The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Dear CASI list I remember reading, in Frances Cairncross's Fire in the Lake (a powerful account of the Vietnam war) that in an early phase of the conflict leaders of the national liberation struggle took part in a "renaming ceremony", a sort of ritual when things were given their true names and definitions, and euphemisms were cast aside. As we approach the day when Bush and Blair splash the bodies of our Iraqi sisters and brothers with their bombs, it is again necessary to cast aside euphemisms and give things their true names. The coming war is a not a war against terror, it has nothing to do with WMD, it is a war for empire! So, although the word "imperialism" provokes an allergic reaction in some, this word and this concept must be placed at the centre of our understanding. We cannot stop this war - we are numerically too few and our politics are too flakey. We should learn a lesson from Vietnam - despite powerful and sustained world-wide protests, the Vietnam war was never "stopped". It only ended and could only end with the defeat of the imperialist aggressor. This is our role and our challenge: to build an anti-war movement that is able to affect the outcome of the war, that is able to make the aggressor pay the biggest possible political price, that is able to ensure their eventual and ignominious defeat. Like M, I have great respect for Colin's hard work, sincerity and intelligence. I also believe that his political compass is broken. He is not sure about whether he opposes the coming war or not. Like other contributors to the CASI list, he does not realise that this war is not, fundamentally, a war between Bush and Saddam, but a war between the imperialist ruling families of the US and the UK and the peoples of the Middle East, a war of imperial conquest, as John Pilger has bravely emphasised. Like others, Colin has not given sufficient consideration or weight to this question: what is the underlying continuity between US/UK policy towards Iraq from the days when they were fornicating with Saddam and his regime to the past decade of enmity? Only by answering this question can we begin to understand what this war is all about. To incite further discussion, here is a summary definition of the imperialists' motives in going to war, followed by three assertions about the coming war which I believe to be essential truths.... Why Blair and Bush are hell-bent on war 'Baghdad first' sums up current US strategy in the Middle East. Having failed to put the Israel-Palestine conflict on ice, the extremists who dominate the Bush administration have decided that only an overwhelming demonstration of US power can convince the Palestinians to abandon their dreams of sovereignty and statehood. A successful invasion of Iraq would - so the Bush coterie believes - deal a demoralising blow to working people across the Middle East, whose anger at their corrupt and traitorous governments threatens to erupt into revolution. The conquest of Iraq and installation of a client regime in Baghdad would also complete the encirclement of Iran and open the way to recapturing that hugely important country. Even more than this is at stake: the Bush administration is concerned that its rivals in Europe are already taking advantage of US weakness in the Middle East to increase their share of Iraq and Iran's oil wealth at America 's expense. Seizing Baghdad is, therefore, the key to asserting US hegemony not just over the Middle East, but also over Europe and the world. How can the US rulers hope to face down China, for instance, in a future confrontation, if they prove too pussy-footed to attack Iraq after promising to do so? So much for US motives. Why is Blair so determined to follow Bush? We sometimes forget that two of the top four oil companies in the world are British-owned (BP and Shell). The billionaires that run Britain have a huge empire of wealth in other peoples' countries (relative to their domestic wealth, their overseas possessions are proportionally far greater than the US, Japan or any European country apart from the special case of Switzerland). The British empire is backed up by Britain's nuclear weapons and its permanent seat on the UN Security Council. Britain's ability to punch above its weight is guaranteed by the strategic alliance with the US. But the coming war on Iraq will test this alliance to breaking point. ... and three assertions - The coming war will be fought on two fronts. The coming war will determine the fate not just of Baghdad, but also of Jerusalem. - The imperialists are going to war from a position of weakness, not strength. - It is impossible for the imperialists to achieve their aims. The world will be more unstable, more polarised coming out of this war. It will be followed in quick succession by another war, and another, until we take the means to make war out of their hands. There is no other way to peace. As Fidel Castro is fond of saying, and as the Cuban revolution is the proof, "ideas are more powerful than weapons". This is why, despite the horrendous times we are all about to live thorugh, I remain optimistic. On the other hand, liberal sentiments are as good at stopping wars as a row of marshmallows are at stopping tanks. Hands off Iraq! Freedom for Palestine! John S _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk