struct
9th May 2004, 05:36
Is Iraq the new Vietnam?
This question, which the Amerikan
media dismissed offhand before the
renewed invasion of Iraq, now seems to
be the question du jour on editorial pages
and weekend talk shows. As we discuss
below, most of the pundits asking the
question have hidden, pro-imperialist
agendas, which keeps them from getting
to the truth about Iraq or Vietnam.
First, though, we will repeat what MIM
has been saying for more than a year:
"Is the war in Iraq like the war in
Vietnam? Yes and no, but mostly yes."
Of course, to understand the answer,
one has to understand the question. Pro-
imperialist "experts" of various flavors
have their own ideas about the lessons
of Vietnam, which color their answers.
For example, the "stab-in-the-back"
militarists insist Amerika lost in Vietnam
because civilian politicians withdrew
support from the war. Thus they might
answer, "Yes, Iraq is the new Vietnam,"
to encourage Amerikans to not make the
"mistake" they made in Vietnam and
"stay the course" in Iraq. Other militarists
may answer "no," because they have
illusions about the role China or Russia
played in Vietnam, or because they feel
the Amerikans now have an
overwhelming technical advantage--
although they also had an overwhelming
technical advantage in Vietnam, and the
house-to-house fighting now raging in
cities like Fallujah is a matter of small
arms, sledgehammers, and sweat, not
Apache helicopters.
Democratic "critics" of the war answer
"yes, but...," to opportunistically blame the
Republicans for getting Amerika into
another "quagmire" without getting
labeled "soft on defense" in return. The
mercenary eggheads at Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government quoted
in the April 16 Boston Phoenix adopt this
jubilation of the Iraqi people, but in fact,
the Iraqi people have already landed a
huge politico-military blow against Uncle
$am in one short year. If imperialism
depended on English imperialism as the
lynchpin globally and not Uncle $am, such
a blow landed under Maoist leadership
could have been the turning point to bring
down the whole global capitalist system.
It is the combined imperialist strength of
Uncle $am and others that makes this a
protracted struggle of generations.
Both Bush and Kerry will try to sidestep
the draft issue leading up to elections in
November 2004. In 2005, the push for
the draft will be on.
MIM does not generally like being in
the fortune-telling business, but our record
on Iraq is clear relative to both the
Democrats and Republicans leading the
U$A . We think we deserve greater
credibility than these bourgeois politicians
always catering for votes and corporate
donations. We told the public the truth
about WMDs, the likelihood of Iraqi
resistance and why it is that only sending
dead Amerikans back in body bags
changes the political balance. The peace
movement did not succeed, because of
its petty-bourgeois basis. On all of this
we are right and our printed record can
be checked against any political leader
with access to inside information from
intelligence agencies spending 11 digits a
year in dollars. Now we tell you this: the
draft is coming, so fight now to prevent it
and gain political experience for upcoming
battles.
Military illusions
1) The crumbling of military illusions
and the manipulation of the military for
political gain are the reasons the draft is
coming. The loose situation in Fallujah
and Afghanistan benefits a political
agenda that says more troops are
necessary in Iraq and therefore a draft.
The rulers will make it appear that the
demand for a draft came from the
situation itself, not any particular military
official or the president.
Keeping control on the ground for
contractors to do their business in Iraq
cannot be done with Predator spy planes
alone. Even driving about expensive tanks
eats up fuel. Putting unemployed or
potentially unemployed people on the
ground of Iraq seems a cheap solution
for the rulers.
2) The military thinks that Iraq has
much less population than Vietnam did
and GI Joe is much better technically
equipped. In fact, the longer the troops
stay there, the more experienced Iraqis
will get in fighting, while Amerikans rotate
in and out. Johnson had 500,000
Amerikans in Vietnam at the peak. The
military thinks it has already reached that
level in Iraq, proportionately speaking, and
its illusions about the Vietnam War say
that China and the Soviet Union were the
reasons for failure there. Bush will believe
his own rhetoric about a "small minority"
of "terrorists" and "thugs" fighting, (600
killed in Fallujah alone in one week)
because certain Amerikans never realized
it was not "outside agitators" doing the
fighting in Vietnam. This confidence in
victory in Iraq will lead to the draft.
3) There has been talk in Congress
about raising pay and improving mail
delivery to improve retention.(2) This
angle will fail miserably. That fact will
also point to the draft.
Neo-conservative illusions
1 ) The neo-conservatives believe
correctly that a portion of rural white U.$.
society is dumb enough to believe that
September 11th 2001 is connected to
Iraq. For many in the rural areas and even
some in the suburbs, it is difficult to
distinguish Third World or rich Arab
peoples in general. Iraqis, Saudis,
Muslims--it hardly matters, because a
solid 30% of the whites is of the Crusader
mentality. In the military that figure is 37%
evangelicals based on the spouses' poll--
a plurality.
Making use of the attack on Amerikan
soil and the rural whites correctly referred
to as "hamburger meat" by one self-
described politically incorrect humorist,
the neo-conservatives erred in thinking
they can transfer that into making Iraq a
Japan or Germany. They really have no
idea how FDR, Truman and Eisenhower
did it. After filling their heads with Ann
Coulter, it's a wonder neo-conservatives
know anything. The truth about
"hamburger meat" only led the neo-
conservatives to make an error related
to thinking Iraq is not Vietnam.
2) Neo-conservatives told the public
that Iraqis would roll over and play dead.
They told this tale partly to get the war
started. This suited the Zionists and
apocalypse-centered Christians.
The rulers do not know why their
repressions in Iraq and Afghanistan fail
while they succeeded in Japan and
Germany. This is the central hit-or-miss
proposition of bourgeois dictators
everywhere. The vast majority of
bourgeois authoritarians fail in their
missions for reasons they do not know.
They repress and repress and get no
where, unlike Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In
Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the
United $tates represents a more advanced
mode of production, Uncle $am is not able
to bring progress and therefore stability
and peace on Amerikan terms.
3) Afghan warlord Dostum is kicking
up a storm as we write this. Mao had a
solution for warlords in China. The neo-
conservatives think they do in
Afghanistan, but they do not. The
imperialists have no idea how to bring
progress and hence stability to
Afghanistan. That means they will try to
employ more troops. That means the
draft.
4) The single greatest hope of the neo-
conservatives is this: they believe they
negotiated with Saddam Hussein and
Osama Bin Laden in the past, so why is
it impossible to strike up a deal with Sunnis,
Shiites and Kurds in Iraq now they
wonder. If there is such a deal, the
military resistance should roll over and
play dead (they think) and the draft won't
be necessary.
MIM has to admit that the resistance
in Iraq is not proletarian-led. Nonetheless,
we do not believe this critical neo-
conservative assumption that the Iraqis
can be bought out will prove correct. This
appears to be a miscalculation. Easing the
sanctions and spending U.$. tax dollars
will not create the bridge of stability to a
future where Iraq pays for its own
quietude. Already the New York Times
has reported on cooperation among
Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to kick out the
Amerikkkans. Economic reality says that
they will be better off sharing their
resources among themselves rather than
among themselves and the Amerikkkans.
Democratic Party illusions
1 ) Led by Ted Kennedy and the
European-sympathizing imperialists, one
wing of imperialists wishes the 2003 war
on Iraq was through the UN. Some
continue to believe there might be a way
to coax the UN back in, which concretely
means getting Russian, Chinese and
French troops on the ground followed
quickly by Indian troops and others.
At this point, as Kerry said about Bush
making things "harder" for military
success, the UN is not likely to get
involved. Most of the rest of the world
does not want to cover for the United
$tates and has no interest in sanctioning
U.$.-led pre-emptive strikes. The global
imperialists would have to make a hell of
a deal to salvage Iraq and we do not think
it is likely. It is more likely that the rest of
the world's bourgeoisie realizes that Uncle
$am cannot salvage the situation. Without
UN troops, the draft for Amerikans is
more likely.
2) Although many wishy-washy anti-
war people belong to the minority
Democratic Party, even the minority
Democratic Party is divided on the draft.
That's why it will go through. The anti-
draft members of the Democratic Party
will look the other way as the leaders let
the draft through. After all, the Democratic
Party never took a clear stand against
the war and even most Democrats who
opposed it want to stay and "finish the
job" now.
One place where one can see the
growing trend of calls for the draft is in
the website called democraticunderground.com.
Because Democrats do not have the spine to
oppose the war, many are now clamoring
for a draft.
3 ) The pseudo-feminist wing of
liberalism has representatives in Iraq and
Afghanistan trying to teach Iraqis and
Afghans how to live the pseudo-feminist
lifestyle. They think they know how to
bring advance in the wake of U.$.
repression. They don't. They've been
attacked by the Iraqi people, and rightly
so, but in no way will the pseudo-feminists
be able to bring progress in Iraq or
Afghanistan or the desired stability and
hence a reduction of troops according to
imperialist wishes.
Labor aristocracy illusions
1) The labor aristocracy is used to
telling white lies on a daily basis to win its
share of super-profits. When Bush told
the country clearly in public several times
that he planned on a 15 year or more
occupation of Iraq, the labor aristocracy
did not listen and did not believe him once
the casualties started. When Bush and
Rumsfeld kept talking about Japan and
Germany after World War II, the
hamburger meat did not stop to think
troops are still there in Japan and
Germany, today--sixty years later. After
all, the labor aristocracy trusts Bush
enough and Paris Hilton was about to
appear on TV, so the labor aristocracy
did not have time to go into the politics
and history.
Since the neo-conservatives told the
labor aristocracy that Iraqis would greet
them cheering with roses and rice, the
labor aristocracy filed away any thoughts
contrary to the war. This same labor
aristocracy is now to be found wondering
when its children will come back from
Iraq and the war will be over. It did not
listen to Bush and now it vacillates
somewhat. The decrease in labor
aristocracy enthusiasm among volunteers
for the military means that the draft is
more likely to follow.
2) The labor aristocracy thinks it can
class struggle against the government for
higher military salaries indefinitely--even
threatening not to fight or support fighting
in Iraq. The imperialists will run much red
ink, but the draft will still come.
Take action!
For anyone aged 18 to 26 or with
children or grand-children that age or
about to become 18, we recommend that
you take action now against the war. It is
much harder to stop the draft after it has
already taken shape and once it takes
shape, the movement will be in better
shape if more people get political
experience now. Anyone can start out the
way the people in Tallahassee did--by
copying some fliers and arranging a honk-
a-thon for people to honk to oppose the
war.
Activists paying attention to Congress
have noted that the draft will have no
college deferments and wimmin will go
this time. Already the federal money is in
motion to set up the draft boards.(4) There
is talk of mandatory "homeland" service
for young people, but MIM finds it more
likely that a small percentage of the 18-
26 age group, maybe even
disproportionately the 18-22 age group will
be called up for war duties in late 2005.
Activists can try to push Kerry and
Bush against the wall during their
presidential campaigns. Feel free to
heckle them if need be to ask the question
whether they support the draft or not.
Currently they believe they have the right
to risk all our lives for their vision of oil
and contractor profits. They are wrong
and you are right. The survival rights of
draft-age people and Iraqis come before
oil, contract profits or even the dubious
"democracy" that Bush is yammering
about.
Notes:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/
poll_militaryfamilies.pdf
2. www.house.gov/hasc/
openingstatementsandpressreleases/
108thcongress/04-03-24stewart.pdf
3 . See Bush mention Japan and
Germany and also say the troops will stay
a s long as necessary as to bring
" d e m o c r a c y " to Iraq http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2 0 0 3 / 0 5 / i r a q / 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 1 - 1 5 . h t m l . In
another speech, he said it again, "We must
fight this war until the work is done."
Then he mentioned Germany and Japan
again. "The United States did not run from
Germany and Japan following World War
II. We helped those nations to become
strong and decent, democratic societies
that no longer waged war on America.
And that's our mission in Iraq today."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2003/10/20031009-7.html
4. Some related plans are published
here: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
Thanks to Sophie Lapaire.
5. USA Today, 16 Apr 2004.
MIM Notes May 1, 2004
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn301.pdf
This question, which the Amerikan
media dismissed offhand before the
renewed invasion of Iraq, now seems to
be the question du jour on editorial pages
and weekend talk shows. As we discuss
below, most of the pundits asking the
question have hidden, pro-imperialist
agendas, which keeps them from getting
to the truth about Iraq or Vietnam.
First, though, we will repeat what MIM
has been saying for more than a year:
"Is the war in Iraq like the war in
Vietnam? Yes and no, but mostly yes."
Of course, to understand the answer,
one has to understand the question. Pro-
imperialist "experts" of various flavors
have their own ideas about the lessons
of Vietnam, which color their answers.
For example, the "stab-in-the-back"
militarists insist Amerika lost in Vietnam
because civilian politicians withdrew
support from the war. Thus they might
answer, "Yes, Iraq is the new Vietnam,"
to encourage Amerikans to not make the
"mistake" they made in Vietnam and
"stay the course" in Iraq. Other militarists
may answer "no," because they have
illusions about the role China or Russia
played in Vietnam, or because they feel
the Amerikans now have an
overwhelming technical advantage--
although they also had an overwhelming
technical advantage in Vietnam, and the
house-to-house fighting now raging in
cities like Fallujah is a matter of small
arms, sledgehammers, and sweat, not
Apache helicopters.
Democratic "critics" of the war answer
"yes, but...," to opportunistically blame the
Republicans for getting Amerika into
another "quagmire" without getting
labeled "soft on defense" in return. The
mercenary eggheads at Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government quoted
in the April 16 Boston Phoenix adopt this
jubilation of the Iraqi people, but in fact,
the Iraqi people have already landed a
huge politico-military blow against Uncle
$am in one short year. If imperialism
depended on English imperialism as the
lynchpin globally and not Uncle $am, such
a blow landed under Maoist leadership
could have been the turning point to bring
down the whole global capitalist system.
It is the combined imperialist strength of
Uncle $am and others that makes this a
protracted struggle of generations.
Both Bush and Kerry will try to sidestep
the draft issue leading up to elections in
November 2004. In 2005, the push for
the draft will be on.
MIM does not generally like being in
the fortune-telling business, but our record
on Iraq is clear relative to both the
Democrats and Republicans leading the
U$A . We think we deserve greater
credibility than these bourgeois politicians
always catering for votes and corporate
donations. We told the public the truth
about WMDs, the likelihood of Iraqi
resistance and why it is that only sending
dead Amerikans back in body bags
changes the political balance. The peace
movement did not succeed, because of
its petty-bourgeois basis. On all of this
we are right and our printed record can
be checked against any political leader
with access to inside information from
intelligence agencies spending 11 digits a
year in dollars. Now we tell you this: the
draft is coming, so fight now to prevent it
and gain political experience for upcoming
battles.
Military illusions
1) The crumbling of military illusions
and the manipulation of the military for
political gain are the reasons the draft is
coming. The loose situation in Fallujah
and Afghanistan benefits a political
agenda that says more troops are
necessary in Iraq and therefore a draft.
The rulers will make it appear that the
demand for a draft came from the
situation itself, not any particular military
official or the president.
Keeping control on the ground for
contractors to do their business in Iraq
cannot be done with Predator spy planes
alone. Even driving about expensive tanks
eats up fuel. Putting unemployed or
potentially unemployed people on the
ground of Iraq seems a cheap solution
for the rulers.
2) The military thinks that Iraq has
much less population than Vietnam did
and GI Joe is much better technically
equipped. In fact, the longer the troops
stay there, the more experienced Iraqis
will get in fighting, while Amerikans rotate
in and out. Johnson had 500,000
Amerikans in Vietnam at the peak. The
military thinks it has already reached that
level in Iraq, proportionately speaking, and
its illusions about the Vietnam War say
that China and the Soviet Union were the
reasons for failure there. Bush will believe
his own rhetoric about a "small minority"
of "terrorists" and "thugs" fighting, (600
killed in Fallujah alone in one week)
because certain Amerikans never realized
it was not "outside agitators" doing the
fighting in Vietnam. This confidence in
victory in Iraq will lead to the draft.
3) There has been talk in Congress
about raising pay and improving mail
delivery to improve retention.(2) This
angle will fail miserably. That fact will
also point to the draft.
Neo-conservative illusions
1 ) The neo-conservatives believe
correctly that a portion of rural white U.$.
society is dumb enough to believe that
September 11th 2001 is connected to
Iraq. For many in the rural areas and even
some in the suburbs, it is difficult to
distinguish Third World or rich Arab
peoples in general. Iraqis, Saudis,
Muslims--it hardly matters, because a
solid 30% of the whites is of the Crusader
mentality. In the military that figure is 37%
evangelicals based on the spouses' poll--
a plurality.
Making use of the attack on Amerikan
soil and the rural whites correctly referred
to as "hamburger meat" by one self-
described politically incorrect humorist,
the neo-conservatives erred in thinking
they can transfer that into making Iraq a
Japan or Germany. They really have no
idea how FDR, Truman and Eisenhower
did it. After filling their heads with Ann
Coulter, it's a wonder neo-conservatives
know anything. The truth about
"hamburger meat" only led the neo-
conservatives to make an error related
to thinking Iraq is not Vietnam.
2) Neo-conservatives told the public
that Iraqis would roll over and play dead.
They told this tale partly to get the war
started. This suited the Zionists and
apocalypse-centered Christians.
The rulers do not know why their
repressions in Iraq and Afghanistan fail
while they succeeded in Japan and
Germany. This is the central hit-or-miss
proposition of bourgeois dictators
everywhere. The vast majority of
bourgeois authoritarians fail in their
missions for reasons they do not know.
They repress and repress and get no
where, unlike Lenin, Stalin and Mao. In
Iraq and Afghanistan, even though the
United $tates represents a more advanced
mode of production, Uncle $am is not able
to bring progress and therefore stability
and peace on Amerikan terms.
3) Afghan warlord Dostum is kicking
up a storm as we write this. Mao had a
solution for warlords in China. The neo-
conservatives think they do in
Afghanistan, but they do not. The
imperialists have no idea how to bring
progress and hence stability to
Afghanistan. That means they will try to
employ more troops. That means the
draft.
4) The single greatest hope of the neo-
conservatives is this: they believe they
negotiated with Saddam Hussein and
Osama Bin Laden in the past, so why is
it impossible to strike up a deal with Sunnis,
Shiites and Kurds in Iraq now they
wonder. If there is such a deal, the
military resistance should roll over and
play dead (they think) and the draft won't
be necessary.
MIM has to admit that the resistance
in Iraq is not proletarian-led. Nonetheless,
we do not believe this critical neo-
conservative assumption that the Iraqis
can be bought out will prove correct. This
appears to be a miscalculation. Easing the
sanctions and spending U.$. tax dollars
will not create the bridge of stability to a
future where Iraq pays for its own
quietude. Already the New York Times
has reported on cooperation among
Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to kick out the
Amerikkkans. Economic reality says that
they will be better off sharing their
resources among themselves rather than
among themselves and the Amerikkkans.
Democratic Party illusions
1 ) Led by Ted Kennedy and the
European-sympathizing imperialists, one
wing of imperialists wishes the 2003 war
on Iraq was through the UN. Some
continue to believe there might be a way
to coax the UN back in, which concretely
means getting Russian, Chinese and
French troops on the ground followed
quickly by Indian troops and others.
At this point, as Kerry said about Bush
making things "harder" for military
success, the UN is not likely to get
involved. Most of the rest of the world
does not want to cover for the United
$tates and has no interest in sanctioning
U.$.-led pre-emptive strikes. The global
imperialists would have to make a hell of
a deal to salvage Iraq and we do not think
it is likely. It is more likely that the rest of
the world's bourgeoisie realizes that Uncle
$am cannot salvage the situation. Without
UN troops, the draft for Amerikans is
more likely.
2) Although many wishy-washy anti-
war people belong to the minority
Democratic Party, even the minority
Democratic Party is divided on the draft.
That's why it will go through. The anti-
draft members of the Democratic Party
will look the other way as the leaders let
the draft through. After all, the Democratic
Party never took a clear stand against
the war and even most Democrats who
opposed it want to stay and "finish the
job" now.
One place where one can see the
growing trend of calls for the draft is in
the website called democraticunderground.com.
Because Democrats do not have the spine to
oppose the war, many are now clamoring
for a draft.
3 ) The pseudo-feminist wing of
liberalism has representatives in Iraq and
Afghanistan trying to teach Iraqis and
Afghans how to live the pseudo-feminist
lifestyle. They think they know how to
bring advance in the wake of U.$.
repression. They don't. They've been
attacked by the Iraqi people, and rightly
so, but in no way will the pseudo-feminists
be able to bring progress in Iraq or
Afghanistan or the desired stability and
hence a reduction of troops according to
imperialist wishes.
Labor aristocracy illusions
1) The labor aristocracy is used to
telling white lies on a daily basis to win its
share of super-profits. When Bush told
the country clearly in public several times
that he planned on a 15 year or more
occupation of Iraq, the labor aristocracy
did not listen and did not believe him once
the casualties started. When Bush and
Rumsfeld kept talking about Japan and
Germany after World War II, the
hamburger meat did not stop to think
troops are still there in Japan and
Germany, today--sixty years later. After
all, the labor aristocracy trusts Bush
enough and Paris Hilton was about to
appear on TV, so the labor aristocracy
did not have time to go into the politics
and history.
Since the neo-conservatives told the
labor aristocracy that Iraqis would greet
them cheering with roses and rice, the
labor aristocracy filed away any thoughts
contrary to the war. This same labor
aristocracy is now to be found wondering
when its children will come back from
Iraq and the war will be over. It did not
listen to Bush and now it vacillates
somewhat. The decrease in labor
aristocracy enthusiasm among volunteers
for the military means that the draft is
more likely to follow.
2) The labor aristocracy thinks it can
class struggle against the government for
higher military salaries indefinitely--even
threatening not to fight or support fighting
in Iraq. The imperialists will run much red
ink, but the draft will still come.
Take action!
For anyone aged 18 to 26 or with
children or grand-children that age or
about to become 18, we recommend that
you take action now against the war. It is
much harder to stop the draft after it has
already taken shape and once it takes
shape, the movement will be in better
shape if more people get political
experience now. Anyone can start out the
way the people in Tallahassee did--by
copying some fliers and arranging a honk-
a-thon for people to honk to oppose the
war.
Activists paying attention to Congress
have noted that the draft will have no
college deferments and wimmin will go
this time. Already the federal money is in
motion to set up the draft boards.(4) There
is talk of mandatory "homeland" service
for young people, but MIM finds it more
likely that a small percentage of the 18-
26 age group, maybe even
disproportionately the 18-22 age group will
be called up for war duties in late 2005.
Activists can try to push Kerry and
Bush against the wall during their
presidential campaigns. Feel free to
heckle them if need be to ask the question
whether they support the draft or not.
Currently they believe they have the right
to risk all our lives for their vision of oil
and contractor profits. They are wrong
and you are right. The survival rights of
draft-age people and Iraqis come before
oil, contract profits or even the dubious
"democracy" that Bush is yammering
about.
Notes:
1. http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-srv/politics/polls/vault/stories/
poll_militaryfamilies.pdf
2. www.house.gov/hasc/
openingstatementsandpressreleases/
108thcongress/04-03-24stewart.pdf
3 . See Bush mention Japan and
Germany and also say the troops will stay
a s long as necessary as to bring
" d e m o c r a c y " to Iraq http://
www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/
2 0 0 3 / 0 5 / i r a q / 2 0 0 3 0 5 0 1 - 1 5 . h t m l . In
another speech, he said it again, "We must
fight this war until the work is done."
Then he mentioned Germany and Japan
again. "The United States did not run from
Germany and Japan following World War
II. We helped those nations to become
strong and decent, democratic societies
that no longer waged war on America.
And that's our mission in Iraq today."
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/
releases/2003/10/20031009-7.html
4. Some related plans are published
here: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html
Thanks to Sophie Lapaire.
5. USA Today, 16 Apr 2004.
MIM Notes May 1, 2004
http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn301.pdf