[mobglob-discuss] CWI Statement: US military victory

[Andy Lehrer]

Committee for a Workers¹ International
PO Box 3688
London
E11 1YE
Britain
E-Mail: 
Tel: ++ 44 20 8988 8760
Fax: ++ 44 20 8988 8793

8th April 2003


The bloody occupation of Iraq:

TRIUMPH OF THE EMPIRE?

The military assault on Iraq by US and British imperialism is now reaching
its Œend game¹. At the time of writing the Iraqi regime is in the process of
disintegration. This military Œtriumph¹ of Bush and Blair is not unexpected,
given the massive military superiority of US and British forces. It has
followed weeks of unprecedented aerial bombardment.

The US and British armed forces have now occupied Basra and are attempting
to take full control of the capital, Baghdad. Bush and Blair are now hoping
to be able to proclaim Œvictory¹ in the next few days. The unexpectedly
rapid military advance on Iraq¹s two largest cities during the last week
followed a period in which British and US forces became bogged down by
fierce Iraqi resistance.

Despite continued resistance in some areas, it now appears that US and
British imperialism are about to succeed in occupying Iraq, although how far
this occupation will go remains to be seen. Before the assaults on Basra and
Baghdad they had already achieved one of their primary war objectives and
taken control of more than 600 oil wells and refineries in southern Iraq.

At this stage the fully bloody cost of this and the number of victims is not
clear. Thousands, however, have been slaughtered. The full social,
political, and economic consequences which flow from the invasion, are still
to be felt.

This is the fourth war since 1990 that US and British imperialism has won ­
allegedly by the use of high-tech methods. Bush and Blair will attempt to
exploit this victory politically.

However, this will prove to be a hollow victory in relation to Iraq, the
Middle East and internationally. It will not be a repetition of the US
victory in the first Gulf War in 1991which took place against an entirely
different international background following the collapse of the former
Soviet Union. The euphoria with which Bush and Blair will eventually
proclaim their ³victory² will eventually be followed by further social
upheaval, conflict and mass anti-imperialist protests throughout the region.


Mass slaughter

Thousands of Iraqis have been killed or wounded in a few short weeks during
which the horror of war rained down on Iraq¹s cities in a savage aerial
onslaught. Thousands have been killed in the push to take Baghdad. The toll
of human slaughter has been increasing by the hour as the military have come
under pressure from Washington to Œget the job done as quickly as possible¹.
Hospitals in the capital reported that more than 100 casualties per hour
were arriving and that medical staff is unable to cope.

This war has seen the use of brutal weapons of destruction. In less than
three weeks, 725 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched, 50 cluster bombs
dropped and 12,000 precision-guided munitions fired. Two devastating Œdaisy
cutters¹ were used against Republican Guard units outside Baghdad. So far,
no chemical or biological weapons have been found ­ one of the main
justifications used by US and British imperialism to prosecute this war. If
they find no weapons of mass destruction they will plant them. Truth is
always the first casualty of war. In this conflict it has been transparently
so. At each turn Blair and Bush have been forced to retract lies and false
claims. Blair announced that British prisoners of war had been Œexecuted¹.
Then he was compelled to retract it. They denied the bombing of a market
place and then were forced to Œinvestigate¹ it.

The brutality of capitalism has been starkly revealed by this war and
enraged millions of anti-war protestors around the world. Apart from the
human tragedy, misery and slaughter, US imperialism has put aside US$80
billion for the military conflict and Britain at least £3 billion. This
compares to the total UN programme for combating AIDS - which claims the
lives of 5,500 people per day world wide - of US$3 billion. The price of
just two of the 320 cruise missiles used in the opening blitz on Baghdad
would feed 270,000 starving Angolans for a month. The Œrich¹ countries give
US$14 billion to sub-Saharan Africa for which the US donates US$1.3 billion
­ just slightly more than the cost of a stealth bomber!

Rapid changes of war

This war has been marked by extremely rapid changes in the situation on both
sides. However, the original picture painted by Bush, Rumsfeld and Blair, of
an easy victory, where US and British soldiers would be greeted as
Œliberators¹ and showered with flowers like in Paris 1944, initially failed
to materialise. The slogan painted on a Basra wall - ŒLiberators go home¹ -
gave a clear expression of the initial attitude of the Iraqi population.

Now some sections appear to be welcoming the troops and are showing their
relief at the end of the conflict and the regime. However, any welcome given
to the troops today does not indicate that they will be welcomed for a
lengthy stay. Imperialism will of course use this Œwelcome reception¹. But
as the 18th Century British Prime Minister said at the beginning of the war
of ŒJenkins Ear¹ (The war between Britain and Spain in 1739): ³Today they
are ringing their bells tomorrow they will be wringing their hands². They
may be wringing their hands quicker than they think.

In Basra one student was quoted saying: ³ We are caught between two enemies,
Saddam and the British. Is this what they call liberation. We want our own
government. We want our own security and our own law.² Another shouted to a
Challenger tank: ³When are you going home? Soldier go away. We can look
after our country now² (Independent, London, 4 April 2003).

US General Mattis, when asked what the Iraqi¹s really think of the US
forces¹ arrival, said he had been: ³delighted to see the crowds of cheering
civilians, but then again the people of Cambodia had initially cheered the
Khmer Rouge when they rolled into Phnom Penh² (Independent, 9 April 2003).
This is hardly an optimistic assessment of the future!

At the very beginning of the war, US and British forces claimed extremely
rapid advances with little or no resistance for a very short period. It soon
became clear however that the campaign had become bogged down and faced
heavy resistance. Basra was proclaimed to have Œfallen¹ within days. This
was modified to a claim that Basra had been Œsecured¹ - not taken. For
almost three weeks the British army was not able to enter Basra. The same
story was repeated for Nasiriyah, which was only Œcaptured¹ last week,
having been Œsecured¹ earlier in the war. Supply lines to Baghdad were
extremely stretched, weak and subjected to attack by Iraqi forces.

Then, in a dramatic about-turn, British forces entered Basra and US forces
are now engaged in fighting inside Baghdad and appear to have captured most
of the city.

This conflict has seen many ebbs and flows, which have involved a number of
turning points. At the beginning of the invasion, the CWI warned that US and
British soldiers could face the possibility of stiff resistance from the
Iraqi armed forces and sections of the population. The bitter hatred towards
US and British imperialism could lead them to fight, despite their
opposition to the Saddam dictatorship and divisions amongst the Sunni, Shia
and Kurdish peoples. The latter make up 10% of Baghdad¹s population. It
seemed possible that Iraqi national consciousness could predominate over
their opposition to the Saddam regime and lead them to fight US and British
forces. This could result in the imperialist forces encountering stiff and
determined opposition.

However we also warned that the hostility that existed to the Saddam
dictatorship and its absence of a broad social basis could result in a
collapse or partial collapse of the regime resulting in a relatively rapid
military victory.

US and British imperialism miscalculated the situation that existed in Basra
where they expected a rapid uprising by the population against the regime to
greet them. They underestimated the deep-rooted suspicions and mistrust
which developed towards them following 1991. The US military stood aside and
allowed Saddam to massacre the Shia people of Basra who attempted to
overthrow the dictatorship.

Wars do not develop in a predetermined manner. By its very nature the
conduct of any war is subject to sharp and abrupt changes and accidental
factors, which can change the course of its development. It is impossible to
fully anticipate how any war will proceed ­ especially if there are no
reliable forces on the ground able to accurately assess the attitude and
mood of the population. This is particularly the case during the Œfog of
war¹, with lies, propaganda and censorship being used by both sides.

It appears that the mass of the population have tended to stand aside from
the fighting. Most of it seems to have been undertaken by the Republican
Guard units, Fedayeen and militias of the Ba¹ath Party. These forces offered
heavy resistance in some areas but could not overcome the military might and
power of the US, especially its awesome and modern means of destruction and
firepower. The massive pounding of the Republican Guards, including the use
of Œdaisy cutters¹, has undoubtedly taken its toll and substantially
weakened the Iraqi forces.

The hostility towards the Saddam Hussein regime and its lack of a widespread
social base has meant that the mass of the population has not been prepared
to participate in the fighting. The general feeling seems to be: ŒLet us end
the nightmare ­ as soon as possible¹. This, together with the constant
aerial bombardment and prospect of certain defeat appear to have resulted in
an implosion of these military forces in the last few days. This does not
preclude some continued fighting in the cities for a period, which could
still be quite substantial in some areas. It is not excluded that what
remains of the Republican Guard and Fedayeen will attempt to regroup and
make a last stand.

The Œliberators¹

The Œvictors¹ will present recent developments in the war as justification
for their actions. However it is also clear that the British and US troops
have not been welcomed as Œliberators¹ or Œheroes¹ as Bush and Blair
promised the soldiers who have been sent to fight this imperialist war.

For example, it appears that in Basra, which has a Shia majority, at best
the British forces have generally been welcomed by silence ­ and often by
looting. Even those who have been more receptive towards the troops have
been so out of a sense of relief that the war and the regime are coming to
and end. It is possible that some sections of the population will initially,
for a short period, demonstrate a sense of relief that the war and the
dictatorship are finished.

However this reaction is in marked contrast to the enthusiasm that initially
greeted British troops sent to Northern Ireland in 1969 to Œdefend¹ the
Catholic population. The jubilation amongst local Shias that was evident
when Israeli forces invaded southern Lebanon in 1982 has not been evident in
Basra or Baghdad. Furthermore, the initial enthusiasm in Northern Ireland
rapidly turned to hatred and opposition to the British army amongst
Catholics. The jubilation in southern Lebanon turned into a bloody guerrilla
war against the Israeli occupation, which ended in the final withdrawal of
the Israeli army in 2000. This is a warning of what may develop in the next
phase of the conflict in Iraq

Bush and Blair are basking in the glow of Œvictory¹ but opposition and a
bitter struggle against the occupation forces is bound to develop at a
certain stage. The absence of an enthusiastic reception being offered to the
soldiers as they have arrived in the cities is a barometer of the mood. The
masses opposed Saddam but are not enthusiastic about foreign Œliberation¹ at
the point of a bayonet. Moreover, the occupation is well understood by the
Iraqi people to have been made in order to gain access to the vast oil
reserves and to impose a strengthened US presence in the region.

US imperialism intends to initially establish Œdirect rule¹ for a period and
then establish an administration that is favourable to the interests of US
imperialism. It appears that the initial regime will be headed by retired
General Jay Garner ­ an arms trader (with SY Technologies) who has already
profited from the war by selling missile systems vital for the attack and
who also has links with the Israeli state.

Under his command will be a series of former US military commanders and
Iraqi Quislings, such as Ahmad Chalabi of the exile Iraqi National Congress.
Chalabi has not set foot in Baghdad for 45 years! He was sentenced in 1992
by a Jordanian court to 22 years hard labour for bank fraud following the
collapse of the Petra bank that he had founded in 1977! The type of colonial
administration envisaged by the US administration will rapidly run into
massive opposition from the Iraqi population.

The plans already considered by the Bush regime for this Œviceroy¹-run
country include the introduction of vicious neo-liberal policies, such as
privatisation of oil fields and other sectors of the economy currently under
state ownership, and the opening up of the economy to exploitation by
imperialism. A deregulated oil industry will be used against OPEC to try to
force down the price of oil.

US imperialism has promised economic investment and development for Iraq and
its peoples. The same promise was made to the people of Afghanistan and even
to those of the former Soviet Union. In reality little or nothing has been
forthcoming. Wealth will be extracted from the country by imperialism not
invested in it. The oil fields of the former Soviet Union have been opened
to plunder by gangster-capitalism. The same will be done to Iraq. The
attitude of imperialism towards the mass of the Iraqi people was illustrated
by the attempt by some soldiers to charge money for bottles of water!

These policies will be carried out against the Iraqi people in collusion
with a section of elite Iraqi exiles and capitalists/landlords from Iraq.
Some commentators have reported that US and British forces have now been
told to destroy as few Iraqi tanks as possible in order to maintain an Iraqi
army following the military victory. The conquerors want to use remnants of
the old Saddam state apparatus to repress the people of Iraq, if they feel
it is necessary.

In Basra, the British forces have been faced with widespread looting, which
they admitted they were powerless to police. One British officer complained
that: ³A power vacuum now exists². Yet was not the purpose of the invasion
to smash the old power and establish an occupying force to fill the power
vacuum! This shows the weakness of the position the imperialist forces are
now in. They have announced they intend to try and establish a local police
force and ³re-establish law and order as soon as possible².

In Basra, a Œlocal Sheik¹ is apparently being appointed to run a new
administration. It is a paradox that they have fought this war to smash the
old Ba¹ath party regime and are now being compelled to rely on sections of
it to form a new administration. Is this not an echo of what happened in
Mogadishu, in Somalia, in 1992, when US troops intervened following the
overthrow of President Barre? Initially they collaborated with a local clan
leader, Aideed. US forces tried to disarm his and other clans as they came
into conflict with them but eventually they US troops were forced to
withdraw.

Looting is now also reported in Baghdad and other cities. The imperialists
have been taken aback by these developments. It shows they feared a genuine
uprising of the Iraqi people and did not want an independent mass
insurrection of the working class and poor in the cities. Following their
Œvictory¹ they will now do everything possible to try and prevent such a
development ­ now or in the future.

Opposition

Opposition and resistance to a new stooge government are certain to develop
amongst the Iraqi people. Urban guerrilla fighting, including the use of
suicide bombers threatened by Saddam, is likely to develop following the
Œvictory¹ of imperialism. This is certain to increase in intensity the
longer the occupation continues.

The effectiveness of suicide bombers is minimal in conventional military
conflicts between armies. As part of a struggle against occupation forces in
the cities, such tactics can act like a constant sore and undermine the
confidence and morale of the occupying forces.

Like Afghanistan, where the imperialist occupation forces cannot leave the
main cities and are still attacked within them, this will prove to be a
Pyrrhic victory for US imperialism.

The opposition to future governments will also involve the re-emergence of
struggle by the mass of the Iraqi people in the cities. The urban working
class will engage in struggle against the new regime using traditional
methods, including strikes and mass protests. Demands for democratic rights,
social reform and an end to the occupation, are likely to be crucial issues
for such protests and struggles.

Moreover, the repercussions of this war will be felt throughout the Middle
East. The warning of Egyptian President Mubarak, that the war will ³create
one hundred Bin Ladens², will probably prove to be an underestimation of the
consequences of this war. Chillingly, Bin Laden has issued a tape urging
Muslims to launch suicide bombings in solidarity with the Iraqi people. The
statement from the London Ambassador of the Arab League, that Arabs will
never forget the US for this war, is a warning of the consequences that are
yet to follow, as we have explained in other articles from the CWI.

This was a representative of the Arab ruling capitalist elite being
compelled to give a faint echo of the indignation felt on the ŒArab street¹.
The Egyptian youth shown on television screens ironically shouting, ³Thank
you, thank you, thank you, Mr. Bush, for waking up the Arabs², is a more
graphic illustration of the mood amongst the Arab masses.

The war has already resulted in an explosive growth of hatred for US
imperialism in all Arab countries. Such anger will also be directed towards
those Arab rulers who are perceived as collaborating with Western
imperialism.

The effects of this defeat will not be like those following the war on
Afghanistan when the Taliban collapsed without conducting any real struggle.
Arab youth will have been motivated by the fact that Iraqis at least
attempted to fight and held out for some weeks against the invasion. It is,
after all, better to be defeated fighting rather than be forced into
submission with no struggle. Despite the repressive character of the Saddam
dictatorship, the resistance that has been demonstrated against the invaders
will, like the Palestinian Intifada, have laid down a tradition of struggle
that will be taken up by the Arab masses.

Although, in the short term, the apparent victory of US imperialism may
result in a certain disappointment, this will not last for a lengthy period
of time. It will give way to further outbursts of anger, frustration, hatred
and anti-imperialist consciousness. This will lead to a strengthening of
Arab nationalism and of anti-imperialist movements. It also raises the
prospect of the coming to power of anti-Western, right-wing Islamic
fundamentalist regimes in some countries, such as Egypt or Saudi Arabia. It
will also unfortunately strengthen reactionary forces like Bin Laden and
al-Qa¹ida. 

Bush and Blair will undoubtedly organise a massive propaganda campaign to
justify their war, arguing that they have yet again been proved to be
correct. However, a massive anti-war movement developed internationally,
including in the US and Britain, in the months leading up to and during the
war. The outcome of the war will effect sections of the movement differently
but a significant section of the anti-war movement is enraged and angry
about the war ­ especially a new generation of young people who have taken
the first steps to becoming politically active during this crisis. Amongst
these there will remain a profound hatred of US and British imperialism.
Many young people and anti-war campaigners will be looking for an
explanation of what has taken place and why. A crucial question that is
certain to emerge is: ŒHow is it possible to defeat US imperialism and the
awesome firepower that it now has at its disposal?¹ Many will also ask the
question: ŒI! s it ever possible to defeat this seemingly invincible mighty
Empire of US imperialism?

The working class and socialism

Potentially the mightiest power that exists on the planet is the
international working class. A mass international socialist movement of the
working class is the only force that can challenge and defeat US
imperialism. One of the most important detachments for this struggle is the
working class in the US, which can be convinced by, and won to, a mass
international democratic socialist alternative to capitalism.

The experience of this war and other conflicts has shown that a military
struggle alone is not enough to defeat US capitalism. The working class and
youth in the USA are decisive in the fight against US imperialism and its
military power. The CWI will develop this theme in future articles and
publications.

However the possibility of the working class challenging and defeating
powerful military machines has been shown in previous struggles. During the
Spanish Civil War ­ particularly during the ŒJuly Days¹ in 1936 - the
working class smashed the Franco Fascist forces and took control of four
fifths of Spain. It was only possible for Franco to eventually recover and
win the civil war because of the incorrect policies of the leaders of the
mass workers¹ organisations.

In Iran, in 1988-89, a mass movement of the working class and poor overthrew
the Shah¹s brutal military regime. This was despite the absence of a
revolutionary socialist leadership. However the lack of a mass socialist
alternative meant that Khomeini was allowed to derail the movement and
establish his own reactionary theocratic dictatorship.

Even the most powerful military machine can be split and defeated by a mass
movement and social revolt. The heroic struggle of the National Liberation
Front in Vietnam laid the basis for a revolt by big sections of the US
working class and youth against the war, which, in turn, was decisive in
forcing US imperialism to withdraw its forces.

Even the present conflict in Iraq has had an effect on some sections of the
rank and file of the army and shows the potential that exists for the
working class and a socialist programme to win support. The Guardian
newspaper quoted one US marine as saying: ³Bush is a rich bully. The US has
no legal right to be hereŠthis is the first free democratic country ever to
occupy another without good reason.² (The Guardian, London, 9 April 2003).

Although this unnamed marine was wrong about previous invasions by
Œdemocratic¹ countries, he showed the opposition that is beginning to
develop to Bush and what he represents.

The effects of the recent anti-war movement in the US ­ which has been far
bigger than the anti-Vietnam War movement at a comparable stage of that war
- are an indication of the potential for the building of a powerful
opposition to capitalism and imperialism in the US. This will be fuelled by
the deepening economic and social crisis that is beginning to develop there.

Others from the anti-war movement may question if the mass mobilisations of
millions worldwide had any effect at all. After all, Bush and Blair were
determined to prosecute this war. But the reality is they were forced to
take into account the mass international protests of millions. This was one
factor that drove them to go down the United Nations route, complicating
their war plans. However, because of the vital strategic economic and
political importance of this war for the Bush regime, the leaders of US
imperialism were determined to go ahead and conduct the invasion.

Bush and Blair had agreed a military timetable and plan a long time before
the war actually began. The question of Saddam¹s alleged weapons of mass
destruction was simply the excuse for war. The mass protests were not enough
to stop it. 

To achieve this aim would have required a mass movement of workers and young
people armed with a socialist programme. It would have required the
preparation and organisation of a mass general strike by the working class,
not only to challenge the war but also to be prepared to take power and
overthrow the capitalist system itself.

However, the massive protests - especially the earth-shattering
international demonstrations by millions of people on 15 February ­ have
been historic. They were a promissory note for future bigger mass protests.
The significance of them must not now be lost amidst the current barrage of
war propaganda.

War prepared for a long time

Bush and Blair have been planning this war for a long time. According to Sir
Christopher Meyer, recently retired British ambassador to Washington, Bush,
encouraged by his top aid, Paul Wolfowitz, wanted to go to war against Iraq
following September 11. Blair succeeded in persuading the US administration
to delay - firstly going after Bin Laden, then Afghanistan and then Iraq.
(The Guardian, London, 4 April 2003).

A crucial factor in this war was the question of US imperialism clearly
establishing itself in the role as the world¹s single super power and
Œpoliceman of the world¹ following the collapse of the former Soviet Union
at the end of 1991. Sections of the US ruling class have prepared for this
since the early 1990s. The Sunday Observer reports (London, 23 February
2003): ³In 1992, Wolfowitz wrote a blueprint to Œset the nation¹s direction
for the next century¹ which is now the foreign policy of George W. Bush.
Entitled ŒDefence Planning Guidance¹ it put an onus on the Pentagon to
Œestablish and protect a new order under unchallenged American authority.
The US must be sure of deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to
a larger regional or global role¹ ­ including Germany or Japan. It
contemplated the use of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry
pre-emptively¹. Wolfowitz formed a group ca! lled ŒProject for the New
American Century¹ which included Cheney and Richard Perle. Two years ago
this group produced another document that pondered that what was needed to
assure US global power was Œsome catastrophic and catalysing event, like a
new Pearl Harbour.¹ It concluded that the need for a substantial American
forces presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam
Hussein.²

These ideas were codified by the Bush regime in a document, ŒNational
Security Strategy¹, which was published in September 2002.

This war has decisively changed international relations. It was fought
because the current Bush regime considers that the strategic, political and
economic interests of US imperialism are best served by securing a strong
military base in the Gulf with control of Iraq¹s oil fields. Once the ruling
class, or a section of it which is in power, concludes that vital interests
are at stake, it is prepared to go to war whatever the consequences.
However, even mighty US imperialism was compelled to take the mass protests
and mobilisations around the world, and especially in the US, into account
in its political and military planning.

As the CWI has explained, the occupation of Iraq opens a new chapter in
world relations and, in particular the role of US imperialism. Already
sections of the Bush regime are considering further foreign policy
adventures. It was not an accident that during this conflict Rumsfeld and
Powell both have issued warnings to Syria and Iran and alleged that Saddam¹s
Œweapons of mass destruction¹ have been moved to Syria.

More threatening in terms of a potential crisis are the unfolding events in
North Korea. Maurice Strong, Special Adviser to UN Secretary General, Kofi
Annan, warned that: ³There is such a complete breakdown of trust and
confidence between these two countries [the US and North Korea] that they
are now unable to read the intentions of the other, so there is real
potential now for this to escalate into a conflict. I think war is
unnecessary, it¹s unthinkable and unfortunately it¹s entirely possible²
(Observer, London, 6 April 2003).

The unstable nature of the North Korean regime and the arrogance of the Bush
Œjunta¹ mean that an armed conflict, including a terrifying nuclear
exchange, cannot be excluded. Other conflicts, like that between India and
Pakistan can also erupt into major wars. Bush, by adopting the doctrine of
the Œpre-emptive¹ strike, has given unstable regimes the justification to
launch such an attack.

During the Iraqi crisis, inter-imperialist rivalries have re-emerged. The
clash of interests between the imperialist powers will be a feature of the
new world situation. The victory of US and Britain will not end these
conflicts. On the contrary they will intensify in the coming period. Bush
and Blair are mistaken if they think that their rivals will simply be
prepared to accept Pax-Americana, as the two day summit between Russia,
France and Germany in Russia on 11 - 12 April shows.

Anger and bitterness

Following the US/British Œvictory¹ in Iraq, it is possible that a temporary
mood of disappointment at the imperialist victory will affect many people in
the imperialist countries and in the neo-colonial world. Amongst a broader
layer, this may be reflected in attendance at the demonstrations and
protests, which are already showing signs of a substantial decline. For a
temporary period this mood of disappointment may develop in many countries
of the neo-colonial world and also in some of the imperialist countries of
Europe. However the anger and bitterness that have been aroused during this
conflict will be reflected in further crises and massive movements against
the rulers and the system that have produced this war.

Blair and Bush will attempt to use this Œvictory¹ to strengthen their
support. They may be able to do this to some degree for a temporary period.
However, they will pay a heavy price as the consequences of the conflict
erupt in the Middle East and internationally. At the same time, they are
also confronted with a worsening international economic crisis. Bush and US
imperialism hope that by securing the Iraqi oilfields, smashing the power of
OPEC and forcing down the price of oil it will be possible to resolve the
economic problems facing capitalism.

As the CWI has explained in other articles, this is an unlikely possibility
because of the underlying problems in the economy, which will not be
resolved even if there is a fall in the price of oil. At the same time, the
Iraqi oil fields need massive investment to extract the wealth they contain.
As the Financial Times pointed out: ³The financial system has to be rebuilt
from scratch; the debauched currency, in effect, re-launched. Iraq has great
oil wealth but needs tens of billions of dollars in investment to upgrade
its oil industry and rebuild its infrastructure. With foreign debts above
$100 billion and war reparations to Kuwait absorbing a quarter of revenue,
it will not get that investment² (The Financial Times, London, 8 April
2003).

The worsening economic crisis and attacks on the living standards of the
working class will bring to the fore other aspects of the class struggle
following this war ­ not least in the US and Britain. It is even possible
that Bush, despite this apparent Œvictory¹ will, like his father, become a
one-term President. He may win the war and be defeated by economic
recession. Even before Œvictory¹ has been proclaimed, Prime Minister Aznar
in Spain, Bush and Blair¹s other main war ally, faces a major political
crisis and may be the first casualty of this war amongst the capitalist
leaders of the West. The crisis he faces is a warning to Blair and Bush of
what awaits them.

The Œvictory¹ that Bush and Blair will proclaim in the coming days will
begin a new chapter in world relations and in the struggles of the working
class and others exploited by capitalism and imperialism. The world of peace
and progress promised by capitalist leaders during the 1990s has become a
world of war, conflict and crisis. The vital task of building a mass
socialist international alternative is now more urgent than ever.

End the occupation of Iraq
British and US troops out of Iraq
Let the Iraqi and Kurdish peoples decide their future
No Privatisations of oil or other resources
For a democratic socialist Iraq
For a voluntary, democratic socialist federation of the Middle East

International Secretariat of the CWI
London 8 April 2003
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ADVERTISEMENT
var lrec_target="_top"; var lrec_URL = new Array(); lrec_URL[1] =
"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=17050602
13:HM/A=1529139/R=0/id=flashurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/300
_mapG/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpll"; var link="javascript:LRECopenWindow(1)";
var lrec_flashfile =
'http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/expert_city/093002_weather_300
x250_map.swf?clickTAG='+link+''; var lrec_altURL =
"http://rd.yahoo.com/M=246920.2960106.4328965.1728375/D=egroupweb/S=17050602
13:HM/A=1529139/R=1/id=altimgurl/*http://www.gotomypc.com/u/tr/yh/cpm/grp/30
0_mapG/g22lp?Target=mm/g22lp.tmpl"; var lrec_altimg =
"http://us.a1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/a/1-/flash/expert_city/093002_weather300x
250_map.gif"; var lrec_width = 300; var lrec_height = 250;
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
SA-MembersBulletin-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> . 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/mobglob-discuss/attachments/20030409/a7f8c3a8/attachment.html>