[Marxism] Minneapolis Star Trib edit: How the rulers carry out a "safe" debate on their problems in Iraq

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

A clear pattern seems to emerge with the following editorial from the
Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the O'Neill revelations, the report
published by the National War College, and the Sunday New York Times
editorial.  All aim at criticizing Bush for getting the US into the
war while raising no questions about the occupation.

This, the critics hope, will produce a change of course without
encouraging demands at home for the withdrawal of US troops, which all
sectors of the ruling class agree must be maintained and turned into
some kind of success for imperialism.  The alternative is a defeat of
massive proportions that would resonate all over the world, and most
of all in Latin America and  Korea.

At the same time, it would leave the incoming administration (whether
a Bush second term or Dean or Clark) the maneuverability required to
introduce the draft or invade Syria if that will help them consolidate
the conquests that Bush, so far, has not clearly succeeded in doing.

There is no sector of the ruling class, as far as I can see, that
believes that the US should pull out of Iraq.  That would be a huge
setback for US imperialism, which would create strong aftershocks in
Latin America and Korea.

Bush is correct when he states that regime change became official US
policy during the Clinton administration.  The administration
supported legislation to that effect that was adopted by Congress.
The Clinton administration lied about weapons of mass destruction and
sought other excuses to continue sanctions and military attacks until
regime change was achieved. Bush, however, decided not to try to sell
this legislation as authorizing the US war, so he is stuck with his
own responsibility for carrying out "regime change" in the name of
nonexistent WMD and ties to September 11.

The underlying conflicts revolve around two problems: (1) the
difficulty in stabilizing an imperialist-dominated regime, the depth
of various kinds of resistance (including, but not at all solely, the
military) and the failure to establish any reliably proimperialist
forces who have a significant mass base, and (2) the continuing
international isolation of the occupation, which creates more space
for the opposition in Iraq.

If the occupation was clearly advancing toward the goals of the ruling
class, I believe there would be no broad debate over the lies told to
get into the war.  The bull about al Qaeda and WMD would be treated as
either true in essence, or simply part of the "bodyguard of lies"
required to get the US public to go along with doing what must be
done.  The imperialist politicians can be quite hard-boiled about such
matters when success has been the result (and fifty  years later, the
State Department can always "apologize" if required).  Nor are the
mainstream of the liberal Democrats so dedicated to "Bush-hatred" or
getting elected at any costs that they  would fly in the face of
ruling-class satisfaction with the results of the war.

The unilateralism of the war was not a sign of US strength but a
result of decades of weakening US hegemony that the rulers are now
striving to reverse.  A genuinely hegemonic United States would
virtually never need to act unilaterally, because everyone would have
to join its wars.  They would invade Cuba or Venezuela with the
support of Latin American bodies, instead of attending meetings where
mainstream bourgeois leaders have to put their independence on display
and friends of Cuba thumb their noses.  They would invade Korea, as
they did, through the United Nations, and Vietnam partly through the
Southeast Asia Treaty Organization or Lebanon through CENTO.

The fall of the Soviet bloc created opportunities to attempt to repair
the long-term damage, but also created  problems (the fight to
dominate the former bloc is still in its first stages, and the events
also encouraged more aggressiveness by the European imperialist rivals
including the creation of the Euro and the initial discussions of a
European army distinct from NATO).  The clearest victory that
Washington has won in the wars that followed the fall of the Soviet
bloc has not been the "unilateral" invasion of Iraq but the
"multilateral" war in the former Yugoslavia.  That may be why
"Clintonite" types like Howard Dean and Wesley Clark are looking a
little more attractive to a sector of the ruling class these days.

The Minneapolis Tribune's attempt to sell its criticism of Bush as
having nothing to do with the wonderful current situation in Iraq does
not hold water.  These are claims made at every downward turn of the
military conflict, which is only one important expression of the
resistance.  If the claims were true, the denunciation of the lies
would be increasingly left to Gabriel Kolko and other "revisionist"
historians.  Nor does it explain the step-by-step tactical retreat
Washington has been making on such issues as the oil industry,
privatization, the attempts to impose Chalabi, the possibility of a
Shiite government,  Kurdish control in the north (remember when
Washington WANTED the Turkish military to come in and get a grip on
the Kurds?) and so forth.
Fred Feldman




January 12 Minneapolis Star Tribune

BYLINE: CREDITLINE: HEADLINE: Editorial: The wrong war/Why Iraq was a
mistake

Events in Iraq seem on a positive trend line, one that every American
can hope continues. While deadly attacks against American and
coalition forces continue, there appears to be fewer of them since the
capture of Saddam Hussein. Organizing the economic and political life
of the Iraqi people remains a struggle fraught with problems, but
progress is visible.

It is now possible for Americans to see how much better off the Iraqi
people are with Saddam Hussein gone and the process underway to create
for them a prosperous, democratic state. That reality is truly
gratifying, and it leads some Americans to conclude that the invasion
of Iraq has proven itself both justified and worth the price. That
conclusion, however, requires a logical leap that is itself
unjustified. The outcome of the invasion and the reasons for it have
always been separable questions. They need to remain that way.

Imagine that President Bush and Secretary of State Colin Powell had
made a case for the invasion of Iraq along the following lines:
"Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator who has long oppressed the Iraqi
people and threatened Iraq's neighbors. It is U.S. policy to seek
regime change in Iraq, and we propose to do that now, by military
force. Saddam does not pose a risk to the United States now, and any
threat he eventually may pose is years or decades away. His programs
for developing weapons of mass destruction have been dormant since the
end of the Gulf War. We have no evidence of links between Saddam and
the terrorists of Al-Qaida or other groups capable of attacking the
United States. Any invasion of Iraq is not related to the war on
terrorism.

"Nevertheless, removing Saddam and creating a free, democratic Iraq is
a worthy goal, though it will not come cheap. It will cost tens upon
tens of billions of dollars raised from American taxpayers.
International assistance will be minimal. Hundreds of fine young
Americans will be killed in the process, and thousands will suffer
debilitating wounds that will alter their lives forever. We call upon
the American people to willingly shoulder those costs in the name of a
free Iraq." That, of course, isn't the case Bush and Powell made. The
American people would have rejected it, and properly so. Instead, the
administration's case was based on two central pillars: Saddam
possessed chemical and biological weapons in large quantities and was
hot in pursuit of nuclear weapons; he also is closely tied in with
Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, to which he could at any time
provide weapons of mass destruction for use against the United States
or its friends. Neither of those assertions was true, and the
administration had reason to know they weren't true. Indeed, according
to a new book, former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill says that as
early as January 2001 the Bush administration was talking about
removing Saddam from power.

Saddam had no WMD, and he had no links to Al-Qaida. The invasion of
Iraq was an invasion of choice, not necessity, and it diverted U.S.
attention and resources away from the real war against terrorism. Over
the past few months, we have been insistent on keeping that reality in
front of our readers. Frequently, that has brought accusations that
we're making these points only because of "liberal" or "Democratic"
bias. Despite our thick skins, these accusations are worrying, for
they go to the question of our credibility with readers. The
accusations also are false; consider those who share our view on the
war: The Cato Institute, a conservative Washington think tank best
known for pushing the privatization of Social Security, says the war
in Iraq was "the wrong war" because "the enemy at the gates was, and
continues to be, Al-Qaida.

Not only was Iraq not a direct military threat to the United States
(even if it possessed WMD, which was a fair assumption), but there is
no good evidence to support the claim that Saddam Hussein was in
league with Al-Qaeda and would have given the group WMD to be used
against the United States." From the U.S. Army War College comes a new
study warning that the U.S. war on terrorism is unfocused and may have
set the nation "on a course of open-ended and gratuitous conflict with
states and non-state entities that pose no serious threat to the
United States." The war in Iraq, the report says, was "an unnecessary
preventative war" which "diverted attention and resources away from
securing the American homeland against further assault by an
undeterrable Al-Qaida."

The most detailed critique comes from the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace. Carnegie's scholars think deeply and well about
the reasonable application of power to preserve peace. The war in Iraq
was not one of those reasonable applications, they conclude. Findings
from the study include: . "There was and is no solid evidence of a
cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al-Qaida." .
"There was no evidence to support the claim that Iraq would have
transferred WMD to Al-Qaida and much evidence to counter it." . In
2002, a dramatic shift occurred in U.S. intelligence estimates of
Iraq's WMD capabilities, suggesting "that the intelligence community
began to be unduly influenced by policymakers' views sometime in
2002." .

"Administration officials systematically misrepresented the threat
from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programs . . . ." . "Considering
all the costs and benefits, there were at least two options clearly
preferable to a war undertaken without international support: allowing
the [U.N.] inspections to continue until obstructed or completed, or
imposing a tougher program of 'coercive inspections' backed by a
specially designed international force."

We thought of those costs and benefits a week ago, when news came of
the death of Capt. Kimberly Hampton, the first woman pilot killed in
Iraq. A photo taken of the South Carolina native as she sat in the
cockpit of her helicopter communicated a good-natured openness and
self-assurance. Her father said she "enjoyed the fact she was making a
difference over there trying to help the Iraqi people and protect our
freedoms in this country. She was very much a patriot." Hampton
undoubtedly was a patriot, and she was making a difference for the
Iraqi people.

Americans should be very proud of her and all the troops in Iraq. No
doubt she truly believed she was protecting "our freedoms in this
country." She believed that and answered the call because that is what
her commander in chief told her. But the most sacred duty civilians
have to their armed forces is to ensure they are never called to
sacrifice their lives unless this nation faces a real threat. Bush
must be held accountable for Hampton's death. Iraq was the wrong
war -- for conservatives, for liberals, for all Americans.






_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism