[Marxism] "WHAT IRAQ PROBLEM? WE'RE BEING STABBED IN THE BACK!"

[Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx]

Washington's Wars and Occupations: 
Month in Review #27
July 30, 2007  
By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras


"WHAT IRAQ PROBLEM?  WE'RE BEING STABBED IN THE BACK!"

Even conservative Republican columnist  George Will is disgusted with the 
demagogy
coming from Bush and the extreme  right. Speaking to another pundit on TV 
July 15,
Will said: 

"We are  in danger of having a Weimar [Germany before the rise of Hitler] 
moment
in  our politics. German politics was embittered disastrously by the belief 
that  
they were on the cusp of victory in 1918 and were stabbed in the back by the  
civilian
leadership that didn't understand Germany's military prowess. There  is a
constituency in this town that believes we're winning in Iraq, that we  have 
at last figured it out, that the indices of success are there. And if  we 
pull out
and have disastrous consequences we're going to have those people  saying 'We
had it won and threw it away.'"

Stab-in-the-back  fear-mongering is one of the few remaining arguments 
available 
to the  "stay-in-Iraq-forever" crowd. They also are reduced to claims that
the  occupation of Iraq is really a confrontation with Al-Qaeda: "if we  leave
there, next week we'll have to fight them here." 

IT'S  FANTASYLAND

When a George Will won't go along with this nonsense you know  it's far 
removed
from reality (not to mention morality). In the last ten days  alone a host of 
news
reports (some front-page in the mainstream press) refute  these big lies:

*Official Defense Department statistics show that  insurgent attacks in June 
- despite
the "surge" - were higher than ever  before, averaging 177.8 per day. Most
were attacks on U.S. troops, the second  highest number were on Iraqi troops 
or police.
The smallest number was on  Iraqi civilians, though these are often the most 
spectacular
and deadly.  Further, only a small number of attacks (mostly on civilians) 
are  by
al-Qaeda-linked groups. Only a tiny fraction of insurgents are affiliated  
with the
organization that Bush claims is doing most of the fighting.   

*The latest National Intelligence Estimate punched a big hole in Bush's  
claims
that the war in Iraq is a plus in defeating global terrorism. A  front-page 
New York
Times story (July 17) put it this way: "In many respects,  the National 
Intelligence
Estimate suggests, the threat of terrorist violence  against the U.S. is 
growing 
worse, fueled by the Iraq war and spreading  Islamic extremism... the stark 
declassified
summary contrasted sharply with  the more positive emphasis of President Bush 
and
his top aides for years:  that two-thirds of al-Qaeda's leadership had been 
killed
or captured; that  the Iraq invasion would reduce the terrorist menace." 

*The latest plan  from General David Petraeus, U.S. commander in Iraq, tosses 
away
all earlier  administration claims about a temporary "surge" of U.S. troops 
translating into  victory. The so-called "Joint Campaign Plan" moves the 
goalposts further back  than ever: at best it seeks "local security" in Iraq by 
summer 2008 and  so-called "sustainable security" in summer 2009, while making 
no 
promises that  U.S. troop levels would diminish. And this is the most 
optimistic scenario -  from Bush's favorite general!

*A blockbuster report in The Nation, based  on in-depth interviews with 50 
Iraq combat
veterans, provided detailed  confirmation of the horrors rarely covered by 
even the
most anti-Bush  mainstream media: "disturbing patterns of behavior by U.S. 
troops...
Iraqi  civilians, including children, dying from U.S. firepower...  
indiscriminate
killings... common, often unreported and almost always  unpunished." The U.S.
military is not liberating or protecting Iraqis: like  every colonial 
occupation 
force in history, it is (with some honorable  exceptions) brutalizing and 
terrorizing
the civilian population. For the full  Nation piece go to http://www.thenation
.com/doc/20070730/hedges

POPULAR  DISONTENT  

Bush & Company's stabbed-in-the-back bluster runs up  against mass discontent
with the war as well. The latest polls show a  majority think Bush has messed 
up 
in Iraq and believe the invasion was  mistaken in the first place. Of crucial 
importance,
opposition is rising  steadily among military families and within the 
military itself:
of people  who said they had served or had a close friend or relative who 
served 
in  Iraq, only 38% now approve of Bush's Iraq policy. Military Families Speak
Out  (MFSO), the organization of military families opposed to the war, 
reports  its
own surge in membership: almost 20 new families are joining EACH DAY.  

Key Republicans are also blaming Bush, not his opponents, for the Iraq  
disaster.
On July 14 the Pittsburgh newspaper owned by conservative  billionaire 
Richard Mellon
Scaife (who has financed vicious attacks on  antiwar figures and Democrats in 
the
past) called plans to stay the course in  Iraq a "prescription for American 
suicide." The paper's editorial added:  "Quite frankly, during last
Thursday's news conference, when George Bush  started blathering about 
'sometimes
the decisions you make and the  consequences don't enable you to be loved,'
we had to question his mental  stability." 

Such factors indicate important positive shifts in the U.S.  political 
climate in
the last year. They highlight the difficulties the right  wing has in 
shifting blame
onto others for Washington's Iraq  debacle.   

RACISM AND "THE TORTURABLE CLASS"

Still, it  would be dangerous to underestimate the potential clout of the  
right-wing
message. It taps into major components of both elite and popular  anxieties.  

For instance, most of the U.S. "establishment" - led by  the Washington
insiders who authored "Baker-Hamilton" - now admits the Iraq  war is lost.
They are desperately seeking some form of "damage control." But  most remain
terrified of the long-term blow to imperial interests should the  U.S. 
totally withdraw.
The "stab-in-the-back" charge only terrifies them  further. And it contributes
to the pattern of cover-your-butt militarism  coming even from those who have 
grudgingly
moved to a "we-have-to-leave-Iraq"  position: hence the proliferation of
statements - especially from leading  Democrats - that getting out of Iraq 
will help
the U.S. "get tough" with  Iran.

Anti-Iraq war sentiments in the population at large have other  
vulnerabilities. 
For large numbers, opposition to the war is based on the  fact that the U.S. 
is losing,
not on the immoral nature of the invasion  itself or understanding that 
Iraqis are
the war's main victims. It is useful  here to note some differences between 
today
and the Vietnam War era. During  the 1960s, left-led emancipatory movements 
held 
great initiative across the  globe and the Black freedom movement surged at 
home,
making radical  perspectives a huge pole of attraction for anyone beginning 
to question
the  Vietnam War or other U.S. actions. So as the anti-Vietnam War movement  
expanded,
there was a big pull on very large sections of people toward  anti-racist, 
anti-imperialist,
and left perspectives. 

The situation  is much different today. The main forces squaring off against  
U.S.
intervention in the Middle East are not leftists with a progressive  
social-economic
program. Terrorism and ethnic/religious sectarianism are all  too real, even 
if the
Bushies exaggerate and exploit them. Movements within  the U.S. - the Black 
freedom
movement not least - are still reeling from 30  years right-wing rollback. 
All this
diminishes the attractive force of  radical and anti-racist perspectives. As 
a result,
despite the hard work of  antiwar and left activists, discontent with the war 
among
millions is less  influenced by a general critique of U.S. foreign policy. So 
it 
is harder to  move large numbers from passivity into mass action, or to 
prevent  vacillation
on the urgency of "U.S. Out Now." 

The racism and racial  blindspots that afflict large swaths of the U.S. 
population
also shape the  current moment. Years of demonizing Arabs and Muslims have 
deeply
impacted  public consciousness. The constant pundit and media that "they"
are out to  get "us" (with their racially coded meanings of "them"
and "us") skew the  entire national conversation not just about Iraq or
the "war on terror" but  about immigration/immigrant rights, civil 
rights/arbitrary
executive power,  and interrogation techniques/torture. Much of the public is 
willing
to accept  elements of Bush's program (even if they are angry at 
administration
lies and  incompetence) as long as the bodies on Iraq's battlefields or in  
Guantánamo
torture chambers are Arab or Muslim. For too many U.S. people  Iraqis and 
enemy combatants
are "not like us" and instead part of "the  torturable class"
(to borrow a phrase from Graham Greene's biting satire on  Western spy 
agencies
and colonialism, "Our Man in Havana").  

COMPLICATED MONTHS AHEAD

All this puts complicated challenges in  front of the antiwar movement. The 
Iraq 
occupation remains the empire's most  vulnerable point. Amassing enough 
pressure
to force the U.S. out is the only  way to give the Iraqi people a chance to 
create
a decent future out of the  current horror. Defeating Washington in Iraq is 
of direct
benefit to people  struggling for justice from Bolivia and Venezuela to New 
Orleans.
Though it  will lead to even louder stab-in-the-back charges from the  
pro-warriors,
getting the U.S. out will be a major blow to the right's  strength and 
self-confidence.

This means that building the broadest  possible opposition to the Iraq 
occupation
stands at the pivot of antiwar  efforts. Outreach into the mainstream, 
mobilization
of all who can be  convinced to protest in any way, cooperation with groups 
and individuals
way  beyond the existing left/progressive ranks - all these are 
indispensable.  Important
initiatives for fall 2007 work in those directions are already  underway: 
check out
the Iraq Moratorium - _http://iraqmoratorium.org_ (http://iraqmoratorium.org) 
  - and  comprehensive plans for local
and regional protests initiated by United for  Peace and Justice - 
http://unitedforpeace.org

At the same time, efforts  to widen the base for anti-racist, anti-empire 
politics
are needed to  strengthen the mix. Regarding the Middle East, this especially 
 means
education around the Israel-Palestine conflict and the terrible U.S.  role. 
For an
assessment of Bush's latest so-called peace plan, see Phyllis  Bennis' new 
article at 
<_http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=13369_ 
(http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=22&ItemID=13369) >  

We are also mandated to weave anti-racist education and action into all  
arenas of
work. Racist structures and racist justifications are woven into  Washington's
policies from war, threatening war (Iran) and backing illegal  occupation 
(Israel/Palestine),
to "protecting our borders," "cutting back  wasteful spending"
and "fighting crime and promoting family values." Those  who believe that
"an injury to one is an injury to all," need to face this -  and combat
it - head on.


War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is a fiscally  sponsored project of the Center 
for Third
World Organizing. Donations to War  Times are tax-deductible; you can donate 
on-line
at _http://www.war-times.org_ (http://www.war-times.org)   or send a  check 
to War Times/Tiempo de Guerras, c/o 
P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville, CA  94662. 



************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism