The Empire Strikes Back

national | miscellaneous | news report Saturday May 17, 2003 21:22 by Socialist Alternative

As the arm-chair crusaders of the conservative media celebrate another triumph, it’s important for those of us who opposed the war to form our own perspective. First of all, anyone who cares about democracy and human rights should be delighted to see the people of Iraq tearing down statues of Saddam Hussein and desecrating his palaces. After a quarter-century of brutal tyranny, they’ve earned the right to celebrate, and it’s not surprising to see many people greet American and British soldiers as liberators (after all, the people of Czechoslovakia greeted the Red Army with open arms in 1945 - it recieved a frostier reception in 1968).

Some of the worst predictions of the anti-war movement have not been fulfilled, thankfully. We feared that there might be tens or hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties; in fact there have been 2,000. This is certainly not because George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were motivated by real concern for Iraqi civilians; in previous wars the American government has bombed civilian targets for the sake of it, to test new weapons and show off their military prowess to the world. We had every reason to fear the same this time. If the Americans took any care to avoid civilian casualties, it was because of the massive pressure they were under from popular opinion in the west; the need to legitimate the war could not be met if there were images of mass slaughter in the media. In no previous war has this been the case. In that sense, the anti-war movement helped to save lives; it certainly wasn’t due to the alleged moderating influence which Tony Blair exerts in Washington. Nonetheless, many innocent people were killed, despite attempts made to sanitise the war by the belligerent camp. Weapons guaranteed to cause civilian casualties, such as cluster bombs, were used, and will continue to cause deaths for a long time to come; this should be borne in mind when the war-mongers congratulate themselves heartily.

It’s no great surprise that the regime collapsed so easily. It just goes to show that tyrants make lousy anti-imperialists. Without popular support, Saddam Hussein could never hope to overcome the gross military imbalance between Iraq and the US. It seems that the search for weapons of mass destruction will prove fruitless; certainly the fact that the regime did not use chemical weapons when facing extinction is powerful evidence that Bush’s claims were fraudulent. But nobody cares; any excuse will do. It has been claimed that the missing WMDs were in fact transported to Syria. Perhaps it will now be necessary to bomb Damascus, whereupon we will find that the nukes have been transported to Lebanon, or North Korea, or France, or wherever else is next on the list (in other news, it appears that Libya is close to developing a nuclear bomb, according to unnamed American officials quoted in the Telegraph. We can only commend Ghadaffi’s physicists on their impeccable sense of timing).

Whether or not the thousands of deaths can be justified will depend on whether the war makes things better for the Iraqi people. Already a humanitarian crisis is looming; according to aid agencies, unless supplies are delivered as soon as possible, 250,000 people could die in the next three months. Having spent $55bn on the war, the US Congress has now offered $270m for reconstruction; the UN says that at least $2bn is necessary. Britain has been equally stingy.

The supporters of war have claimed that the scenes in Baghdad are proof this was a war of liberation. But this is a false argument; if Satan himself had deposed Saddam Hussein and marched into Baghdad he would doubtless have been greeted with open arms. What will decide the question is the nature of the post-war regime. Donald Rumsfeld seems happy to let Iraqi cities descend into chaos so that it will appear necessary to rule Iraq with an iron fist in order to maintain “stability�. Jay Garner, with a background in the Republican party, the military-industrial complex and the Zionist lobby, is to take charge. It’s hardly paranoid to expect that his policies will be congenial to those interests. The many incidents of friction between the American forces and the Iraqi population which have already occurred will most likely only be the beginning. The contract to police Iraq is to be granted to DynCorp, a private firm responsible for gross abuses in Colombia and the Balkans.

The Bush administration will make sure that any government in Baghdad toes the line; any political elements, whether democratic, socialist or Islamist, which follow a radical nationalist agenda will be prevented from exercising power by any means necessary. Many Iraqi dissidents, including those who supported the war as the only way of deposing Saddam, fear that America will simply re-organise the repressive apparatus of the Baath under a new leadership, loyal to Washington. And of course, companies with close links to the American power elite will be granted extremely rewarding contracts for “reconstruction�.

If the Iraqis are to have any chance of achieving a real democracy, it will be necessary for the anti-war movement to become an anti-occupation movement. It’s already clear that most Iraqis, while grateful for the end of Saddam’s regime, distrust the US intensely. An article in the Guardian about conditions in a Basra hospital captured this mood. One doctor said “The Americans and the British want oil. Believe me. I do not for a minute think they are here for us.� Another, while more hopeful, told the journalist: “I have problems with this American government. This George Bush, his father lied to us. And now his son is lying to us as well. I love my country. I could have left and enjoyed a good life elsewhere, but I wanted to show the light of a bright future to my people. We have a chance to do this now, but time is against us. And we cannot trust this America.�

Even if the Americans are determined to replace one dictatorship with another, there will still have been progress in one respect: we could never have hoped to influence Saddam Hussein, but we can hold western governments to account. Everyone who marched against the war should now set their minds to this task. The movement for democracy in Iraq contains many people of outstanding calibre; they deserve a chance to rule themselves. But they will only get this chance if the Bush administration is prevented from turning the occupation into an exercise in neo-colonialism. The battle for Iraq has really just begun.

Further afield, the war has strengthened the position of the Sharon government, which has taken advantage of the distraction to begin targeting foreign peace activists in the occupied territories; two have been murdered in recent weeks (a British activist was shot in the head, while an American women was crushed under a bulldozer, which reversed back over her body to make sure she was dead). The Palestinian leadership are now fearful of being crushed, and are doing their best to appease Bush and Sharon; according to the Irish Times, “PA officials say they are anxious to resume security co-operation with Israel in the Gaza Strip.� Syria is another target; its support for Hizbollah will supply the pretext. Israel and its American friends hate the Islamic guerrilla force as it managed to inflict military defeat on the Israeli army in southern Lebanon, a humiliation which must be avenged. Then there’s Iran, Saudi Arabia: take your pick. Nothing is inconceivable now.

The most frightening warning of what may be in store came from former CIA chief James Woolsey, who said that “Iraq can be seen as the first battle in the fourth World War - for the Middle East� (the Cold war was the third, apparently). Woolsey is likely to take a role in the new Iraqi authority. He claims this new crusade will bring democracy to the region; but when it was put to him that elections tomorrow would be won by Islamist parties hostile to the US, he said “Well, then perhaps the election should be the day after tomorrow.� Or the day after that, or the day after that...

Other countries on the American hit-list will doubtless step up attempts to acquire WMDs; as North Korea shows, it’s the only way to be safe. The war on terror will keep on rolling until someone, somewhere gives the Americans a bloody nose. As the example of Vietnam showed, it’s quite possible to defeat the US military machine; but only if you have the support of your own people. American imperialism won’t be stopped by decrepit tyrants like Saddam, or by spoilt Saudi rich kids.

But in the long run the Americans are cutting the ground from underneath their own feet. The corrupt Arab regimes in the Middle East have strangled the potential of Arab nationalism for decades; if the Zionist neo-conservatives now provoke a resurgence of popular radicalism in the region, they will have unwittingly created a force capable of challenging Israeli-US dominance. They have already prompted an unprecedented mobilisation against the Iraqi war. If enough of those who took part in anti-war campaigning remain active, we will have the basis for a real anti-imperialist movement. The real test for the American empire will come when it faces an opponent, like the Sandinistas or the Vietnamese NLF in the past, with whom people in the west can sympathise. Saddam Hussein was an easy target; but if Bush (or his successor) intervenes in Latin America, they really will face another Vietnam.