it."
In other words, no one should interpret their vote against
the Bush resolution as being in opposition to a brutal,
unprovoked war of aggression against the Iraqi people. Such an
illegal and outrageous act of an imperialist war of conquest is
permissible, but it is preferable to carry out such a war with
UN Security Council support, if possible.
Senate liberals fall in line
An even more outstanding example of how capitalist democracy
works as a trap for the progressive masses at crucial moments
was illustrated by the Senate vote--77 to 23 in favor of the
Bush resolution.
The Senate is more directly reflective of the ruling class.
It is a body with not one African American member, composed
mostly of millionaires who run costly campaigns and are elected
for six-year terms. It has been clear in recent weeks that the
majority of the ruling class has been won over to a war to
conquer Iraq, with its 110 billion barrels of oil and strategic
position in the Middle East.
There are deep differences over the question of how much
emphasis to put on engaging the imperialist allies, as opposed
to going it alone. There are also deep differences over the
advisability of using a war against Iraq to establish and
proclaim a new general doctrine of "preemption," as opposed to
justifying this act of aggression as a special case.
But in spite of these differences, a bloc has been formed in
the ruling class between the moderates and the military
adventurers over destroying the government of Saddam Hussein
and conquering Iraq. The problem they have is getting the mass
of the people to go along with a war that has little popular
support. This is where the liberals and social democrats play
their crucial role.
In the Senate vote, top ruling class moderates fell in line.
Hillary Clinton of New York, Christopher Dodd of Connecticut,
Dianne Feinstein of California, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and, above
all, the so-called anti-war liberal Vietnam veteran, John Kerry
of Massachusetts, all threw in their lot with Bush. Of course,
Senate majority leader Tom Daschle, after much anti-Bush
huffing and puffing, voted for the resolution, as did Charles
Schumer of New York and John D. Rockefeller of West
Virginia.
On the Republican side, Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, who had
done much publicized foot dragging throughout the debate over
the war, ended up voting for the Bush resolution "because the
stakes are so high."
"Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led
multilateral approach to disarmament, not as a first case for a
new American doctrine involving the preemptive use of force,"
said Hagel as a buildup to his yes vote. (New York Times, Oct.
10)
Hillary Clinton declared her vote to be "probably the
hardest decision I've ever had to make."
She is probably right, but it has nothing to do with her
conscience about war or peace. It has everything to do with her
concern over whether U.S. imperialism is endangering
itself--and how her vote for war will go over with the masses
of workers and progressives, who constitute her social base in
New York state and are totally opposed to Bush's adventure,
regardless of mealy-mouthed excuses.
Plans for military occupation
No amount of soft-pedaling the vote for war could get around
the hard plans of the Bush administration, leaked to the press
on the day of the vote, for a colonial-style military
occupation of Iraq.
"The White House is developing a detailed plan, modeled on
the postwar occupation of Japan, to install an American-led
military government in Iraq if the United States topples Saddam
Hussein, senior administration officials said today," wrote
David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt in the New York Times of Oct.
11.
"The plan also calls for war-crimes trials of Iraqi leaders
and a transition to an elected civilian government that could
take months or years.
"In the initial phase, Iraq would be governed by an American
military commander-perhaps Gen. Tommy Franks, commander of
United States forces in the Persian Gulf, or one of his
subordinates--who would assume the role that Gen. Douglas
MacArthur served in Japan after its surrender in 1945."
In a carefully worded phrase, calculated to assure the
imperialist allies of their cut if they collaborate with
Washington, the Times wrote, "For as long as the coalition
partners administered Iraq, they would essentially control the
second largest proven oil reserves in the world, nearly 11
percent of the total."
In an earlier passage, the article had said that, "In
contemplating an occupation, the administration is scaling back
the initial role for the Iraqi opposition forces." Later on it
elaborated, "Iraqis, perhaps through a consultative council,
would assist an American-led military, and, later, a civilian
administration, a senior official said today. Only after this
transition would the American-led government hand power to the
Iraqis."
War criminals organize 'war crimes
tribunal'
Washington is moving on other fronts to prepare an
occupation force preparatory to setting up a puppet state.
According to the Oct. 11 Washington Post, the State Department
has initiated the Future of Iraq Project. "In the past few
weeks, the $5 million program has quietly gathered speed far
from the public disputes in Congress and the United
Nations."
The project has six working groups; six more teams are to be
established. They are composed of Iraqi renegade defectors to
imperialism, called the "Iraqi opposition," as well as other
Iraqi expatriates.
They are working for their masters on a new political
structure, a legal structure and war crimes tribunals, among
other areas. "It sets up a network of individuals who become
cadre to work with the future government," said David L. Mack,
whom the Post describes as "a former U.S. ambassador who
designed the forerunner to the project.
"Decisions about the project are made by an inter-agency
committee that includes officials from the State Department,
the Pentagon and the White House," continued the Post. The
Justice Department and the Treasury Department also
participate.
Washington may ultimately be forced to reconsider its plan
for military occupation. No less a figure than former Secretary
of State Henry Kissinger, a cold-blooded war criminal from the
era of the Vietnam War and Chile coup, declared: "I am
viscerally opposed to a prolonged occupation of a Muslim
country at the heart of the Muslim world by Western nations who
proclaim the right to reeducate the country." (New York Times,
Oct. 11) Nevertheless, Kissinger is an ardent supporter of the
invasion of Iraq.
An admission of political weakness
In this statement by Kissinger one can feel the fear of the
ruling class about how their adventure in Iraq is going to end
up. Plans for military occupation are based upon both military
strength and political weakness. They assume that the Pentagon
can conquer Iraq and stabilize it long enough to establish an
occupation. On the other hand, it is a naked admission that the
U.S. does not have an ounce of social support among the Iraqi
population and will have to try to rule by naked military
dictatorship.
The false allusion to the occupation of Japan after World
War II has only to do with form and not substance. The U.S.
imperialists had defeated their Japanese rivals in the struggle
to rule Asia--a defeat that included dropping the atom bomb on
two heavily populated cities, killing close to 200,000 people.
Wall Street needed to resuscitate Japanese capitalism and
imperialism in order to use Japan as a bulwark in the struggle
against the Chinese Revolution, the USSR and the socialist camp
in the east.
Under the dictatorship of the Pentagon and General
MacArthur, the U.S. imperialists restructured Japanese
capitalism, helped the Japanese bosses subdue the rebellious
Japanese working class, and opened U.S. markets to Japanese
products.
In the case of Iraq, its goal is pure pillage and plunder,
not only of the oil but of the surrounding Middle Eastern
countries. Washington has only colonial suffering and hardship
in store for the Iraqi people. Its aim is to return them to the
colonial bondage they suffered after the breakup of the Ottoman
Empire, when British imperialism carved out Iraq for its
colonial empire.
A new era of anti-colonial resistance
The entire projection is based upon the assumption that the
masses of the world will allow the Bush administration to
prosecute a new, bloody war against the Iraqi people. Right
now, hundreds of thousands are mobilizing in cities around the
world to stop the war before it starts. Every effort should be
made to see that the Bush administration never gets the
opportunity to carry out such a mad adventure.
Furthermore, the fierce resistance of the Iraqi people in
the event of an invasion, combined with a popular explosion of
mass anger in the Middle East, could completely wreck the plans
of the Pentagon.
But should the Pentagon, the military-industrial complex and
the oil companies succeed in carrying out their aggression and
attempt to inaugurate a new era of outright colonialism, the
U.S. imperialists will surely find out in the 21st century what
the British, French, Belgian, Dutch, Italian, Spanish and
Portuguese imperialists found out in the 20th century: that
colonial occupation breeds anti-colonial resistance on a
massive scale.
Such mad adventures could lead to a historic setback for
imperialism abroad and the renewal of the anti-war,
anti-colonial struggle right here at home in the United States
on a scale not seen in generations.
Reprinted from the Oct. 24, 2002, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyrighted
under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe to WW by Email: wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Donate to
support pro-labor, anti-war news.
Email
this article
Printable
page