|
1. The invasion of Iraq was supposed to be the next big step, maybe the decisive one, in a drive to have the US government establish itself as the unchallenged emperor of the world, and in doing so, evade the growing economic and political problems it faces on a global scale. After six months of occupation (since President Bush declared the end of "major combat"), it is clear that this bid for a new foreign policy approach and a new era of US world domination is a wreck, a classic case of imperial overreach in collapse. Instead, the US government is more isolated on the global stage than seemed possible two years ago.
Even with a new, formal UN Security Council resolution endorsing the occupation, the attitude of most of the large powers to Bush administration entreaties that they share the burden is, "You broke it, you bought it." Neither money nor military forces are forthcoming on a scale large enough to rescue the administration from an occupation they simply don't have enough troops for, an occupation which will require additional massive injections of money on top of the $87 billion just ponied up by a compliant although increasingly nervous Congress.
2. In the US itself, divisions in the ruling class are deepening over the wisdom of the unilateralism and the preventive war doctrine the Bushites are pushing and over the continuing occupation of Iraq. The media, however namby-pamby so far, have revealed enough of the truth about Iraq that the administration is crying about negative reporting and has started its own mendacious press offensive.
Splits also exist within the apparatus of government itself, including the upper levels of the military. The Wilson/Plame scandal and investigation is about more than partisan Republican vs. Democrat politics. It is a counterattack by the CIA and sections of the rich and powerful who are farsighted enough to realize that they need a secret service which can deliver reliable analysis about the dangers and opportunities facing them. "Faith-based" intelligence and the outing of agents working under deep cover is a recipe for disaster.
3. They may be in trouble, but the battle to end the occupation will not be an easy battle to win. The armed resistance to US occupation in Iraq has been surprisingly quick to get organized and learn tactical techniques the US military has been hard put to counter, even though there does not appear to be a coordinated national command or strategy. The White House and the Pentagon have kept US troops functioning mainly in "force protection mode" to keep US casualties to a minimum, but it would be foolish to think that the current situation will continue without a range of new strategic responses being developed by the US general command -- though such "cures" may prove worse than the disease.
The Bush administration may be showing the cracks in its armor of late (exposures, falling poll numbers, etc.), but it remains determined to push forward with the occupation and politically cannot afford to back down. Only 125 Representatives and just 12 Senators demonstrated even enough heart to vote against the $87 billion appropriation. Those who voted "yes" claimed to be supporting the troops even as their votes guaranteed that the occupation will keep right on until the Pentagon runs through every dime.
4. Those of us fighting to end the occupation face several strategic challenges. First, though Bush's free ride has expired, plenty of folks have still bought into the lies the government has spread so assiduously about weapons of mass destruction, al Qaeda connections, and the flourishing of democracy in Iraq today. What's more, many ordinary people here still do not follow the occupation closely, or see it as affecting their own lives. One of the best single tools we have is the sheer cost of this military adventure. The $87 billion Congress is voting to provide is on top of $79 billion they appropriated in April, and comes at a time of high unemployment, brutal cutbacks in social services and massive budget deficits. Continuing agitation around this expense (and around war profiteers like Halliburton sucking up those billions) will keep people focused on the reality behind the administration's happy talk about what a triumph the occupation is. It will also make it much harder for Bush when he has to come back to the well for more, probably by early summer of 2004, by which time he will be under much heavier fire from the Democrats.
A more difficult issue facing the movement is the question of what we should be demanding. Many activists feel: If we simply say "Bring Them Home Now!" aren't we simply compounding the disaster that sanctions, invasion and occupation have brought to the people of Iraq? Won't there be civil war, a return of Saddam Hussein, a Shi'ite theocracy or something else really bad? These sisters and brothers speak from a good place -- a grasp of the enormous damage the US has visited on the everyday people of Iraq and the understanding that they are owed reparations. But this position is also flavored with the "White Man's Burden" -- the idea that the presence of the US is necessary to Iraq's recovery. Reconstruction and other reparations cannot be brought to Iraq at bayonet point, even if the transnational corporate looting already underway were somehow stopped.
Related is the idea that we should be demanding that the UN take over the occupation. The fig leaf of a Security Council resolution, which the Bush administration strove so mightily to get, demonstrates the problem. The resolution does not improve anything for the people of Iraq. It leaves the US military running the show. At most it may hasten somewhat the installation of a US-chosen puppet regime.
5. The final strategic challenge facing the movement now is the fact that the Presidential election is just a year away. For many who opposed the invasion of Iraq or are coming to oppose the occupation, the logic is simple. As long as George W. Bush is in office, the occupation will continue, and the risk of further desperate adventures in Third World countries will continue. Therefore, our main task must be organizing to make sure he does not get a second term in 2004.
The logic is impeccable as far as it goes. The problem is that there is no assurance that whoever is chosen the Democratic candidate will even do anything much to end the occupation. Some, like Lieberman and Gephardt, have been ardent supporters of US intervention in Iraq and currently plan to run on a platform of doing a better job of it! Only Dennis Kucinich and Al Sharpton, both well behind in the polls and in the all-important grubbing for dollars, say outright that immediate withdrawal of US forces is their program.
The fact that Democratic politicians at all levels are now starting to criticize the Bush administration's conduct of the occupation is a major change and victory for the anti-war and anti-occupation movement. For the most part, the Democrats spent 2003 trying to formulate some way to challenge the Republicans without mentioning Iraq!
A broad-based, politically independent anti-occupation movement is essential to maximizing the opposition to the war. Individuals may, and surely will, be won to concentrate their activities on one or another of the Democratic campaigns, but this movement at least is unlikely to find itself dissolved into next year's electoral politics. Perhaps a greater danger would be the movement taking too much of a self-righteous stand against the elections, rather than seeking ways to unite with folks who are mainly oriented toward the 2004 elections.
6. One key task right now is to step up local activities. Big national demonstrations will always have their place, but vigils, demonstrations, teach-ins, press conferences, fundraisers and other local activities are definitely a higher order of importance at this time. They are better able to do four things that very much need doing now. The first is applying direct pressure to individual politicians who are already feeling the heat. The second is keeping the anti-occupation struggle in the local news, both broadcast and print. The third is keeping the issue before the masses of people and influencing the process of rethinking a lot of folks have undertaken. The fourth is providing outlets for people who have newly decided they are against the occupation to act on their new position and develop their understanding, integrating them into the movement.
Another key task for the movement at this crucial juncture is to popularize and build support for the organizing of veterans and military families (and increasingly of active-duty personnel) against the occupation. This work has been spearheaded by Bring Them Home Now!, a campaign inaugurated by Military Families Speak Out and Veterans For Peace. Their voices are a huge asset to our struggle to end this unjust and unjustifiable occupation. First, military families have the highest of stakes in the outcome of our movement. They follow developments around the occupation very closely and, given encouragement by others in the same boat, can speak out with passion and direct knowledge about conditions in Iraq.
Vets also provide an essential buffer for families who are called whiners and told to "suck it up," and for the movement overall. The administration and its supporters like to suggest that opponents of the occupation are naive or "anti-American" or even treasonous. Veterans are a living rebuke to this nonsense. And by virtue of shared experience, they are uniquely positioned to connect with the active-duty troops whose disgust with the whole occupation is coming to a boil.
7. One characteristic that organizing will require in the coming months is tactical flexibility. We must be ready to highlight and attack every outrage perpetrated by the Bush crew and the Pentagon -- phony letters from troops, generals calling Allah a false idol, sick and wounded troops warehoused in unfinished barracks, Halliburton collecting $1.75 a gallon for gas which is sold in Iraq for $.35 a gallon.... The list is endless.
Flexibility is also necessary because the situation can change so quickly. The neo-conservatives in and around the administration, like Wolfowitz and Perle, are promoting an attack on Syria, for instance. The obvious failure of their rosy scenario for Iraq has cut their influence, but they are working closely with Israel's Likud government to push for more military intervention in the Mideast.
The increased attacks by the Israeli regime and its supporters on the Palestinian people and Arab countries are criminal in themselves and pose enormous dangers of wider war. The movement must find ways to expose and protest these attacks, and to educate new anti-occupation activists.
8. Finally, we have to rebuild and extend the alliances that helped make the anti-war movement of last winter so powerful. One such alliance is with the revitalized anti-globalization movement, which is targeting the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas and other machinations by US mega-corporations to take maximum advantage of the new empire the Bush crew is trying to put in place.
Even more important is to reinforce the ties with the worldwide movement that shook the world during the run-up to the US invasion last year. That movement gave heart to activists fighting the onset of war here. And our struggles here helped galvanize the global resistance which left the Bush administration so isolated on the world political stage, and from the hundreds of millions of angry men and women on every continent. We battered the empire-builders before, and as our movement picks up steam, we can hit them even harder now.
National Executive Committee,
Freedom Road Socialist Organization /
Organización Socialista del Camino para la Libertad
|
