[Marxism] Iraq war, US elections, and the state of the occupation

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

(The following is a letter I am sending to a discussion of Iraq,
antiwar protests and the elections on the New Jersey-based  Committee
to End the Occupation of Iraq list.)

I agree with Dave Schraeger that it is important to support the March
20 antiwar protest in New York. Like Bob Allen, I decided to stay away
from the January 15 protest at the Madison Square Garden  because of
its character of a protest against the Republican National Committee
organizing for the convention in New York.  I may have been right or
wrong, but that's the judgment I made.  It didn't feel right to me.

I  have no more interest in keeping Republicans than Democrats out of
New York, and I imagine that the constitution guarantees the right of
either of them to be here.  Republicans have now been mayors of New
York for nigh onto twelve years.  Such is life.

This is different than protesting against speeches by the warmaking
President of the United States, currently a Republican, which I am for
doing.

But we are not going to be able to do much about the fact that  the
Anybody But Bush theme is going to be dominant this year.   It is
important to keep the movement on the streets and spreading the Out
Now! demand even though all the actions will be affected by this
reality.  Most people who bother to vote are going to vote for one of
the two parties and most who are antiwar will be voting Democratic.
That is one benefit the Democrats will gain from having been out of
power in the White House during the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.  It's
possible there will be a Green candidate who  will  present an
acceptable  alternative  under the circumstances , but that is far
from certain or even probable today.

The Democrats are also beginning to gain from unrest in the ruling
class, which overwhelmingly backed the war, as they realize that Iraqi
sovereignty and independence have not been decisively defeated.
The projection of creating an Iraq where the US would dominate the
government (old Iran or Saudi Arabia-Jordan style), control the
resources, dictate policy toward Israel,  freeze out their European
competitors, and so on is very far from being achieved, and possibly
receding further into the distance.

And this is the "peaceful and democratic Iraq" that  the New York
Times, in its criticisms of the war policy, still demands that the
administration forge.

The would-be engineers of this hostile takeover  face Shiites with
very friendly ties to Iran getting more aggressive in the south, angry
Sunnis in the center (often with real ties to the armed resistance,
which is not the only resistance), and Kurds still pushing toward
independence in the north.  It is not clear that the occupation can or
will halt these trends.   There also appear to be some elements among
the Shiites who carry out armed acts against the occupation.

Part of the problem of the GIs' morale  today  is that they were told,
as was the general public, that the heavy lifting would be removing
Saddam and everything would rapidly fall into place. The assumption of
the rulers was that Saddam had been so successful in smashing the
people that there would be no serious resistance to US dictation of
the country's course.

Instead, they face a profoundly hostile environment, including among
the Shiites whose leaders have been maneuvering with the occupation.
I remember Chalabi (whose road to the presidency, which was part of
the plan, is becoming more obstructed every day),   making speeches
HERE saying that the first acts of the new government would be to
privatize oil and recognize Israel.  In fact, Libya is more likely to
recognize Israel than the government or governments currently taking
shape.

Basically, it seems possible that Washington (which wanted to control
a unitary Iraq) will end up with one or more bourgeois nationalist
governments, eager to prove their independence of Washington to the
people, and with far less control over the masses than Saddam's
regime exercised.  The result will be more instability and conflict,
and greater likelihood of conflicts with Syria, Turkey, and Iran.

Even if troops remain and US bases are conceded,  the rulers have to
wonder what was the fundamental benefit of this operation to the US
empire if this is the outcome. What I am talking about is not direct
military defeat of the US by the armed resistance, which is not going
to happen soon if ever, but a much more subtle  and steady
deterioration of the US position that is very much affected by the
armed resistance and many other factors that are working against firm
US domination of Iraq.  One of the central factors is the social,
political, and psychological reality of independenc and sovereignty --
regardless of the fall of Saddam and the occupation.

Independence and sovereignty are ideas that have material power,  and
also represent decades of firmly established social relationships.
Such things  don't simply crack with a few blows of the US hammer.
These gains of  the Egyptian, Iraqi, Iranian, Yemeni, Algerian,
Lebanese, Palestinian and other struggles in the Middle East are alive
and very resilient.  It is certain that air power alone cannot break
them.  And we are seeing that they are sturdy obstacles to direct
military occupation by a heavily armed and technically vastly superior
US military.

The next administration -- Republican  or  Democratic -- will have to
decide either to continue retreating in Iraq (politically or
militarily) or whether to pour much more into the effort to transform
the country in the interests of US imperialism.  (Right now, I think
the trend in both parties is to up the effort -- hence such things as
the persistent floating --- usually by liberals, not neocons -- of the
need to re-establish the draft. This may also be why the issue of
withdrawal is completely absent from the current  official debate.)
It is  possible the issue will be forced earlier, but I think both
parties would prefer to avoid that if possible.

But that puts a very high premium of continuing street protests now,
taking into consideration that most people will have a different view
of the elections that I do and that they will inevitably use the
protests to express those views.  The protests during the difficult
election years are vitally necessary preparation for the escalated
conflicts that usually come after.
Fred Feldman




-----Original Message----- From: DAVID SCHRAEGER
[mailto:dbossmovil@xxxxxxx] Sent: Friday, January 16, 2004 9:20 AM To:
ceo-i@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Cc: CarolGay747@xxxxxxx; Corrado166@xxxxxxxxx;
deirdre@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; gemgavriel@xxxxxxxxx; jtooma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
juuniper@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; johndabrowski@xxxxxxx; j.a.cruz@xxxxxxxxxxx;
bl.phoppers@xxxxxxxxxxx; linda.szetoo@xxxxxxxxxxx;
mahonrryhidalgo@xxxxxxxxx; nelisilva@xxxxxxxxx;
Markowit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; pmoore04@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
rhoo3@xxxxxxxxxxx; robmoir@xxxxxxx; SSchraeg@xxxxxxx;
sharona@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; studentspeech@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
thmsbldwn@xxxxxxx; ajones8@xxxxxxxxxxx; llegoviru@xxxxxxxxx;
kasturidasgupta@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [ceo-i] Iraq war/US elections


Hi! I understand Bob Allen's concerns about March 20th being perceived
as a rallying cry in support of the Democrats, but I think that's an
overly-broad generalization.  As an organization, ANSWER does not
endorse the Democrats. Is there any choice for the peace movement but
to discredit Bush?
To discredit Bush is not necessarily endorse the Democrats because we
must expose Bush's collaborators in both of the bourgeois parties.
Personally, I won't get involved in any of the Democratic candidates'
campaigns and plan to vote for a 3rd-party left alternative candidate
in November.  However, I think the removal of Bush would be a positive
thing as long as we in the movement don't put our hopes and dreams in
the bourgeois Democrat who gets elected in his place.
 The struggle must continue no matter who gets elected.  We must not
lose sight of that.  Let's not forget that the Senate and Congress
voted to approve the additional $87 billion for the war in Iraq even
after it was known that the war was based on lies.  Democrats
participated in that disgraceful vote.  Let's not forget that.  Let's
not have illusions about any of the Democrats.  Having said that, I
still think it's a good idea to discredit Bush because he's the
bastard in office now. Let's all support March 20th and be there!
 Dave Schraeger



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