RW ONLINE: Stalking Iraq\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nStalking Iraq\r\nUnjust War in the Making\r\n<\/p>
Revolutionary Worker #1166, September 15, 2002<\/i>, posted at rwor.org<\/p>\r\n
On September 5, 100 U.S. and British war planes and support aircraft \r\nconverged in 48 sorties over the town of al-Rutbah in southwestern Iraq.<\/p>\r\n
There is an escalating campaign of such attacks. The skies over Iraq are \r\nbeing filled with shrieking American planes--in a \"war of nerves\" intended to \r\naccompany the rapid buildup of other U.S. attack forces in the region.<\/p>\r\n
Over ten years ago, the U.S. send a vast invasion force to the Persian Gulf. \r\nThese forces devastated Iraq, destroyed its bridges, burnt its telephone and \r\ncommunications centers, flattened its hospitals and roads and government \r\ncenters. In thousands of sorties over 42 days, they dropped the equivalent of \r\nmore than 7.5 Hiroshima bombs over that country's cities, industries, border \r\nregions and highways. And they never left.<\/p>\r\n
A ring of U.S. military bases now encircles and threatens Iraq--in Turkey, \r\nSaudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait--with thousands of troops, tanks and a \r\nmassive fleet of attack aircraft. For ten years, Iraq's people have literally \r\nlived in the crosshairs--with foreign warplanes attacking from the skies \r\nrepeatedly--\"routinely\" according to the Pentagon. The U.S. government has \r\nenforced a brutal embargo on Iraq--cutting off the supplies and trade needed to \r\nrebuild the country and establish a normal life. UN reports have estimated that \r\n500,000 children died from malnutrition and illness as a result of that \r\nembargo.<\/p>\r\n
Now the White House is moving single-mindedly to launch a new full-scale war \r\non Iraq.<\/p>\r\n
CBS news recently documented that on September 11 itself, minutes after the \r\nplane attacks, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld told his aides to \r\nprepare war on Iraq--even though no evidence, then or now, has ever linked Iraq \r\nto 9\/11. The notes of Rumsfeld's aide said: \"Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things \r\nrelated and not.\"<\/p>\r\n
Last February, the New York Times <\/i>reported that the White House had \r\nmade two strategic decisions: \"First, the Iraq problem has to be solved, not \r\nsimply managed as it was during the two previous U.S. administrations.... \r\nSecond, Washington is prepared to push beyond the limitations imposed by \r\ninternational sentiment, Arab public opinion and even the original UN \r\nresolutions that opened the way for Operation Desert Storm 11 years ago.\"<\/p>\r\n
Now, the escalating U.S. buildup in the Persian Gulf shows how deadly serious \r\nthese plans are.<\/p>\r\n
Scotland's Herald <\/i>newspaper wrote (August 16), \"The Pentagon has moved \r\n50,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines within striking distance of Iraq in \r\nthe past 10 months under cover of deployments targeting global terrorism, \r\naccording to senior UK military sources.\"<\/p>\r\n
The U.S. is rapidly finishing its expansion of a new base at Qatar, so it can \r\nlaunch air and land attacks even without Saudi support. Several massive carrier \r\nNaval groups have been moved into the region. The USS Washington <\/i>, in the \r\nArabian Sea, was used to launch the latest wave of air attacks on Iraq.<\/p>\r\n
In July, the U.S. carried out joint military maneuvers with Jordan, to the \r\nwest of Iraq, practicing for war. In August and September, they unleashed this \r\nwave of air attacks. This coming fall, the Pentagon openly says it will \r\nconcentrate thousands of troops and tanks along Iraq's southern border with \r\nKuwait-- supposedly for more \"maneuvers.\"<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
Ruling Class Debates
and Gambles<\/p>\r\n
You get a sense of how reckless the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld moves are when you \r\nlook at the controversies that have erupted within and between the ruling \r\nclasses of the world.<\/p>\r\n
Polemics have broken out within <\/i>the U.S ruling class over this war. \r\nPolicy disputes have emerged between the U.S. and its major European \r\nallies--including most prominently Germany. And differences have emerged between \r\nthe U.S. government and its local Muslim allies in the Middle East-- including \r\nespecially Turkey, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all of which loudly oppose (and fear) \r\na new war on Iraq.<\/p>\r\n
Within the U.S. ruling class, powerful and influential figures are \r\ncomplaining publicly that the Bush administration's war planners may be rushing \r\ninto a historic disaster for U.S. imperialism. They include a number of \r\ngenerals, key newspapers like the New York Times <\/i>and Washington \r\nPost,<\/i>and an influential squad of ruling class \"wise men\"--like James Baker, \r\nLawrence Eagleburger and Admiral Scowcroft--who have held top foreign policy \r\nposts in previous governments. Secretary of State Colin Powell, who can't \r\npublicly support their charges, is widely believed to be their silent \r\npartner.<\/p>\r\n
James A. Baker III, former Secretary of State for George Bush Senior, wrote \r\nin the New York Times <\/i>(August 25): \"Regime change in Iraq is the policy \r\nof the current administration, just as it was the policy of its predecessor. \r\nThat being the case, the issue for policymakers to resolve is not whether to use \r\nmilitary force to achieve this, but how to go about it.\"<\/i><\/p>\r\n
However, these critics are deeply worried that the Pentagon's war planners \r\nhave convinced themselves they can knock off Iraq's government relatively easily \r\nand quickly--relying heavily on air attacks and high-tech bunker busters.<\/p>\r\n
The critics charge that the Bush administration therefore assumes it can \r\nbasically \"do it alone\"--without the military support or even political approval \r\nof other powers, perhaps without definite commitment from regional powers like \r\nTurkey and Saudi Arabia, or without the legal approval of international \r\norganizations like the United Nations.<\/p>\r\n
They worry openly that the war would be more expensive, more protracted, more \r\nbloody and more difficult--than the Bush White House expects. They point out \r\nthat most of the $60 billion costs of the last Gulf War <\/i>were charged to \r\nothers, especially Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.<\/p>\r\n
And the critics express particular concern that the government has not \"made \r\nits case\" with the masses of people in the United States--and they fear that a \r\ndifficult war with casualties, intense fighting and perhaps deep disruptions in \r\noil production could give rise to powerful movements of resistance around the \r\nworld and within the U.S. itself.<\/p>\r\n
James A. Baker III wrote: \"We would have to be extremely lucky to take out \r\nthe top leadership through insertion into Iraq of a small rapid-strike force. \r\nAnd this last approach carries significant political risks for the \r\nadministration, as President Jimmy Carter found out in April 1980.\" Carter's \r\n\"disaster in the desert\" of Iran contributed to his disgrace and replacement by \r\nRonald Reagan and George Bush Senior.<\/p>\r\n
General Tommy Franks, speaking for the Bush administration, argues that Iraq \r\ncan be beaten with as few as 80,000 soldiers--while experts from the Pentagon to \r\nJerusalem argue that 200,000 or 300,000 troops would be required.<\/p>\r\n
Pentagon generals went to the Washington Post <\/i>(July 28) to air their \r\nconcerns that U.S. forces might face heavy casualties if the Iraqi army dug \r\nitself into cities and forced invaders to fight house by house--in the so-called \r\n\"Stalingrad\" scenario--and they believe that the White House war plans greatly \r\nunderestimate such dangers. General Jones, the commander of the Marine Corps and \r\nsoon-to- be NATO Supreme Commander, said, \"You better have Plan B in your hip \r\npocket.\"<\/p>\r\n
Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni (who was recently Bush's own representative in \r\nPalestine) was remarkably disrespectful to his president in an August 23 speech: \r\n\"If you ask me my opinion, Gen. Scowcroft, Gen. Powell, Gen. Schwarztkopf, Gen. \r\nZinni, maybe all see this the same way. It might be interesting to wonder why \r\nall the generals see it the same way, and all those that never fired a shot in \r\nanger and are really hell-bent to go to war see it a different way.\"<\/p>\r\n
If the war proves difficult, these imperialist spokesmen are particularly \r\nconcerned that the U.S. does not find itself isolated. Baker argued that \r\nattacking Iraq without first making progress toward pacifying Palestine is \r\nespecially risky.<\/p>\r\n
And finally, the ruling class critics raise serious concerns about \"the \r\nmorning after\"-- what happens after the war? Iraq is a large, complex country \r\nthat would be difficult to occupy--and hard to hold together. There are no \r\npowerful pro-U.S. opposition forces ready to serve as a puppet government. The \r\nU.S. ally Turkey is desperately concerned that Iraq may fly apart and the \r\nnorthern Kurds might secede, deeply threatening Turkey's own bloody rule of \r\nKurds within Turkey.<\/p>\r\n
The fact that loyal, experienced, influential imperialist \"wise men\" are so \r\nrudely public about their concerns shows just how reckless a future attack on \r\nIraq might be.<\/p>\r\n
World class oppressors are moving steadily toward a major gamble. Their war \r\nplans will mean great suffering and injustice for millions of people. And at the \r\nsame time, it may also turn out very badly for them--it may unleash forces they \r\ncan't control, expose them in ways they didn't expect, and weaken them in ways \r\nthat give openings for revolutionary people.<\/p>\r\n
*****<\/p>\r\n
Consider this: The U.S. has a long history of \"regime changes.\" The CIA \r\nhelped murder Lumumba and installed Mobutu to rape the Congo for decades. They \r\nhelped murder Allende in Chile and installed Pinochet in a nightmare of massacre \r\nand mass murder. They overthrew Mosadegh and installed the brutal Shah of Iran. \r\nThe list is long--complete with military dictatorships in Greece and Brazil and \r\nthe Marcos dictatorship in Philippines.<\/p>\r\n
Why should anyone with a heart and a brain support U.S. plans for \"regime \r\nchange\" anywhere?<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
Evidence and Pretexts<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
The Bush administration sent Vice President Cheney to answer these critics \r\nwith a major speech in Nashville on August 26. Claiming that Iraq's government \r\nwas close to nuclear capability, he spoke of great urgency and danger. \"The \r\nrisks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action,\" he said.<\/p>\r\n
From all sides, the U.S. government has been pressed for evidence that Iraq \r\nis a burning \"threat\" to its neighbors, to the U.S. or anyone else.<\/p>\r\n
In response Cheney cited a seven-year-old report from an Iraqi \r\ndefector--hardly credible grounds for sudden panic and action. The yapping lap \r\ndog Tony Blair promised to release the \"dossier\" of evidence--but so far, \r\nnothing. When a reporter asked Rumsfeld adviser Richard Perle for evidence that \r\nIraq poses \"immediate threat\" he answered, \"Trust me.\"<\/p>\r\n
The International Atomic Energy Agency reported at the end of 1998: \"There \r\nwere no indications to suggest... that Iraq had produced more than a few grams \r\nof weapons-grade nuclear material.\" The British Guardian <\/i>wrote: \"Most \r\nexperts believe that President Saddam's lack of weapons-grade uranium or \r\nplutonium is the main obstacle to an Iraqi bomb.\"<\/p>\r\n
As for evidence that Iraq is \"seeking\" bomb material, here is one example \r\ncited in the press: It is charged that in 1999 the Iraqi government bought six \r\nlithotripter machines (that shatter kidney stones without surgery)--it is \r\nclaimed that the switches used in those medical machines \"could also\" be used in \r\na nuclear device. Iraq is accused of buying \"spare switches.\"<\/p>\r\n
Hardly the basis for flattening a country, seizing its oilfields, installing \r\nsome brutal puppet regime, and occupying it for years!<\/p>\r\n
On July 28, the Washington Post <\/i>reported on its front page: \"Despite \r\nPresident Bush's repeated bellicose statements about Iraq, many senior U.S. \r\nmilitary officers contend that President Saddam Hussein poses no immediate \r\nthreat.\" These officers, reported to include members of the Joint Chiefs of \r\nStaff, don't believe Cheney either.<\/p>\r\n
Furthermore, the U.S. argument--that they would be decapitating, invading, \r\nand occupying a country to prevent a nuclear program--doesn't even make logical \r\nsense. The U.S. has been bombing Iraq for more than 10 years and, if they were \r\nonly concerned about Iraq's nuclear capacity, they could bomb an Iraqi nuclear \r\nfacility from the air, like Israel did in 1981.<\/p>\r\n
Meanwhile, there are other armies in that region that do have nukes and \r\nrepeatedly threaten to use them--<\/i>specifically Israel and the U.S. (General \r\nSchwartzkopf recently repeated on TV that he personally threatened to use nukes \r\nagainst Iraq in 1991.)<\/p>\r\n
The fact is that the official U.S. talk of \"weapons of mass destruction\" is a \r\nsmokescreen- -a mix of lies, exaggerations and half-truths--designed to hide the \r\nreal motives, goals and class interests <\/i>motivating the plans for U.S. \r\nattack.<\/p>\r\n<\/b>
The Imperialism
Behind the War<\/p>\r\n
For the U.S. ruling class, the risk is tempting because the prize is big. \r\nThey are aiming for nothing less than recasting international relations and \r\nsecuring unchallenged control in the world.<\/p>\r\n
A key part of this is unprecedented military superiority and the will to use \r\nit.<\/p>\r\n
A second part of this is control over the energy reserves that make modern \r\nindustry roll. Powerful economic rivals of the U.S., Germany and Japan, are \r\nheavily dependent on Persian Gulf oil. And tight, direct, U.S. military and \r\npolitical control over the Persian Gulf translates in many ways into greater \r\ndominance over the world economy, and over potential rivals.<\/p>\r\n
At the same time the U.S. imperialists feel a real urgency: their hold over \r\nthe Gulf is shaky. And Bush argues, \"Time is not on our side.\"<\/p>\r\n
None of the three major countries of the Gulf--Iraq, Iran and Saudi \r\nArabia--are today stable reliable regimes for U.S. imperialist \r\ninterests--despite two decades of intense U.S. intrigue and mounting military \r\nintervention in the region.<\/p>\r\n
While the Iraqi regime has a history of brutality against the Kurdish people \r\nand progressive movements, Iraq's government has been a thorn in the U.S. side, \r\na wild card, a defiant regime in a strategic area. It has shown its willingness \r\nto destabilize U.S. plans by directly attacking Israel. Saddam Hussein even \r\nreportedly sent assassins hunting Bush Senior. The new world order envisioned by \r\nU.S. imperialists has little room for such a role model. General Ehud Barak, the \r\nprevious Prime Minister of Israel, said in a recent column that \"Saddam Hussein \r\nhas set an example of defiance, especially against the first President Bush, \r\nthat other Arab leaders cannot and should not emulate.\"<\/p>\r\n
And Iraq is at the heart of the world's energy sources, sitting on proven \r\nreserves of 112 billion barrels, second only to Saudi Arabia's 256 billion \r\nbarrels.<\/p>\r\n
Meanwhile the events of September 11 unveiled how unstable and unreliable \r\nSaudi Arabia really is for imperialist interests. Despite Saudi Arabia's \r\ncomplete dependence on the U.S. (and international oil companies) and despite \r\nits status as \"long-time ally,\" it is now known that a rift within the Saudi \r\nruling class over the growing U.S. military presence in the Gulf played a role \r\nin creating and financing al-Qaida and pushing conservative Islamist forces \r\ntoward attacks on the U.S. (In Washington circles, Saudi Arabia has now been \r\njokingly called \"the kernel of evil.\")<\/p>\r\n
The needs of capitalism in its imperialist stage are drawing the U.S. deeper \r\ninto the Persian Gulf-- toward greater intervention--and possibly toward direct \r\noccupation of major oilfields and even more openly colonial imposition of \r\nsubservient governments. The immediate target is Iraq, but tomorrow's target may \r\nbe Saudi Arabia itself, and perhaps beyond it Iran (which already has been \r\nlabeled part of an \"axis of evil\").<\/p>\r\n
The logic of U.S. <\/i>imperialist interests make other <\/i>powers, like \r\nGermany and Japan far more reluctant. These countries are far more directly \r\nreliant on Persian Gulf oil. Even a temporary disruption of oil flow there would \r\nhave a profound impact on their economies (and everyone remembers that the 1991 \r\nwar set the Kuwaiti and Iraqi oilfields on fire!). If a future U.S. attack \r\nunleashes massive upsurges against the region's governments, the instability \r\nwould be an especially dangerous crisis for countries like Germany.<\/p>\r\n
Tony Blair has emerged as a lonely voice supporting the U.S. plans--and faced \r\nresignations in his cabinet over it.<\/p>\r\n
Mo Mowlam, a former member of the Blair cabinet, wrote: \"What is most \r\nchilling is that the hawks in the Bush administration must know the risks \r\ninvolved. They must be aware of the anti-American feeling throughout the Middle \r\nEast. They must be aware of the fear in Egypt and Saudi Arabia that a war \r\nagainst Iraq could unleash revolutions, disposing of pro-western governments, \r\nand replacing them with populist anti-American Islamist fundamentalist regimes. \r\nWe should all remember the Islamist revolution in Iran. The Shah was backed by \r\nthe Americans, but he couldn't stand against the will of the people.\"<\/p>\r\n
Even if the U.S. war goes easily, even if there are not disasters in oil \r\nsupply and prices--U.S. victory over Iraq doesn't look so good from Berlin \r\neither: The European Union is not too thrilled with the idea that their oil \r\njugular will be clenched even more firmly and directly in the hands of the U.S. \r\nmilitary.<\/p>\r\n
Germany is a close NATO ally that has supported the U.S. in every filthy war \r\nit has waged in 50 years. It is a major development in world relations, a major \r\neruption of inter-imperialist conflict--that Germany, sitting at the heart of \r\nthe European Union, rejects the U.S. war, rejecting U.S. pretexts as nonsense \r\nand calling their war a dangerous \"adventure.\" Germany's major parties have all \r\nthreatened to withdraw German military units from Kuwait if the U.S. presses \r\nahead with plans to attack Iraq--and there is open talk that this may signal a \r\nbreak in alliance with an impact lasting decades.<\/p>\r\n
Meanwhile Russia, another imperialist contender, is rushing to work out a $40 \r\nbillion economic and trade cooperation package with Iraq.<\/p>\r\n
The threat of \"with us or against us\" has not gotten the U.S. a blank check \r\nso far on this major new war.<\/p><\/b><\/i>\r\n<\/b>
The Mission Defines
the Coalition<\/p><\/i>\r\n<\/i>
\"The problem is that he has or seems to have committed himself so strongly \r\nthat it is hard to imagine how he can climb down. And that is the real problem, \r\nthat not only I have, but that all of us in Europe have.\"<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>\r\n
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>
<\/p>\n","contact":"","link":"www.rwor.org","address":"","phone":"","parent_id":0,"mime_type":"text\/html","summary":"The people of Iraq are being placed at the ground zero of a heartless assault. Many will die, the cities will be targeted again, their resources will be seized at gunpoint. And the war planners speak of sacrificing thousands of U.S. soldiers. It is an intolerable situation.","numcomment":0,"fileurl":"\/uploads\/2002\/09\/rw_online_stalking_iraq.htm","filesize":"22.0 kibibytes","article_url":"\/news\/2002\/09\/19072.php"},"attachments":[],"comments":[]}