What's behind U.S. war moves against Iraq?

Scan page 1

South African trade unionists On Aug. 26, President George Bush sent U.S., British, and French warplanes, loaded with the world's most advanced weaponry, blazing through the skies of southern Iraq. In the first 24 hours, 200 sorties were flown to enforce an order to Iraq to ground its aircraft south of the 32nd parallel.

Gov. Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party's presidential candidate, having previously given Bush's preparations for aggression against Iraq his unqualified seal of approval, then reinforced his support by faulting Bush for not demonstrating sufficient resolve "to defy and defeat those who threaten us."

Bush and Clinton are competing with each other over who is the toughest enforcer of America's "New World Order."

Democratic Party spokespersons, reflecting the spirit of Clinton's criticism, lost no time before blaming Bush for "not having finished Saddam Hussein off when we had the chance."

The motive for this latest act of war is alleged to be the establishment of a "security zone" to shield the Shites of southern Iraq from air attacks.

ITS WURT US But hardly anyone takes Bush's "humanitarian" aims seriously.

The Aug. 28 New York Times, reflecting the views of a major section of the U.S. ruling class, editorializes that Bush's "purpose is unclear, probably unwise, and maybe even illegal." But it then goes on to say: "Americans do not shrink from using force against the Iraqi dictator...

To underscore their unqualified support, the editors write: "America's undisputed interest is to enforce the UN cease-fire terms so Baghdad does not again threaten neighbors or regional peace."

They play a cagey role-backing Bush's aggression to the hilt, they also take their distance wondering out loud what the purpose of it might be.

The Times editors pointedly ask: "Why stop at planes? Checked in the air, Mr. Hussein might come after the Shiites on the ground. Do the allies also claim authority to rain missiles on Iraqi tanks? Otherwise, aren't the Shites being set up for further slaughter?"

Neither side in this dispute within the U.S. ruling class cares anything about the rights of the Shiites.

Their only concern is to maintain the "right" of American imperialism to impose its "order" on everyone else in the world.

Moral statements to the contrary, the dispute within the ruling class is not over what they believe is right or wrong but only over what will work. Most important, it reveals the increasingly hard choices available to the imperialists for stemming the accelerating breakdown of world capitalist order.

They face this dilemma: On the one hand, they fear the spread of rebellion in the region by the oppressed nationalities and other peoples suffering from religious and/or cultural oppression. This includes the Kurds and the Shites of Iraq, who each have populations in other Middle Eastern states. To meet such threats of revolt, imperialism needs ruthless governments like Iraq's.

On the other hand, they fear the Saddam Husseins of the world when they show a capacity to mobilize the region to pressure imperialism for a larger share of the wealth it has been looting for more than a century from the colonialized Gulf region.

Eighteen months ago, Saddam Hussein's Iraq constituted such a threat and was crushed. Ten years ago, it was the Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran that challenged imperialism and was bled to exhaustion by Saddam Hussein's Iraq-armed to the teeth and backed up by U.S. imperialism. Later, Iran gave its silent acquiescence to the American assault on Iraq.

Now, as the economic crisis of world capitalism aggravates the misery suffered by the people of the Middle East, imperialism must take care to not inadvertently provoke a generalized uprising by its victims.

The reluctance of Arab regimes—who had previously joined in America's Operation "Desert Storm"—to give political cover to President Bush's latest initiative reflects the volatility of the masses in the Middle East.

Moreover, this concern is not limited to the Gulf region. The collapse and capitulation of the Stalinist camp is turning out to be much more of a problem than the imperialists bargained for. The powder keg that today is Yugoslavia could just as soon be the ex-Soviet Union tomorrow.

In July, the Pentagon threatened to unleash "days and weeks" of bombing raids on Iraq's road and electric grid system. According to one White House official, Bush stated that hostilities with Iraq "could explode at any moment."

Working people and students in this country should put both the Democrats and the Republicans on notice that we demand: "U.S. Hands Off Iraq!"

----- pull-quotes -----

Interviews with See pages 14 - 17.