A Blind Spot In The Anti-War Movement

[RedFlag32]

A Blind Spot In The Anti-War Movement
By Alex Wolfson

10 June, 2007
Countercurrents.org

There is endless attention paid by the anti-war movement on issues that are important, but also peripheral to the realities of why the American empire landed in Iraq, and the possibilities to force its departure. Article after article is written on Bush's stubbornness, his bubble, the Democratic Congress's timidity, their ineptitude. Calls are made to pull out by this date, or cut the funding by that. Condescending discussions on the ability of the Iraqis to control their own democracy fills the pages of the left-wing media, but hardly ever is addressed the disastrous effects for American hegemony that disengagement from Iraq would produce. Too many in the anti-war movement have not allowed themselves to face the bitter truth that it will take a lot more than a Democratic congress or someone new in the White House to truly liberate Iraq from American control. Unless we are willing to honestly look at what the stakes are for all involved, we will not be able to concretely understand the necessary steps that must be taken to end the illegal and disastrous occupation.

The original goal of the Iraq war was the same as is most imperial wars, to quickly topple the governing body, repress local democratic activity, and install an acquiescing client regime, almost always autocratic in nature. In this way the war in Iraq has been a failure for U.S powers. The client regime has been unable to maintain any control over the country except for a small parcel of Baghdad, nationalist sentiment has grown immensely, and the all important Iraqi Hydrocarbon Law, as of now, has not been able to be forced down the throats of the prostrate Iraqi congress. Even America's international bullying power, a central tenet of U.S hegemony, has been fundamentally wounded by its inability to militaristically repress the Iraqi dissent to occupation. Only for the giant American corporations has the war been a colossal success. They can feast on Iraq, still licking their lips in anticipation of the immense dessert that might still come in the form of the world's most lucrative oil and gas law, and a client state eagerly waiting to fill the already filled coffers of the American empire.

It is these awaited desserts that America cannot let go of. Let's suppose that the United States had to immediately and completely withdraw from Iraq. No matter the specifics of what then would occur, it can be presumed by the demography and political landscape of Iraq, that a Shiite dominated governing body would eventually be established. It can further be presupposed that this government would be closely attached to their predominantly Shiite neighbor, Iran, who would be incredibly influential both economically and diplomatically. This would mean two of the world's largest oil reserves, ruled by Shiite regimes, allied against U.S. interests, and bordering the oil rich Shiite dominated part of Saudi Arabia, which is aggressively repressed by the U.S- backed, Saudi dictatorship. This new block of hydrocarbon power, opposed to American hegemony, and moreover having the ability to ally itself with any of the competing players in the international system (Venezuela, Russia, China, etc.), could create great shifts in global power through the diversification of oil production deals, trade initiatives, and new partnerships. These potential shifts in alliances have the capacity to greatly undermine America's unparalleled standing in the world, and are, at present, probably the gravest danger to American global domination.

It is important to remember that the enormous profits that Iraq promises for the multi-national corporations is an essential aspect of the occupation, but not the central one. The original intent to go into Iraq was to establish an American power base in the middle of a crucial region and then to gain all the riches that would follow. The catastrophe that has occurred instead has the potential to be much more disastrous to U.S. hegemonic power than what the equivalent gains would have been if the occupation had gone according to plan. Although Saddam periodically fell in and out of favor with the U.S. government, there was no danger that he would ally himself with his long time enemy Iran. As a result of the first Gulf War and then the sanctions, Saddam's Iraq was isolated and impotent. While the massive potential profits from Iraq were not available to U.S corporations under Saddam's regime, neither was the very real and present danger of the formation of an Iraqi/Iranian allied block threatening not U.S. security but supremacy.


There is no doubt that the elites of America will only let this happen kicking and screaming, be it a Democrat or Republican in the White House, or filling the seats of Capital Hill. The anti-war movement must move away from politics of the individual (including its obsession with the Bush/Cheney regime) and begin to analyze and discuss in depth the fundamentals of why American power is being spent on Iraq, and the very real difficulties faced in helping to free the Iraqi people from imperial control. Otherwise, we are in danger of running around in circles, barking loudly, but only grasping at our own tails.