'Bring the troops home!'
Why it's the right slogan for the anti-war movement
By Brian Becker
A political debate is raging among U.S.
antiwar forces over the appropriate slogans for the movement
today. At the Oct. 25 demonstration of 100,000 in Washington,
D.C., the main slogan was "Bring the troops home now--end the
occupation of Iraq." This slogan was agreed to by the two
coalitions sponsoring the protest--Act Now to Stop War &
End Racism and United for Peace & Justice. The ANSWER
coalition has been using the slogan since the U.S. military
conquest of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. UFPJ agreed to co-sponsor
the demonstration with ANSWER under the slogan, although its
member groups hold a variety of views on the issue of immediate
withdrawal.
Prior to the Oct. 25 demonstration, some groups in the
movement opposed this orientation and called for changing the
slogan from "Bring the troops home now" to "Turn over security
and rebuilding to the UN." The rationale cited for the proposed
change was that "Immediate withdrawal of all U.S. troops would
probably create chaos and anarchy, a situation even worse than
what it is now."
The dispute over slogans reflects two completely different
views on the political direction that needs to be taken by the
global mass antiwar movement that has emerged in the last year.
In essence, the dispute hinges on whether 1) modern war is the
consequence of bad or mistaken policies by certain political
leaders, or 2) it is the inevitable outgrowth of capitalism as
it has evolved into a global system of imperialism.
Earlier debates
The debate is not really new and closely mirrors two earlier
disputes over slogans that sharply divided the movement. Prior
to the 1991 Gulf War the antiwar movement split into two
sharply contentious coalitions. One coalition, led by Ramsey
Clark and other leaders who later formed the International
Action Center, condemned both the U.S.-sponsored war
mobilization and the imposition of economic sanctions on Iraq.
The other wing of the peace movement organized under the
slogan, "Sanctions, not war."
The struggle between these two wings of the peace movement
was very sharp at the time. The coalition led by Ramsey Clark
and the IAC insisted that economic sanctions were not a benign
alternative to war but an act of war. The analysis held that
the U.S. was simply using the Iraq-Kuwait issue as a pretext
for a long-planned U.S. military intervention whose goal was to
both diminish Iraq as a regional power and permanently insert
U.S. military forces in this oil-rich region.
The opposing coalition took the position that, unless the
peace movement called for economic sanctions against Iraq, it
would be open to the accusation that it was functioning as an
apologist for Saddam Hussein's government and providing tacit
consent to Iraq's takeover of Kuwait.
Prior to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 a similar,
although less contentious, debate emerged over slogans and some
of the same political forces were involved. This time some of
the antiwar forces who a decade earlier had insisted on
economic sanctions as an alternative to war called on the Bush
administration to "let the UN weapons inspections work" rather
than race to war. Core to this argument was the fallacious
assumption that the current crisis was caused by Iraq's weapons
program.
By chanting "Let inspections work," they appeared to agree
with Bush that Iraq was a real danger and thus must be
disarmed. While agreeing with Bush's goal that "Iraq must be
disarmed," these groups asserted that Bush was making a
tactical error by resorting to military force rather than
letting weapons inspectors find and destroy Iraq's weapons.
The ANSWER coalition thought it was ludicrous to agree with
Bush's stated goal of disarming Iraq at the very moment that it
was being surrounded by hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops
poised to attack with the most advanced bombs and missiles.
ANSWER asserted that the planned U.S. war was motivated by
purely imperialist interests and had nothing to do with a
supposed "danger" from Iraq.
It will remain one of the great ironies in military history
that Iraq, under the demand of the UN weapons inspectors, was
forced to publicly destroy--right on television--its own
medium-range conventional missiles right up until the evening
of March 19, when the country came under a destructive rain of
terror from U.S. cruise missiles and bombs. And all in the name
of disarmament, no less.
Under the circumstances of early 2003--and the looming
invasion and aggression against Iraq--wouldn't it have been
more appropriate for all forces in the peace movement in the
United States to call for the disarming of the Pentagon, rather
than Iraq?
U.S. out versus UN in
Now, during the U.S.-occupation phase of the struggle, the
debate in the antiwar movement is around the slogan "Bring the
troops home now." Instead of immediate withdrawal, others call
for the United Nations to take over the occupation as a
transitional regime leading eventually to a sovereign
government.
The core problem with "Turn over security and rebuilding to
the UN" is that this demand stands in contrast to the
fundamental right of the Iraqi people to determine their own
destiny. Iraq has formally been a sovereign country for 80
years and a genuinely sovereign country for the last 45--since
the Iraqi Revolution of 1958. Its sovereignty has been
suspended only by an illegal invasion and occupation.
Those who advocate for a UN takeover of the occupation argue
that without a "neutral" outside supervising force, and one
that can provide reconstruction resources, Iraq will descend
into further anarchy and chaos. This argument, however, which
seems to be based on seeking the least bad of the available bad
options, is premised on two false assumptions: 1) that the
current United Nations can play an independent and progressive
role in Iraq and, 2) that the Iraqi people would be content
with something less than complete independence for their
country.
It is the occupation by the U.S. and Britain--whose
authority was entirely ratified on May 22 by UN Security
Council Resolution 1483--that has led to a condition that they
themselves call "chaos and anarchy." While Iraq was under Iraqi
authority, this condition did not exist.
If the U.S. troops leave immediately and if sovereignty is
returned to Iraq, a new government will take shape. No one
knows for certain if there will be a struggle between
contending factions in Iraq. This is certainly possible, given
the "chaos and anarchy" created by the violent destruction
inflicted by outside forces. But unless sovereignty is returned
to Iraq, the current chaos and anarchy will inevitably
continue.
Dennis Halliday's observations
Iraqis don't want foreign, imperial forces to become the
arbiters of their political and economic process, and have
shown this with their actions. Some people in the United States
may think that this is in the Iraqi people's best interest, but
the Iraqi people do not agree with the implicit assumption that
they are not "up to the task" of building an independent Iraq.
In fact, the Iraqi people rightly believe that the foundation
of this argument is based in conscious or unconscious
paternalism and even racist stereotyping.
Nor do they agree that the record of the United Nations, as
an institution, suggests that it has the interests of the Iraqi
people as its first priority, particularly given the pressures
applied to the UN by the United States.
This opinion is confirmed by the comments of Dennis
Halliday, the former UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq.
Following the first bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad
in August--which killed 23 people, many of whom were Halliday's
friends and colleagues--Halliday commented on the sharp
difference in perception of the United Nations between Iraqis
and people in the United States and other Western
countries:
"The West sees the UN as a benign organization, but the sad
reality in much of the world is that the UN is not seen as
benign," Halliday said.
"In Iraq, the UN imposed sustained sanctions that probably
killed up to 1 million people. Children were dying of
malnutrition and water-borne diseases. The U.S. and U.K. bombed
the infrastructure in 1991, destroying power, water and sewage
systems against the Geneva Convention. It was a great crime
against Iraq. Thirteen years of sanctions made it impossible
for Iraq to repair the damage. That is why we have such
tremendous resentment and anger against the UN in Iraq. There
is a sense that the UN humiliated the Iraqi people and society.
I would use the term genocide to define the use of sanctions
against Iraq. Several million Iraqis are suffering cancers
because of the use of depleted uranium shells. That's an
atrocity. Can you imagine the bitterness from all of this?"
(Sunday Herald, Aug. 24)
Why, then, would the Iraqi people agree, given the UN's
record over the last 12 years, that it should be the
institution to serve as the guarantor of a transition to
renewed sovereign control?
Economic colonialism masked as reconstruction
The imperialist government of the United States certainly
owes a debt to the Iraqi people. It should be forced to pay
reparations for the death and destruction inflicted on the
country. But that is not about to happen. On the contrary,
under the guise of humanitarian reconstruction, all sectors of
the resource-rich country of Iraq are now being opened up for
the profit of corporate and banking interests, especially those
from the United States. That's what this war was all about.
Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloom, who was educated in the U.S., worked
for U.S. oil companies in Kuwait, and is described as a
champion of foreign investment and privatization (Wall Street
Journal, Sept. 25), announced last month that Baghdad welcomes
proposals from foreign oil companies to develop Iraq's oil. He
was immediately chosen by the U.S. overlord in Iraq, L. Paul
Bremer III, to become Iraq's oil minister.
Hassan al-Musawi, an official with the U.S. hand-picked
governing council, said oil companies from the U.S. may be
given "preferential treatment in contract negotiations in a
sign of gratitude" for having toppled the old government.
The state-owned oil and natural gas resources that allowed
Iraqis to enjoy rapid social and economic development in the
past are slated to be turned over to foreign oil companies.
Their profits will not be used for the development of Iraq, but
to reward investors back home.
Iraqi officials are now working with the Overseas Private
Investment Corporation, which helps promote U.S. investment
overseas. U.S. taxpayers fund OPIC, which in turn provides loan
guarantees to U.S. corporations so they cannot fail to benefit
and profit from investments in foreign countries. This
accelerates the tempo and pace of U.S. foreign investment in
Iraq, even before the security situation has been resolved.
Using the OPIC loan guarantees as the ultimate cushion, the
Bush administration is signaling U.S. corporations and the oil
monopolies that "You can invest in Iraq right now, because, if
the investment goes sour, U.S. taxpayers will bail you out." In
short, the Bush administration is racing to reorganize the
entire Iraqi economy, including the formerly state-run oil
industry, prior to the creation of a politically "sovereign"
Iraq.
The so-called transition period is nothing more than the de
facto looting and plunder of Iraq by the U.S. Occupation
Authority. This is no secret. Yet the UN Security Council, in
the resolution adopted on May 22, gave the Occupation Authority
full legal status and full control over the reorganization of
Iraq's economy.
On the same day that the UN resolved to give the U.S.
Occupation Authority full control over Iraq, President George
W. Bush issued Executive Order 13303 that provides full
immunity to all U.S. oil companies and other energy
corporations investing in Iraqi oil. The order explains that
U.S. oil companies must be exempt and given immunity from all
lawsuits because any potential lawsuit "obstructs the orderly
reconstruction of Iraq."
Iraq's constitution under the Baathist government insulated
the country from some of the worst features of what is now
called globalization. These constitutional measures are being
scrapped by decree and edict under the new authority prior to
the formation of a new government.
Under the previous constitution, foreign investment in Iraq
was restricted to resident citizens of Arab countries. On Sept.
19, the Coalition Provisional Authority issued Order #39 that
permits 100-percent foreign ownership and management in most
Iraqi business entities.
On Sept. 21, Iraqi Minister of Finance Kamel
Al-Gailani--also hand-picked by Bremer--announced that new
foreign owners of Iraqi companies would be permitted "full
remittance of profits, dividends, interest and royalties" to
investors from their home countries. Instead of Iraq's wealth
being used to finance domestic development, it will be sucked
out by transnational corporations.
Foreign banks that were barred from Iraq will now be allowed
to "enter Iraq as branches, subsidiaries," according to the
Sept. 21 decree on finance reform. The decree also "permits six
foreign banks to purchase up to 100 percent of local banks
within the next five years."
These facts taken together should indicate that the U.S.
occupation of Iraq cannot be compared in any way to a genuine
humanitarian effort. What is happening, to be honest, is the
economic recolonization of Iraq.
U.S. soldiers and their families, many of whom marched in
Washington on Oct. 25, are coming into the anti-war movement
because they now realize they have been lied to by the Bush
administration. Many were willing to risk death and injury when
they believed the president's assertion that Iraq posed a grave
and imminent danger to the people of the United States. Having
learned that this was a lie, the idea of sacrificing even one
more life becomes too much to bear.
Why should U.S. soldiers or any foreign soldiers be put in a
situation where they must kill and be killed for a brazen
colonial project? These soldiers want to come home, not
tomorrow but today. The Iraqi people through myriad forms of
resistance, both armed and peaceful, have shown they want the
foreign occupation of their country to end now.
By fully embracing the slogan "Bring the troops home now,
end the occupation of Iraq," the antiwar movement sends a
message to both the Iraqi people and U.S. soldiers. It affirms
support for the basic right of self-determination for Iraq,
while saying to U.S. soldiers: This is a rich man's war. Your
lives and your dignity are too precious to be used as cannon
fodder for imperialism.
Becker is a member of the national steering committee of
ANSWER.
Reprinted from the Nov. 13, 2003, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page