Log in

View Full Version : Iraq exit strategy



PRC-UTE
30th October 2006, 04:03
Iraq exit strategy
Iraq shows the limits of US power and underlines the fact that it is in
relative decline, says Jack Conrad

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/646/iraq.htm

Iraq has proved a quagmire. The whole Iraq strategy of George W Bush and
Tony Blair is in tatters and entering its terminal stage. The talk now is
how to extricate US-UK forces with a modicum of honour. Desperately the US
is suggesting a possible deal with Iran and Syria - countries which Bush
notoriously included in his ‘axis of evil’ speech launching the ‘war on
terror’.

Things look bad for Bush. The November 7 mid-term elections to the
congress are expected to see big losses for his Republican Party. In a
couple of months his could be a lame presidency.

What will the US-UK coalition leave behind in Iraq? Not the pliant,
pro-western regime promised in 2003, that is for certain. Full-scale civil
war beckons. There is already an agonising internecine conflict, in which
the role of US-UK forces has been to prevent any side winning. Hence the
various religious and nationalist militias have been fighting a combined
war: often against the US-UK occupation, always against each other.

One option being considered in Washington is dismembering Iraq into three
separate entities - shia, sunni and Kurd. But how would Turkey, a US Nato
ally, look upon an independent Kurdistan along its southern border? Beset
with its own Kurdish nationalist movement, Ankara could easily be drawn to
invade. Likewise a deal with Syria would surely necessitate the return of
the Golan Heights, seized by Israel in 1967. How would Israel react to
being told to return this strategically important territory? The
government of Ehud Olmert is already beleaguered.

As for the Iranian theocracy, thanks to the US-UK overthrow of Saddam
Hussein and the Ba’athist regime, it has in place a pro-Iranian
government-in-waiting in Iraq. Why should it want to do a deal with the
‘great Satan’? Deeply unpopular with their own people, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
and co rely on the US threat to stay in power.

The US has proved beyond doubt that it can bring mayhem to any small or
medium-sized country. But, contrary to the expectations of the
pro-imperialist ‘left’ - eg, the Euston Manifesto group and the Alliance
for Workers’ Liberty - the US has proved incapable of exporting itself, as
it did after 1945 with the reconstruction of western Europe and Japan.
Iraq shows the limits of US power and underlines the fact that it is in
relative decline.

Other powers see their opportunity and will soon begin repositioning
themselves: Russia, China, Germany, France and India. Pope Benedict XVI
has even mooted a catholic Europe as the new global hegemon. However, no
new capitalist top dog could usher in an age of peace and plenty. It is
not only the US which is in decline. The whole capitalist system rots from
within. All its essential laws are in decay - value, profit maximisation,
the market. Clearly the world is overripe for communism - a system that
can only come globally and through a mass democratic breakthrough.

In Britain the consequences of any challenge to US dominance will be
sudden and far-reaching. All classes and parties would be thrown into
turmoil, not least Labourism. Since 1945 the UK has tied itself to the
mast of US power militarily and economically. The benefits come back
through arms deals, privileged intelligence information and the parasitic
profits that keep the bloated City of London awash with multi-million
pound bonuses. All that will be under threat.

The US will not relinquish its position without a most determined
fightback. Humiliation in Iraq is hardly likely to lead to pacifistic
conclusions in Washington. Bush’s ‘war on terror’ is not simply about oil
- a crude leftwing obsession. In the last analysis it is about managing
decline. Because it can no longer dominate through economic means, the US
must increasingly turn to asserting itself militarily. ‘The war on terror’
excuses massive arms spending hikes and draconian legislation. It also
serves to divert the anger of the US masses away from their main enemy,
which is at home. Whichever party of US capital wins the presidential
election in 2008 will be prone to lash out in an irrational fashion. There
will be more threats and more wars.

In all probability the political economy of US decline will characterise
the entire period of transition between capitalism and communism. What
that promises is increased immiseration, chronic instability and a further
descent into barbarism. That is why ending capitalism is not a task that
we can complacently put off to the distant future. Organisation and action
are needed urgently. Crucially, the working class needs a viable strategy.
National roads have been roads to disaster. Trade union politics have
reached a dead end. Reviving Labourism is illusory, whether it be in the
form of ‘real’ Labour, the Scottish Socialist Party, Respect or the
Campaign for a New Workers’ Party.

Yet how to take the first, decisive step forward? Besides arguing for the
closest regional unity of working class organisations objective
circumstances permits across the world - eg, in the Indian subcontinent,
Latin America, the Arab-speaking countries - we in particular stress
Europe. Hence our call for a Communist Party of the European Union.

Given its economic weight, relative prosperity, size of population, its
long history of class struggles and the substantive gains made by those
below, a European Union ruled by the working class has the potential to
roll back a declining US superimperialism, not least by lending practical
aid to the spreading flame of self-liberation - first Asia, South America
and Africa, then finally North America itself.

No single country can realistically hope to do that. Nor can any other
regional grouping. While America will carry the everlasting honour of
completing the world revolution, only Europe can decisively begin it.

piet11111
30th October 2006, 05:52
well i for one doubt that the fate of capitalism is linked with america's status as a global power.

sure its obvious america is heading for an economic trainwreck but that is the goal of the bush administration.
with america in economic crisis they are probably planning for the total abolisment of what is left of social welfare.
along with any legislation that protects the working class from capitalist exploitation.
sure it would be messy but capitalism would still be firmly in control in europe and they wont let america fall into the hands of the working class.

Severian
30th October 2006, 07:50
Originally posted by PRC-[email protected] 29, 2006 10:03 pm
Iraq exit strategy
Iraq shows the limits of US power and underlines the fact that it is in
relative decline, says Jack Conrad

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/646/iraq.htm

Y'know, I've been noticing the CPGB's stuff is often interesting, even when it's wrong. In this case, the overall conclusion stated in that headline is certainly right.


The talk now is how to extricate US-UK forces with a modicum of honour.

This is inaccurate as a description of Bush administration policy. While many in bourgeois politics are discussing "exit strategy", the White House has continued to emphatically reject it.


There is already an agonising internecine conflict, in which
the role of US-UK forces has been to prevent any side winning.

Nobody has to play that role: it's impossible for any side to win anyway.
As journalist Tony Karon, among others, has pointed out. (http://tonykaron.com/2005/08/03/why-iraq-is-not-vietnam/)

If this means Washington has been balancing between the different sides; that's partly true - now, anyway. But for a long time Washington turned a blind eye to the growing Shi'a death squads, for example. Probably even encouraged them as part of the "Salvador Option" though that's hardly to absolutely prove.


Hence the various religious and nationalist militias have been fighting a combined war: often against the US-UK occupation, always against each other.

That's not why they've been doing it. It's because the occupation chose to invert some of Iraq's traditional power relationships; Sunni Arab elites lost their traditional dominance. They refused to accept this; so inevitably the uppity Shi'a and Kurds were their enemies even more than Washington.

Eventual retaliation in kind was inevitable - given the sectarian or narrowly nationalistic nature of most Iraqi parties, and Washington's tendency to encourage that kind of politics.


Likewise a deal with Syria would surely necessitate the return of
the Golan Heights, seized by Israel in 1967....As for the Iranian theocracy, thanks to the US-UK overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Ba’athist regime, it has in place a pro-Iranian government-in-waiting in Iraq. Why should it want to do a deal with the
‘great Satan’? Deeply unpopular with their own people, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
and co rely on the US threat to stay in power.

Silly. The "Islamic Republic" and the Shi'a minority regime in Syria both have their own obvious reasons for wanting to preserve the Shi'a, "pro-Iranian" regime in Iraq. Washington could probably do a deal with either or both on that basis - if it wanted to back off its hostility to both regimes. But that seems unlikely.


However, no new capitalist top dog could usher in an age of peace and plenty. It is not only the US which is in decline. The whole capitalist system rots from
within.

Right.


The US will not relinquish its position without a most determined
fightback. Humiliation in Iraq is hardly likely to lead to pacifistic
conclusions in Washington. Bush’s ‘war on terror’ is not simply about oil
- a crude leftwing obsession. In the last analysis it is about managing
decline. Because it can no longer dominate through economic means, the US
must increasingly turn to asserting itself militarily.

And right!


Hence our call for a Communist Party of the European Union.

The difficulty here is that the EU is not a state, and IMO not likely to become one. While communism can only be built globally, the seizure of power occurs state-by-state. A party needs to be structured to lead that.


While America will carry the everlasting honour of completing the world revolution, only Europe can decisively begin it.

Who knows, we might beat ya there. Considering we don't have the obstacle of mass reformist workers' parties, for example.