The other war party

Why the Democrats aren’t the antiwar alternative in
2004

The other war party

December 5, 2003 | Page 8

MOST ANTIWAR activists view the 2004 presidential
election as an opportunity to improve U.S. foreign
policy by voting out the warmonger-in-chief, George W.
Bush. Even among radicals who usually have sharp
criticisms of the Democratic Party, the idea that
activists must back a Democrat against Bush in
November is widespread.

On the face of it, the argument for "regime change"
through the ballot box seems to make sense. After all,
the opposition of close U.S. allies, international law
and a huge worldwide antiwar movement didn’t stop Bush
from lying his way into a war on Iraq. And according
to the Bush Doctrine, the conquest of Iraq and
Afghanistan are the opening shots in an endless
campaign for oil and empire--in which unilateralism,
pre-emptive wars and tactical nuclear weapons are all
fair game.

But for all their extremism, Bush’s policies are, in
crucial ways, a logical extension of U.S. foreign
policy dating back before September 11--when the
Democrats controlled the White House. AARON HESS
explains why.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ANTIWAR ACTIVISTS arguing to vote Bush out--and a
Democrat in--stress that the war in Iraq and the Bush
Doctrine represent a sharp departure from past U.S.
foreign policy. For example, Michael Albert of ZNet
argues, "However bad his replacement may turn out,
replacing Bush will improve the subsequent mood of the
world and its prospects of survival. Bush represents
not the whole ruling class and political elite, but a
pretty small sector of it. That sector, however, is
trying to reorder events so that the world is run as a
U.S. empire."

Writers like Albert aren’t wrong to point out the
extremism of the Bush Doctrine. But it is wrong to
claim that empire-building is the project of only a
small sector of the U.S. elite.

September 11 provided the pretext for the U.S. ruling
class to push its imperialist agenda across the
globe--as National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
pointed out, the hijackings provided an "enormous
opportunity." The Bush gang has pushed this agenda in
a more brazen fashion than the Democrats--for
instance, by flouting traditional allies and using
cowboy "with-us-or-against-us" rhetoric.

But there are no differences of principle between the
Republican and Democratic Party when it comes to war
and empire. Much of the political groundwork for
invading and occupying Iraq was laid by the Clinton
administration.

Pro-war hawks Robert Kagan and William Kristol make
this point in a recent article in the right-wing
Weekly Standard magazine--subtitled "The case for war
in Iraq, with testimony from Bill Clinton." Kagan and
Kristol cite a speech that Clinton gave at the
Pentagon in 1998, which was meant to prepare the
American public for a full-scale invasion. In it,
Clinton declared that the U.S. was threatened by "an
unholy axis‚ of international terrorists and outlaw
states"--and singled out Saddam Hussein’s regime.
Sound familiar?

It was under Clinton’s reign that "regime change"
became official U.S. policy, with the passing of the
Iraq Liberation Act in 1998. Although they didn’t
follow through on the threat, Clinton and the
Democrats kept Iraq firmly in the crosshairs of U.S.
imperialism--and spared ordinary Iraqis no suffering.

During the Clinton years, the U.S. regularly bombed
Iraq and enforced deadly economic sanctions that took
the lives of more than 1 million people. The Clinton
administration also paved the way for a number of
other policies now enshrined in the Bush Doctrine.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

BESIDES BOMBING and starving Iraqis, Clinton sent the
U.S. military to fight wars across the globe. In
Serbia, Somalia and Haiti, the Clinton administration
cloaked its wars in the rhetoric of humanitarianism.

But these invasions had no more to do with liberation
than Bush’s rampage in Iraq. Rather, they were aimed
at establishing the U.S. as the world cop after the
Cold War.

As the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)--the
administration’s main statement of military
policies--put it in 1997, the U.S. must shape "the
international security environment in ways that
promote and protect U.S. national interests." Further,
the QDR asserted that "preventing the emergence of a
hostile coalition or hegemon" was a key goal of U.S.
foreign policy.

In other words, the U.S. must use every
means--including its war machine--to advance its
domination of the planet. Another Pentagon document
during the Clinton years, Joint Vision 2020, promoted
the idea that the U.S. must strive for "full spectrum
dominance"--military superiority of land, sea, air and
outer space.

The Clinton record shows why it is wrong to see
empire-building as merely a policy of isolated sectors
of the American elite. Historically, Democrats have
been responsible for some of the worst crimes of U.S.
imperialism.

Democratic President Harry Truman ordered the atomic
obliteration of two Japanese cities, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, as a demonstration of U.S. power at the end
of the Second World War. And Lyndon Johnson, who many
in the 1960s peace movement supported as a "lesser
evil," dramatically escalated the war in Vietnam.

Democrats are just as committed to advancing U.S.
military, economic and political power across the
globe as the Republicans. The means may differ between
them. But the ends have always been the same.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

WHAT INTERNATIONAL institutions to employ or ignore,
what rhetoric to mouth, what timing and tactics to
use--these issues will always be up for debate within
the ruling class. But the content of these debates are
restricted to our rulers’ common agenda of advancing
U.S. power.

This agenda flows from the nature of the capitalist
system itself, which is based on the competitive race
for profits between corporations and the national
states that they’re tied to.

The growing resistance in Iraq today has hampered
Bush’s plans. In turn, Democratic candidates in recent
months have voiced disagreements over Bush’s war and
occupation. For instance, most candidates have urged a
wider United Nations (UN) role in Iraq and a decrease
of U.S. forces.

But these disagreements do not question the U.S.
government’s right to intervene anywhere in the
world--the basis of Bush’s "war on terrorism." In a
key policy speech at the Council on Foreign Relations
in July, Democratic frontrunner Howard Dean argued
"that despite winning a military battle in Iraq, the
U.S. may be losing a larger war." Every Democratic
presidential candidate supports the U.S.’s "war on
terrorism"--even as they argue over different
strategies for fighting it.

The antiwar movement can’t go forward by backing a
party that supports the occupation of Iraq, whether by
U.S. or UN forces. History shows that when our side
backs a Democratic "peace candidate," it is a recipe
for demoralization and confusion.

In 1964, many in the antiwar movement--including its
main student organization, Students for a Democratic
Society--backed Johnson’s presidential run with the
slogan "Half the way with LBJ." After winning the
election, Johnson massively escalated the Vietnam War.

Rhetoric aside, the Democratic Party is a party of
war. The only force that has ever reined in the war
makers in Washington has been a mass movement from
below. U.S. imperialism was humiliated in Vietnam by
the combination of the Vietnamese resistance, protests
on the streets at home and revolt within the U.S.
armed forces.

Although the seeds of such a revolt today have yet to
fully blossom, they are present--in the demonstrations
around the world, the anger of American GIs and the
growing resistance of ordinary Iraqis to Bush’s
colonial occupation. Our job in the antiwar movement
today is to build that revolt.