Friday, July 13, 2007


As the Iraq crisis deepens, several Republican senators have joined Democratic Party leaders in calling for a "change of course." In a lengthy July 12 press conference, President Bush refuted those calls, expressing the determination on the part of his administration and the Pentagon generals to achieve "victory."

The press conference coincided with the administration’s release of a highly fictionalized "progress report" on the war in Iraq since the addition of 30,000 additional troops brought total U.S. forces to more than 160,000.

What does the widening struggle within the ruling class establishment mean for the anti-war movement and all those opposed to war and occupation?

The congressional leaders—Democrats as well as Republicans—calling for a changed course are not advocating withdrawal from Iraq, but instead moving away from a failed strategy. They want to cut the number of U.S. troops in combat and reduce U.S. casualties, now at the highest level since the March 2003 invasion.

At the same time, there is near unanimity at the top about retaining the huge U.S. bases spread across the country and the massive U.S. embassy under construction in the center of Baghdad. When completed, it will be the largest embassy in the history of the world. It is intended to serve as the real center of power and decision making in that country far into the future.

Washington’s determination to control Iraq has everything to do with that country’s vast oil resources and key strategic position. That determination has not been diminished by the severe setbacks inflicted on the U.S. occupation by Iraqi resistance forces. Domination of the Persian Gulf region, which holds an estimated 70 percent of global petroleum reserves, remains a central objective of U.S. imperialist foreign policy.

Democratic leaders, like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and the Republican senators, like Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, Olympia Snowe and others, see the present war strategy as unsustainable.

What they want, above all, is to avoid a catastrophic U.S. defeat in Iraq. Such a defeat, they believe, could lead to the unraveling of U.S. domination in the region as a whole.

This perspective holds that pulling back from the major population centers, while remaining in Iraq—or just "over the horizon" in Kuwait, as Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) and others have proposed—would cut losses and also help maintain overall control of the country.

The Bush administration, Gen. David Petraeus and U.S. ambassador Ryan Crocker see it differently. They believe that any kind of retreat will be perceived as a catastrophic defeat. Such a defeat could shatter the already diminished concept of Pentagon invincibility and encourage other anti-imperialist rebellions.

Just keep repeating 'al-Qaida’

One of the objectives of the Iraq invasion was the "demonstration effect." Crushing Iraq and reducing it to the status of a colony was supposed to intimidate other governments that had not been toeing the U.S. line and allowing the unfettered exploitation of their resources. Instead, it has been demonstrated that it is possible to resist the most powerful military machine in history. That outcome is intolerable to the rulers of the empire.

The latest public opinion polls show support for the war at an all-time low. Seventy-one percent want to get out of Iraq—an all-time high.

Seeking to bolster support for continuing and, in fact, escalating the war, Bush turned to his most reliable weapon in his July 12 press conference. In over an hour of answering reporters’ questions, Bush never uttered the words "occupation" or "resistance," but did mention al-Qaida no less than 39 times. By all estimates, al-Qaida constitutes a small fraction of the Iraqi resistance forces.

Nor, of course, did Bush ever refer to the inconvenient fact that al-Qaida did not exist in Iraq prior to the U.S. invasion and destruction of the country’s existence as an independent state.

Iraq’s history since World War I, when it became a colony in the British Empire, has been one of fierce resistance to foreign occupation.

Anti-war opportunity

Left to their own devices, the political leaders in Washington will work out deals that meet the needs of corporate imperialism—the system they all serve.

The in-fighting over the war’s direction presents a big opening for the intervention of the people in the political process.

When those at the top are united, that is more difficult.

Public opinion polls have importance as a gauge of shifting mass sentiment. By themselves, polls cannot effect change.

What is needed more than ever is organized action by large numbers of people demanding that the war be ended now; that the U.S. get out of Iraq and the Middle East as a whole.

That is what makes the initiative taken by the ANSWER Coalition for anti-war demonstrations on Sept. 15 in Washington, D.C., and from Oct. 20-27 across the country so timely and important.

On Sept. 15, the attention of the world will be focused on Washington.

It is when Gen. Petraeus must submit his report on the "surge" in Iraq. A debate in Congress on another $145 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will follow.

A mass march from the White House to Congress on Sept. 15 will be followed by direct action demanding that Congress end funding of the war.

Oct. 21, will mark the 40th anniversary of the historic march on the Pentagon against the Vietnam War, under the banner, "From protest to resistance."

Pickets, sit-ins, student walkouts and other activities during the week of Oct. 20-27 will embody that spirit, and lead up to mass demonstrations across the country on Oct. 27.

For all those opposed to the war, and its terrible cost in lives and resources, now is the time to act. Only the people can stop the war.

http://www.answercoalition.org/