The following editorial appeared on February 15, when the times already
knew that millions in the United States and around the world would be
protesting the ongoing war in Iraq and its approaching massive
escalation. The editorial shows the bitter and desperate determination
of the U.S. ruling class (not just an extreme right wing around Bush
but the ruling class as a whole) to have this war.
In the news pages, the Times' analysts have been suggesting a further
thirty day delay, admitting that there is no reason to assume the
United Nations Security Council would be more amenable than it is now.
The French imperialists have proposed a thirty day effort to complete
the disarming of Iraq. (It is my impression that people -- not just
radicalizing students but "mainstrean" adults-- are beginning to catch
on to the outrageous character of these demands from the countries
with giant and varied arsenals that their intended victims surrender
their weapons.)
As usual, the official U.S. stance will have a purely military-
technical character. More troops have to get out there. They need
more training. They need to get accustomed to the mideast. The full
complement of weaponry is still lacking. These are all lies. The
driving forces are political -- including the depth and scope and power
of the worldwide opposition the rulers have run into. This is even
changing the military requirements -- back in November the rulers were
talking about a one or two month air war. But a prolonged bombing
campaign preceding an invasion has become a potential political
catastrophe. So now they propose a massive cruise-missile near-
obliteration of Baghdad -- an attack on the scale of Hiroshima and the
Tokyo firestorm or even greater -- followed quickly by a more massive
and -- they hope -- overwhelming ground invasion.
A few months ago, they expected the people of Iraq to simply
capitulate without a fight. Today they assume massive fisrepower must
defeat their resistance before it starts. There are many indications
that the worldwide opposition has had an impact on the fighting
capacity of the people of Iraq -- at a time when the rulers can less
and less afford a prolonged war with high U.S. casualties.
If the war cannot be won quickly, it will be almost impossible to
pursue it in the face of deepgoing opposition without severe and very
politically costly and potentially explosive repression at home (even
allowing for the crisis the antiwar forces are likely to experience
with the opening of full-scale war).
What is driving the rulers toward this war in the face of problems that
have given it an increasingly adventurous and potentially disastrous
character -- for them as well as for the people of the world? I think
the deepening economic crisis in the United States and around the world
is an important factor. They hope a decisive conquest of Iraq will
produce new confidence in U.S. big business, and set off a boom in Wall
Street and a renewed upturn. And the increasing international
competition also makes them more determined to deal blows to their
European and Japanese competitors.
I want to take note of a useful quotation from Leon Trotsky's 1928
Criticism of the Draft Program of the Comintern which I think is useful
to have in mind:
"In the period of crisis the hegemony of the United States will operate
more completely, more openly, and more ruthlessly than in the period of
boom. The United States will seek to overcome and extricate hjerself
from her difficulties and maladies primarily at the expense of Europe,
regardless of whether this occurs in Asia, Canada, South America,
Australia, or Europe irself, or whether this takes place peacefully or
through war."
Together with other struggles and conflicts in the world, the
antiwar protests have had an effect and we can have more. We have
slowed the warmakers down. Don't let any military-technical expert
tell you different. We are dealing with a deeply rooted war drive that
is exploding now and will explode on an even more savage scale in the
future. But all the power and all the decision-making are not in the
rulers' hands.
Victory in battle is decided in battle.
As this Times editorial indicates, the rulers have decided for war.
But we have every right and ability to say to them what President
Andrew Jackson said when the Supreme Court made a decision he didn't
like. "John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce
it." Fred Feldman
Disarming Iraq (Feb. 15 New York Times) As much as the feuding members
of the United Nations Security Council might like Hans Blix and Mohamed
ElBaradei to settle the question of war or peace with Iraq, these two
mild-mannered civil servants can't make that fateful judgment. All they
can do, which they did again yesterday, is to tell the Council how
their inspection efforts are faring. So-so was the answer. It's up to
the Council members - especially the veto-wielding quintet of
the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - to decide
whether Iraq is disarming.
In our judgment, Iraq is not. The only way short of war to get
Saddam Hussein to reverse course at this late hour is to make clear
that the Security Council is united in its determination to disarm him
and is now ready to call in the cavalry to get the job done. America
and Britain are prepared to take that step. The time has come for the
others to quit pretending that inspections alone are the solution. The
Security Council, as we said the other day, needs to pass a
new resolution that sets a deadline for unconditional Iraqi compliance
and authorizes military action if Baghdad falls short. Without that,
the French proposal that Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei report again in
mid-March is the diplomatic equivalent of treading water. It
practically invites President Bush to take the undesirable step of
going to war without the support of the Security Council.
Just as they did last month, the inspectors offered a mixed picture
that allowed all sides to draw sustenance for their arguments. What
should not be missed is that the positive aspects of the reports dealt
largely with secondary matters like process and access. On the
essential issue of active Iraqi cooperation in the disclosure and
destruction of prohibited unconventional weapons, the inspectors could
find little encouraging to say.
That leaves the fundamental picture about where it was last weekend,
except that another week has passed without Iraq doing what it urgently
needs to do. It's easy to see where France's wishful thinking leads.
Baghdad could continue dribbling out meaningless concessions such as
yesterday's laughable decree that the development of weapons of mass
destruction is now prohibited in Iraq.
Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei cannot be left to play games of hide-and-
seek. This is not like Washington's unproved assertions about an
alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There is ample
evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax
and has the capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these
materials, lied about them, and more recently failed to account for
them to the current inspectors. The Security Council doesn't need to
sit through more months of inconclusive reports. It needs full and
immediate Iraqi disarmament. It needs to say so, backed by the threat
of military force.