(Your Voice in a World where Zionism, Steel, and Fire have turned Justice Mute)
After the Feb 15 demonstrations, a discussion began in an internet discussion list on how these demonstrations might influence the march of America toward war. The following text is based on that discussion. Of course, after the discussion took place new events, notably the refusal by Turkey to grant U.S. troops the right to pass through its soil in order to attack Iraq, and the alignment of Syria with Iraq in the Arab League summit, came to reinforce the view expressed in the text that follows, namely that the opposition of (mainly) European countries to the war is neither make-believe, nor temporary, but rather the genuine expression of deep-rooted interests.
Abu Nicola al Yunani
Q: However, I was wondering after yesterday's worldwide anti-war demonstrations, and the diplomatic opposition to the war in the Security Council session the day before that, whether all this opposition to war will make the U.S. want to attack sooner rather than later.
I mean the U.S. government will not let its foreign policy be dictated by Europe, Russia, China, or world public opinion, and imperialism is not about to change its foreign policy objectives by abandoning the idea of taking over Iraq.
If the U.S. attacks, there will be three possible outcomes:
Let us see how the events of the last three days [the security council discussion of Feb 14 and the anti-war demonstrations of Feb 15] influence the probability of each outcome:
Up to a few days ago, it seemed that the entire world is standing behind Bush: most governments, even in the Arab world, seemed ready to capitulate to U.S. pressures. The masses in the west had not made their voice heard, so it seemed possible that they will stay out of the conflict. The masses in the Arab world are known to be on the side of Iraq in this conflict, but there were doubts as to the extent to which they would be able to influence the outcome. Under such circumstances, it was possible - though not probable - that sections of the currently ruling strata in Iraq would be utterly demoralised, and would opt to collaborate with the enemy, rather than risk defeat. Recent developments, however (and I consider the stance of France and Germany in the S.C. as important as the demonstrations) have shown that Iraq's isolation is fictitious. Popular masses, even in the west, are supporting Iraq, and several European governments, although by no means supporting Iraq, are opposing Bush's war plans. I believe there can be no doubt that the morale of Iraqis has risen tremendously during the last week, and that this makes the possibility of some form of capitulation by the Iraqi leadership (which we must not forget is what Americans were wishing for) all but impossible.
So IF THERE IS A WAR, it will probably be a long and bloody one. Now in a long, serious war (as opposed to a bombing campaign without involvement of ground troops, as in Yugoslavia, or to the occupation of Grenada), the morale of the participants is at least as important as the balance of military equipment.
Zionists have had to learn this the hard way in Lebanon twice: once in Beirut, and once in South Lebanon. There is a big difference, of course, in that Zionist soldiers fighting in Lebanon had very serious reasons to fight, even to risk their lives: The future of their "state" depended on it. A defeat in Lebanon would prove to the entire Arab world that they are not invincible, and could very well set in motion a process that would end with their being deported back to their countries of origin (assuming that these countries would be willing to take them back). So for zionists, the war in lebanon was a matter of life and death. In contrast, the poor black and hispanic Americans who compose the bulk of the U.S. army, are in it for the pay. They have no reason whatsoever to risk their lives, AND ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT - and this is not just a conjecture: We have already seen it happen in Kosovo, when the 4 soldiers in an APC vehicle surrendered to Yugoslav soldiers who were armed with plain rifles, rather than risk their lives (even though the risk was almost nil). After enjoying the hospitality of their captors for a couple of weeks, they were released and spoke on TV against the war, against the U.S., and in favor of Yugoslavia.
Now the only thing that MIGHT make those guys willing to fight, was the belief that their side has the moral high ground. Let's face it, morality is the only thing that can lead someone to risk his life. It can be the warped morality of an occupier who knows that the interests of his society are at stake, or the high morality of a martyr who willingly blows himself up in order to safeguard the future of his or her (excuse the politically correct form) nation - but it has to be morality. Just as you don't blow yourself up for pay, so you can't be forced to walk into the "jungles of concrete" of Baghdad and risk your life there for the meagre pay of an American G.I.
Of course, the material interests of those who are "the damned of the Earth" of American society (and it is this section of that society that populates the U.S. army) do not exactly coincide with those of Bush's clique. If Iraq wins and the U.S. society as it now stands goes to hell, they have "nothing but their chains to lose". This is the objective reason why I believed, even till a week ago, that the U.S. cannot win a protracted war in Iraq.
But now, even subjective factors are against the U.S. With the entire world erupting in protest against the coming war, with all major black leaders in the U.S. denouncing it in no uncertain terms, with Hollywood actors marching and speaking against it, how are these people going to fight? We may even see explosions BEFORE the first stage of the war (the air bombing campaign) ends and ground troops are called to action.
So I believe it is clear that recent developments raise the probability of an Iraqi victory, and lessen the probability of a defeat, either after a long fight, or without a fight. I can't see how this would make more probable an attack "sooner rather than later".
Of course, it is just as difficult for the U.S. to NOT wage the war, as it is to wage it. If they don't declare war now, it will be clear to everyone that they are NO LONGER able to take on a country like Iraq. You can imagine what the ramifications of this realisation will be on a worldwide scale.
It seems to me that the only thing that might enable the U.S. to fight is a second provocation like the one of 9/11. It is clear that the U.S. administration is playing with this idea - whence the "code orange alerts", warnings about a "dirty bomb attack", etc. But this too is a road fraught with risks, and I wonder if they will dare follow it. Fortunately for us, many people have spent days and nights researching and proving beyond reasonable doubt that the U.S. government was behind 9/11. The results of their research may not have reached the U.S. media, but in France, for example, Thierry Meyssan's book broke all previous records of book sales - so much so that the "powers that be" have been forced to inundate the shelves of bookstores and the panels of TV shows with idiotic books and idiotic persons rambling against anti-americanism. If Bush attempts a "dirty bomb" attack, and the French expose him, officially or unofficially - and they may well do it - this will backfire and you 'll have a revolution inside the U.S.
Just to avoid misunderstandings, I am not saying here that the French or German government suddenly discovered the meaning of the word "honor". They, like the Russians and Chinese, are acting in a desperate bid to safeguard their own selfish interests.
But by now, it has become obvious to them that the U.S. don't want them to be "partners" in the way to globalisation (to be precise, cannot AFFORD to make them partners), but bootlickers. If Iraq is defeated, Iraqi oil will not be grabbed by TotalFinaElf or LukOil, but by Halliburton and Exxon. Under the current circumstances of economic crisis - a crisis whose depth and breadth has not yet become fully apparent, U.S. companies, and the government that represents their collective interests, are forced to shed the sheep's clothes and show their true face: that of pirates out to conquer and destroy.
For better or worse, there is no longer room for compromise in this game. The U.S. are at the throats of their "partners", and those partners will have to fight for dear life.
Q: Still, you have left the question "so will imperialism abandon the idea of war now?!" unanswered. You phrase your remarks in terms of "if war breaks out.." without eventually reaching a conclusion as to the likelihood of war or no war. Thus, we need to be taken one or more analytical steps further in the direction of some conclusion either way…
That's true. The reason, of course, is that I don't have the answer. In my humble opinion, right now even Rumsfeld doesn't know whether he will finally attack or not.
I agree with you that the U.S. cannot afford NOT to attack - they have advanced too far along the path of war, for a retreat to be conceived as anything else than defeat without a battle.
BUT, I also believe they cannot afford to attack, for the reasons I have explained above. Yet when they can afford neither to attack, nor not to, they will eventually have to do one or the other. The situation is far from being clear, and I believe nobody can make an accurate prediction right now. The only thing we can do is analyse trends.
One thing I would say, however, is that the longer they wait, the more difficult it will be for them to attack - one more reason we should be happy that France & Co are putting obstacles in the path of war.
Q: But the Franco-German "alternative to war" (total occupation of Iraq by UN forces to facilitate keeping the country disarmed) is in fact the US plan minus any risk to the imperialist soldiers. Even if the Europeans simply try to keep the current status quo -- murderous sanctions, encirclement, disarmament, etc. -- that is also war without risk for the West. In a sense it's more clever than the US approach, yet just as rapaciously imperialist.
No, no, no!
You totally miss the point.
The U.S. desperately needs to take direct control of Iraq, and after that Saudi Arabia etc, in order both to revive their economy and to strangle European powers. France, Germany, Russia, Belgium etc, in the other hand, want to keep the status quo, which means they will have equal access to the oil of the region. If the American plan came to pass, this would be a disaster for them. You should have no doubt whatsoever that if the U.S. occupies Iraq, Chirac will be drawn to the courts - not for "crimes agains humanity" perhaps, although nothing should be ruled out, but certainly for economic scandals.
On the other hand, if the U.S. is defeated in Iraq, the outcome would be equally nighmarish for the European ruling class. The political situation worldwide will change, revolutions will break out all over the place (initially in the Arab world, probably, but Europe is not exempt from them either). In short, we would have a repeat of the 60s, with the significant difference that then the economy of imperialist countries was blossoming, while now it is in a terrible condition. The very survival of the European regimes would be at stake. Just as importantly, the process of integration of European economy into the global one is sufficiently advanced that, if the U.S. go down, they are doomed to go down with it.
So what are the Europeans going to do? Frankly, they don't have much room for manoeuvering. Where the U.S. is looking forward to a future whose possibility of implementation is dubious, and which would be a nightmare for the entire population of the planet, European capitalism has not even that to look forward to. They can only look forward to … the past. This is the first thing we have to understand in order to judge their current moves and attempt to predict their future ones. This is what explains their current plan, and their previous (and probably ongoing) efforts to persuade Saddam to resign peacefully (hoping that this would lead to an occupation by the "international community", instead of a direct U.S. occupation - a stupid hope, to be sure, but do they have anything better to look forward to?) .
As far as France, Germany and the U.S. are concerned, the important part of the Franco-German proposal is that Iraq would NOT be occupied by U.S. troops, but by U.N. ones, which would include a strong presence of German and French ones. Of course, this would go hand-in-hand with the demand that France and Germany would have a say on the administration of occupied Iraq, primarily on the administration of its oil. This, of course, would defeat the purpose of the entire operation for the U.S. So the Franco-German proposal is as unacceptable to the U.S. as it is to Iraq and us. For that reason exactly, it gives the Iraqi leadership additional room for manoeuvering. My guess is that Saddam will refrain from rejecting it, throwing the ball into the court of Bush. If Bush rejects it, as he will have to do, he will be further exposed in the eyes of both world and domestic U.S. opinion, and his war effort will be further compromised.
The issue here is not whether the motives of France and Germany are pure or not - they are no better than those of Bush. BUT, objective reality forces European powers to stand in the way of Bush's plans, and this is what counts now.
Q: In Kosovo too, Russians threatened to veto a security council resolution against war. Then, the U.S. attacked without U.N. cover, rather than taking that risk. Eventually, Russia as well as Europe went along with American plans
The similarities between Kosovo and Iraq are only superficial.
In broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department in the waning days of the Bush Administration. The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining U.S. preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests..
Q: One thing about the war in Kosovo which I felt you perhaps didn't give enough weight to is the sense during that war that Europe was being subdued to America as transpired from the European press at the time. Again and again, one worries that when the cannons roar, European governments would tow the American line just as they did more than once before.
Here I disagree. I live in Europe, more specifically in the single European country whose press was accused during the war of being Milosevic' mouthpiece, and still I can assure you that when demonstrators here gave journalists a lesson in applied politics by beating them, breaking their TV cameras and burning their vans, they had ample reason for doing so. Virtually all the European press saw the war as ITS business, and this reflects the fact that all European ruling classes (with the exception of Russia) saw it as their business. If they gave the impression that they were being dragged into the war, the only explanation is that they wanted the war to proceed, but didn't want to take responsibility for it.
In fact, the U.S. played that game too. Many people, here in Greece as elsewhere (including of course most "analysts") claim that it was initially Germany that pushed for the dissolution of Yugoslavia, and that the U.S. initially opposed this. There is of course concrete evidence proving that this was not the case, but the fact remains that the U.S. was happy to let Germans take the blame initially.
But if you read French papers of the period, you 'll see that their position toward Yugoslavia is the same as that of "Israeli" papers toward Hamas: Certainly there is an entire spectrum of positions, from the "kill all Palestinians" one to the "our mistakes are breeding fanaticism and terrorism" - but just as certainly there is nothing even remotely resembling a decent approach.
Particularly telling, in this respect, was the case of Regis Debray. A decent person who himself did not really understand what was going on around him, Regis Debray had the courage to travel to Yugoslavia (where he spent enough time travelling in all parts of the country to get a good first-hand impression) and write his impressions when he went back. The result was a media lynching not at all different from the one Garaudy had experienced earlier. In an interview to a Greek paper, Debray himself admitted that he had not expected the furor with which he would be attacked, and said he was seriously considering leaving everything back and coming to live in Greece. Make no mistake about it: During the Kosovo war, European governments - and even European populations, to a large extent, with the exception of the Greek and German ones - stood solidly behind the U.S.A. The contrary is happening now. Joshka Fisher, the German foreign minister who during the Yugoslav war had eggs thrown at him (or was it yoghurt?) during a congress of his party for his pro-war stance, is now accused by the Washington Post of being "almost a terrorist" himself (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59725-2003Feb11.html).
Rumors are being circulated in the U.S. that there will be trade sanctions against France, and people there are rushing to buy French wine. American papers are comparing Chirac and Schroeder to weasels. These are things we have never seen before.
For the first time in the history of the U.N. security council, a speaker (French foreign minister De Villepin) is being applauded during a session - sure, if you read his speech, it's not really that great - despicable might be a better description. But what the other S.C. members admired, was that he stood fast against American pressure. They applauded the steadfast overall stance, not the spineless details of his speech.
You want to know what I make of it? The world has had enough. Not only working-class people in underdeveloped countries, but even the elites in Europe. People in the Arab world are talking about forming international brigades in support of Iraq. I tell you that no force on Earth will be able to prevent the creation of such brigades, not only from the Arab world, but even from Europe and the U.S. - to say nothing about Latin America - IF the Iraqi leadership resists the U.S. attack - and I frankly don't see them abandoning the struggle under the current circumstances.
What will France, Germany, Russia and China do? First, I expect them to veto any S.C. resolution that would allow a war. Second, as the battle develops, I expect them to form a second anti-U.S. "axis of evil" - slowly, grudgingly, half-heartedly, but they will be forced to do it, first and foremost by the U.S. itself. (I expect Bush's words "you are either with us or against us" to become reality in a way he had probably never envisioned. Talk about U.S. sanctions against France may seem ridiculous now, but don't expect the U.S. to respond gracefully to the reluctance of Europeans to "play ball".) I expect British society to be torn apart as a result of this war. Already Prince Charles is apparently speaking up against it, and the Blairites are trying hard to keep the lid on him - we may well see him becoming the most popular political figure in England (a country where royalty has been traditionally popular anyway). I expect to see people burning their draft papers in demonstrations, in the U.S. and England, and those who are already in or around Iraq deserting en masse. I expect the Arab regimes, between the hard place of Europe and the rock of the Arab masses, to dramatically change their tunes or get overthrown. Eventually, I expect the new axis of evil to start passing intelligence and even weapons to Iraq. Yes, I expect, if Iraqis resist long enough, the Iranian street mood to change enough to force Iranian leaders to change their tune too.
I don't pretend to be a prophet, but allow me to make one last prediction:
If the current Iraqi government is still in place 6 months after war is declared, I expect those who currently swear that Bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attacks, to admit that they no longer have any doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was conceived, planned and executed out of Langley, Virginia.