------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the Oct. 24, 2002 issue of Workers World newspaper -------------------------
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. ***** FILLING AT THE PENTAGON'S TROUGH The Democrats want "to get on to the economy" after the war vote. But the day before the war vote Congress voted 409 to 14 to give the Pentagon $355.4 billion for the military. Even if the Democrats had a plan, which they don't, they have already given away the money for social needs to the war-makers and the profiteering merchants of death in the military-industrial complex. - END - (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 e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php) ------------------ This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service. To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
