Tension rising in Middle East: Could Israel attack Iran and why?

Written by Hamid Alizadeh
Wednesday, 01 December 2010

On August 21 the Bushehr nuclear power plant was officially launched. This marked a new stage in Iran's disputed nuclear programme. In the days preceding this event, former US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, was quoted around the world as saying: "Israel has days to strike Bushehr" and further "diplomatically" hinted, “If Israel was right to destroy the Osiraq reactor [Iraqi nuclear reactor bombed by Israel in 1981], is it right to allow this one to continue? You can’t have it both ways.”

[Note: The recent Wikileaks were released after this article was written but confirm the analysis in all important aspects.

Read the rest here

RENEGADE EYE

Stratfor: Syria, Hezbollah and Iran: An Alliance in Flux

This is another excellent assessment by intelligence think tank Stratfor. This page shows how dynamic the situation in the Middle East has become. As they say "You can't tell the players, without a program."

By Reva Bhalla
October 14, 2010

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Beirut on Oct. 13 for his first official visit to Lebanon since becoming president in 2005. He is reportedly returning to the country after a stint there in the 1980s as a young Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officer tasked with training Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. A great deal of controversy is surrounding his return. Rumors are spreading of Sunni militants attempting to mar the visit by provoking Iran’s allies in Hezbollah into a fight (already the car of a pro-Hezbollah imam who has been defending Ahmadinejad has been blown up), while elaborate security preparations are being made for Ahmadinejad to visit Lebanon’s heavily militarized border with Israel.

Rather than getting caught up in the drama surrounding the Iranian president’s visit, we want to take the opportunity provided by all the media coverage to probe into a deeper topic, one that has been occupying the minds of Iranian, Syrian and Hezbollah officials for some time. This topic is the durability of the Iran-Hezbollah-Syria alliance, which STRATFOR believes has been under great stress in recent months. More precisely, the question is: What are Syria’s current intentions toward Hezbollah?

The Origins of the Alliance

To address this topic, we need to review the origins of the trilateral pact, starting with the formation of an alliance in 1979 between secular Alawite-Baathist Syria and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ideologically speaking, the Syrian Alawite elite represent an offshoot of Shiite Islam that the Sunnis consider apostate. They found some commonality with the Shiite clerical elite in Tehran, but there were also broader strategic motivations in play. At the time, Syria was on a quest to establish the country’s regional prowess, and it knew that the first steps toward this end had to be taken in Lebanon. From the Syrian point of view, Lebanon is not just a natural extension of Syria; it is the heartland of the Greater Syria province that existed during Ottoman times. Since the days of Phoenicia, what is modern-day Lebanon has been a vibrant trading hub, connecting routes from the east and south to the Mediterranean basin. For Syria to feel like it has any real worth in the region, it must dominate Lebanon.

A civil war that had broken out in Lebanon in 1975 (and lasted through 1990) afforded Syria such an opportunity. The main obstruction to Syria’s agenda at the time, besides Israel, was the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) under Yasser Arafat, whose vision for a unified Palestine and whose operations in Lebanon ran counter to Syria’s bid for regional hegemony. The PLO, in fact, was one of the main reasons Syria intervened militarily in Lebanon in 1975 on behalf of its Maronite Christian allies. At the same time, Syria was looking for an ally to undermine the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, with whom the Syrian Baathists had a deep-seated rivalry. An alliance with Iran would grant Syria some much-needed individuality in a region dominated by the Arab powers Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Coming off the success of the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran and going into what would become a long and bloody war with Iraq, Iran was also looking for a venue to counter the Baathist regime in Baghdad. In addition, Iran was looking to undermine the Pan-Arab vision, establish a presence in the Levant and promote its own Islamic vision of government. In opposition to Israel, Hussein and Arafat, Iran and Syria thus uncovered the roots of an alliance, albeit one that was shifting uneasily between Syrian secularity and Iranian religiosity.

The adoption of Hezbollah by the two unlikely allies in 1982 was what helped bridge that gap. Hezbollah, an offshoot of Amal, the main Shiite political movement at the time, served multiple purposes for Damascus and Tehran. Syria found in Hezbollah a useful militant proxy to contain obstructions to Syrian influence in Lebanon and to compensate for its own military weakness in comparison to Israel. In the broader Syrian strategic vision, Hezbollah would develop into a bargaining chip for a future settlement with Israel once Syria could ensure that Lebanon was firmly within Syria’s grasp and was therefore unable to entertain a peace deal with Israel on its own.

The Iranians saw in Hezbollah the potential to export its Islamic Revolution into the Arab world, a strong binder for its still new and shaky alliance with Syria and a useful deterrent in dealing with adversaries like Israel, the United States and Saudi Arabia. So, Iran and Syria set out to divide their responsibilities in managing this militant proxy. Iran was primarily in charge of bankrolling, training and enforcing the group’s ideological loyalty to Tehran with IRGC assistance. Syria was in charge of creating the conditions for Iran to nurture Hezbollah, mainly by permitting IRGC officers to set up training camps in the Bekaa Valley and by securing a line of supply for weapons to reach the group via Syria.

But the triumvirate did not get off to a very smooth start. In fact, Hezbollah and Syria clashed a number of times in the early 1980s, when Syria felt the group, under Iranian direction, went too far in provoking external intervention (and thus risked drawing Syria into conflict). If Hezbollah was to operate on Syrian territory (as Syria viewed it) in Lebanon, Syria wanted Hezbollah operating on its terms. It was not until 1987, when Syrian troops in Lebanon shot 23 Hezbollah members, that Hezbollah fully realized the importance of maintaining an entente with Syria. In the meantime, Hezbollah, caught between occasionally conflicting Syrian and Iranian agendas, saw that the path to the group’s survival lay in becoming a more autonomous political — as opposed to purely militant — actor in the Lebanese political arena.

A Syrian Setback

The Iran-Hezbollah-Syria alliance operated relatively smoothly through the 1990s as Hezbollah gradually built up its political arm and as Syria kept close watch on the group through its roughly 14,000 troops and thousands of intelligence agents who had remained in Lebanon since the end of the civil war. In 2000, with Iranian and Syrian help, Hezbollah succeeded in forcing Israel to withdraw from Lebanon’s southern Security Zone, an event that greatly boosted Hezbollah’s credentials as a Lebanese nationalist actor.

But fresh challenges to the pact came with the turn of the century. The 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, in particular, was a defining moment for both Iran and Syria. The two allies felt enormously uncomfortable with having the world’s most powerful military on their borders, but they were also presented with an immediate opportunity to unseat their mutual archrival, Saddam Hussein. Iran and Syria also had different endgames in mind for a post-Hussein Iraq. Iran used its political, militant and intelligence links to consolidate influence in Iraq through the country’s Shiite majority. In contrast, Syria provided refuge to Iraq’s Sunni Baathists with the aim of extending its sphere of influence in the region through a secularist former-Baathist presence in Baghdad. The Syrians also planned to use those Sunni links later to bargain with the United States for a seat at the negotiating table, thereby affirming Syrian influence in the region.

But before Syria could gain much traction in its plans for Iraq, its agenda in Lebanon suffered a serious setback. On Feb. 14, 2005, a massive car bomb in Beirut killed former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, a powerful and vocal opponent of Syrian authority in Lebanon. The bombing is strongly believed to have been orchestrated by elements within the Syrian regime and executed by members of Hezbollah. While a major opponent of the Syrian regime was thereby eliminated, Syria did not anticipate that the death of al-Hariri would spark a revolution in Lebanon (which attracted the support of countries like France and the United States) and end up driving Syrian troops out of Lebanon. The vacuum that Syria left in Lebanon was rapidly filled by Iran (via Hezbollah), which had a pressing need to fortify Hezbollah as a proxy force as war tensions steadily built up in the region over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Though Syria knew it would only be a matter of time before it would return to Lebanon, it also had a strategic interest in demonstrating to the Israelis and the Americans the costs of Syria’s absence from Lebanon. The regime wanted to show that without a firm Syrian check on Hezbollah, disastrous events like the 2006 summer confrontation between Hezbollah and Israel could occur.

The Syrian Comeback

It has now been more than five and a half years since the al-Hariri assassination, and there is little question that Syria, once again, has reclaimed its hegemonic position in Lebanon. The Syrian intelligence apparatus pervades the country, and Lebanese politicians who dared to speak out against the Syrian regime are now asking for forgiveness. In perhaps the most glaring demonstration of the political tide shifting back toward Damascus, Saad al-Hariri, the son of the slain al-Hariri and Lebanon’s reluctant prime minister, announced in early June that Lebanon had “made a mistake” in making a “political accusation” against Syria for his father’s murder. The message was clear: Syria was back.

That message did not necessarily sit well with Hezbollah and Iran. Syria wants to keep Hezbollah in check, returning to the 1990s model when Syrian military and intelligence could still tightly control the group’s movements and supplies. Iran and Hezbollah have also watched as Syria has used its comeback in Lebanon to diversify its foreign policy portfolio over the past year. Saudi Arabia and Turkey, for example, have been cozying up to Damascus and have quietly bargained with the al Assad regime to place checks on Hezbollah as a way to undermine Iran’s key proxy in the Levant. As long as these regional powers recognize Syria’s authority in Lebanon, Syria is willing to use those relationships to exonerate itself from the al-Hariri assassination tribunal, rake much-needed investment into the Syrian economy and, most important, re-establish itself as a regional power. Syrian President Bashar al Assad’s decision to visit Beirut alongside Saudi King Abdullah was a deliberate signal to Hezbollah and Iran that Syria had options and was not afraid to display them.

This does not mean Syria is ready and willing to sell out its Hezbollah and Iranian allies. On the contrary, Syria derives leverage from maintaining these relationships and acting as the bridge between the Shiite revivalists and the Sunni powers. Syria has illustrated as much in its current mediation efforts among the various Iraqi factions that are torn between Iran on one side and the United States, Saudi Arabia and Turkey on the other. But if we go back to reviewing the core reasons Syria agreed to an alliance with Iran and Hezbollah in the first place, it is easy to see why Hezbollah and Iran still have a lot of reason to be worried.

Syria’s priority in the early 1980s was to achieve suzerainty in Lebanon (done), eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq (done) and remove any key obstacles in Lebanon that could challenge Syria’s authority. In the 1970s, that obstacle was the PLO. Today, that obstacle is Hezbollah and its Iranian backers, who are competing for influence in Lebanon and no longer have a good read on Syrian intentions. Hezbollah relies heavily on Syria for its logistical support and knows that its communication systems, for example, are vulnerable to Syrian intelligence. Hezbollah has also grown nervous at the signs of Syria steadily ramping up support for competing militant groups — including the Amal Movement, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, al-Ahbash, the Nasserites, the Baath Party and the Mirada of Suleiman Franjiyye — to counter Hezbollah’s prowess.

Meanwhile, Iran is seeing one of the key prongs in its deterrent strategy — Hezbollah — grow increasingly vulnerable at a time when Iran is pressed to demonstrate to the United States and Israel that the costs of an attack on its nuclear installation are not worth incurring. The Iranian competition with Syria does not end in Lebanon, either. In Iraq, Syria is far more interested in establishing a secularist government with a former Baathist presence than it is in seeing Baghdad develop into a Shiite satellite for the Iranians.

For now, Syria is adroitly playing both sides of the geopolitical divide in the region, taking care to blend its reassurances toward the alliance and its primary negotiating partners in Saudi Arabia with threats of the destabilization that could erupt should Syria’s demands go ignored. Syria, for example, has made clear that in return for recognition of its authority in Lebanon it will prevent Hezbollah from laying siege on Beirut, whether they are ordered to do so by Tehran as part of an Iranian negotiating ploy with the Americans or whether they act on their own in retaliation against the al-Hariri tribunal proceedings. At the same time, Syrian officials will shuttle regularly between Lebanon and Iran to reaffirm their standing in the triumvirate. Behind this thick veneer of unity, however, a great deal of apprehension and distrust is building among the allies.

The core fear residing in Hezbollah and Iran has to do with Syrian intentions moving forward. In particular, Hezbollah would like to know if, in Syria’s eyes, the group is rapidly devolving from strategic patron to bargaining chip with every ounce of confidence that Syria gains in Lebanon. The answer to that question, however, lies not in Syria but in Israel and the United States. Israeli, U.S. and Saudi policymakers have grown weary of Syria’s mercantilist negotiating style in which Syrian officials will extract as much as possible from their negotiating partners while delivering very little in return.

At the same time, Syria cannot afford to take any big steps toward militant proxies like Hezbollah unless it receives firm assurances from Israel in backchannel peace talks that continue to stagnate. But Syria is also sensing an opportunity at its door: The United States is desperate to complete its exit strategy from Iraq and, like Israel, is looking for useful levers to undermine Iranian clout in the region. One such lever is Syria, which is why the mere idea of Israel and Syria talking peace right now should give Iran and Hezbollah ample food for thought.

RENEGADE EYE

Stratfor: The US Withdrawal and Limited Options in Iraq

By Geo. Friedman
August 17, 2010

It is August 2010, which is the month when the last U.S. combat troops are scheduled to leave Iraq. It is therefore time to take stock of the situation in Iraq, which has changed places with Afghanistan as the forgotten war. This is all the more important since 50,000 troops will remain in Iraq, and while they may not be considered combat troops, a great deal of combat power remains embedded with them. So we are far from the end of the war in Iraq. The question is whether the departure of the last combat units is a significant milestone and, if it is, what it signifies.

The United States invaded Iraq in 2003 with three goals: The first was the destruction of the Iraqi army, the second was the destruction of the Baathist regime and the third was the replacement of that regime with a stable, pro-American government in Baghdad. The first two goals were achieved within weeks. Seven years later, however, Iraq still does not yet have a stable government, let alone a pro-American government. The lack of that government is what puts the current strategy in jeopardy.

The fundamental flaw of the invasion of Iraq was not in its execution but in the political expectations that were put in place. As the Americans knew, the Shiite community was anti-Baathist but heavily influenced by Iranian intelligence. The decision to destroy the Baathists put the Sunnis, who were the backbone of Saddam’s regime, in a desperate position. Facing a hostile American army and an equally hostile Shiite community backed by Iran, the Sunnis faced disaster. Taking support from where they could get it — from the foreign jihadists that were entering Iraq — they launched an insurgency against both the Americans and the Shia.

The Sunnis simply had nothing to lose. In their view, they faced permanent subjugation at best and annihilation at worst. The United States had the option of creating a Shiite-based government but realized that this government would ultimately be under Iranian control. The political miscalculation placed the United States simultaneously into a war with the Sunnis and a near-war situation with many of the Shia, while the Shia and Sunnis waged a civil war among themselves and the Sunnis occasionally fought the Kurds as well. From late 2003 until 2007, the United States was not so much in a state of war in Iraq as it was in a state of chaos.

The new strategy of Gen. David Petraeus emerged from the realization that the United States could not pacify Iraq and be at war with everyone. After a 2006 defeat in the midterm elections, it was expected that U.S. President George W. Bush would order the withdrawal of forces from Iraq. Instead, he announced the surge. The surge was really not much of a surge, but it created psychological surprise — not only were the Americans not leaving, but more were on the way. Anyone who was calculating a position based on the assumption of a U.S. withdrawal had to recalculate.

The Americans understood that the key was reversing the position of the Sunni insurgents. So long as they remained at war with the Americans and Shia, there was no possibility of controlling the situation. Moreover, only the Sunnis could cut the legs out from under the foreign jihadists operating in the Sunni community. These jihadists were challenging the traditional leadership of the Sunni community, so turning this community against the jihadists was not difficult. The Sunnis also were terrified that the United States would withdraw, leaving them at the mercy of the Shia. These considerations, along with substantial sums of money given to Sunni tribal elders, caused the Sunnis to do an about-face. This put the Shia on the defensive, since the Sunni alignment with the Americans enabled the Americans to strike at the Shiite militias.

Petraeus stabilized the situation, but he did not win the war. The war could only be considered won when there was a stable government in Baghdad that actually had the ability to govern Iraq. A government could be formed with people sitting in meetings and talking, but that did not mean that their decisions would have any significance. For that there had to be an Iraqi army to enforce the will of the government and protect the country from its neighbors, particularly Iran (from the American point of view). There also had to be a police force to enforce whatever laws might be made. And from the American perspective, this government did not have to be pro-American (that had long ago disappeared as a viable goal), but it could not be dominated by Iran.

Iraq is not ready to deal with the enforcement of the will of the government because it has no government. Once it has a government, it will be a long time before its military and police forces will be able to enforce its will throughout the country. And it will be much longer before it can block Iranian power by itself. As it stands now, there is no government, so the rest doesn’t much matter.

The geopolitical problem the Americans face is that, with the United States gone, Iran would be the most powerful conventional power in the Persian Gulf. The historical balance of power had been between Iraq and Iran. The American invasion destroyed the Iraqi army and government, and the United States was unable to recreate either. Part of this had to do with the fact that the Iranians did not want the Americans to succeed.

For Iran, a strong Iraq is the geopolitical nightmare. Iran once fought a war with Iraq that cost Iran a million casualties (imagine the United States having more than 4 million casualties), and the foundation of Iranian national strategy is to prevent a repeat of that war by making certain that Iraq becomes a puppet to Iran or, failing that, that it remains weak and divided. At this point, the Iranians do not have the ability to impose a government on Iraq. However, they do have the ability to prevent the formation of a government or to destabilize one that is formed. Iranian intelligence has sufficient allies and resources in Iraq to guarantee the failure of any stabilization attempt that doesn’t please Tehran.

There are many who are baffled by Iranian confidence and defiance in the face of American pressure on the nuclear issue. This is the reason for that confidence: Should the United States attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, or even if the United States does not attack, Iran holds the key to the success of the American strategy in Iraq. Everything done since 2006 fails if the United States must maintain tens of thousands of troops in Iraq in perpetuity. Should the United States leave, Iran has the capability of forcing a new order not only on Iraq but also on the rest of the Persian Gulf. Should the United States stay, Iran has the ability to prevent the stabilization of Iraq, or even to escalate violence to the point that the Americans are drawn back into combat. The Iranians understand the weakness of America’s position in Iraq, and they are confident that they can use that to influence American policy elsewhere.

American and Iraqi officials have publicly said that the reason an Iraqi government has not been formed is Iranian interference. To put it more clearly, there are any number of Shiite politicians who are close to Tehran and, for a range of reasons, will take their orders from there. There are not enough of these politicians to create a government, but there are enough to block a government from being formed. Therefore, no government is being formed.

With 50,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, the United States does not yet face a crisis. The current withdrawal milestone is not the measure of the success of the strategy. The threat of a crisis will arise if the United States continues its withdrawal to the point where the Shia feel free to launch a sustained and escalating attack on the Sunnis, possibly supported by Iranian forces, volunteers or covert advisers. At that point, the Iraqi government must be in place, be united and command sufficient forces to control the country and deter Iranian plans.

The problem is, as we have seen, that in order to achieve that government there must be Iranian concurrence, and Iran has no reason to want to allow that to happen. Iran has very little to lose by, and a great deal to gain from, continuing the stability the Petraeus strategy provided. The American problem is that a genuine withdrawal from Iraq requires a shift in Iranian policy, and the United States has little to offer Iran to change the policy.

From the Iranian point of view, they have the Americans in a difficult position. On the one hand, the Americans are trumpeting the success of the Petraeus plan in Iraq and trying to repeat the success in Afghanistan. On the other hand, the secret is that the Petraeus plan has not yet succeeded in Iraq. Certainly, it ended the major fighting involving the Americans and settled down Sunni-Shiite tensions. But it has not taken Iraq anywhere near the end state the original strategy envisioned. Iraq has neither a government nor a functional army — and what is blocking it is Tehran.

One impulse of the Americans is to settle with the Iranians militarily. However, Iran is a mountainous country of 70 million, and an invasion is simply not in the cards. Airstrikes are always possible, but as the United States learned over North Vietnam — or from the Battle of Britain or in the bombing of Germany and Japan before the use of nuclear weapons — air campaigns alone don’t usually force nations to capitulate or change their policies. Serbia did give up Kosovo after a three-month air campaign, but we suspect Iran would be a tougher case. In any event, the United States has no appetite for another war while the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are still under way, let alone a war against Iran in order to extricate itself from Iraq. The impulse to use force against Iran was resisted by President Bush and is now being resisted by President Barack Obama. And even if the Israelis attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, Iran could still wreak havoc in Iraq.

Two strategies follow from this. The first is that the United States will reduce U.S. forces in Iraq somewhat but will not complete the withdrawal until a more distant date (the current Status of Forces Agreement requires all American troops to be withdrawn by the end of 2011). The problems with this strategy are that Iran is not going anywhere, destabilizing Iraq is not costing it much and protecting itself from an Iraqi resurgence is Iran’s highest foreign policy priority. That means that the decision really isn’t whether the United States will delay its withdrawal but whether the United States will permanently base forces in Iraq — and how vulnerable those forces might be to an upsurge in violence, which is an option that Iran retains.

Another choice for the United States, as we have discussed previously, is to enter into negotiations with Iran. This is a distasteful choice from the American point of view, but surely not more distasteful than negotiating with Stalin or Mao. At the same time, the Iranians’ price would be high. At the very least, they would want the “Finlandization” of Iraq, similar to the situation where the Soviets had a degree of control over Finland’s government. And it is far from clear that such a situation in Iraq would be sufficient for the Iranians.

The United States cannot withdraw completely without some arrangement, because that would leave Iran in an extremely powerful position in the region. The Iranian strategy seems to be to make the United States sufficiently uncomfortable to see withdrawal as attractive but not to be so threatening as to deter the withdrawal. As clever as that strategy is, however, it does not hide the fact that Iran would dominate the Persian Gulf region after the withdrawal. Thus, the United States has nothing but unpleasant choices in Iraq. It can stay in perpetuity and remain vulnerable to violence. It can withdraw and hand the region over to Iran. It can go to war with yet another Islamic country. Or it can negotiate with a government that it despises — and which despises it right back.

Given all that has been said about the success of the Petraeus strategy, it must be observed that while it broke the cycle of violence and carved out a fragile stability in Iraq, it has not achieved, nor can it alone achieve, the political solution that would end the war. Nor has it precluded a return of violence at some point. The Petraeus strategy has not solved the fundamental reality that has always been the shadow over Iraq: Iran. But that was beyond Petraeus’ task and, for now, beyond American capabilities. That is why the Iranians can afford to be so confident.

RENEGADE EYE

Bush’s Adventure in Iraq: Who Has Gained From It?

By Dekel Avshalom and Fred Weston
Friday, 18 July 2008

Amid five years of mutual slaughter, thousands of dead, millions of lives ruined and a war that has no end in sight, US president George W. Bush keeps insisting on his victory in Iraq. George W. seems unable to stare reality in the face.

In reality none of the war's proclaimed goals have been achieved: weapons of mass destruction were nowhere to be found; Iraq, instead of magically transforming itself into a puppet bourgeois democracy after the eviction of Saddam Hussein from power, has totally disintegrated and became a hotbed for international terrorism of all sorts. This is while American soldiers and Iraqi citizens lose their lives on a daily basis.

However, from the shortsighted point of view of the major oil companies, which the Bush family comes from, the war seems to be their greatest victory in recent history.

The fact is that the war was never about protecting the world from weapons of mass destruction or bringing democracy to Iraq. The war was about enforcing the rule of the United States, a declining imperialist power and getting control of oil supplies and establishing some kind of control over the whole of the unstable Middle East.

On 19.6.08, the New York Times reported that 36 years after Saddam Hussein nationalized the Iraqi oil fields, the pro-imperialist puppet government in Iraq has granted concessions to all the major world oil companies to "service" Iraqi oil fields again. After 36 years in the cold, they are back: the oil giants Exxon Mobile, Chevron, Total, British Petroleum and Shell have now returned to plunder the most lucrative oil fields in the world. From their narrow perspective, these measures of the present Iraqi government are a welcome step, and for them it makes all the destruction and bloodshed worth it. From this to actually getting the oil flowing is another question.

The True reasons for Fighting Iraq

The major western oil companies suffered a setback after Iraq and other oil producing states had nationalised their oil fields. The US government seriously considered military intervention. The Carter administration even responded by setting up a stationary military force that could intervene in the Middle East at short notice. They even contemplated the possibility of invading parts of Saudi Arabia, that area where the oilfields are concentrated, should the regime fall.

However, in that period, the situation in the Middle East was too delicate for such an intervention. During the Cold War, the American attitude toward the Middle East swayed between two extremes. One was the immense importance of controlling Gulf oil for American capitalism and the military machines and modern weaponry that sustain it. The other was the fear that if America were to become too openly aggressive in defending its interests, the Arab masses could become radicalised and leaders could emerge who might turn to the Soviet Union for help.

We also have to remember that Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party initially received US support, as it removed the pro-Soviet Abd el-Karim Qasim in the 1963 coup. The US knew perfectly well that if they tried to replace Saddam, his successor might turn out to be even worse for them. On top of that, despite his "mischief" in nationalising the oil fields, Saddam had proven himself as a vital force in guaranteeing imperialist interests in the region. They could count on him to slaughter the communists (which he did), block Iran's anti-Western regime, and help to keep oil prices low.

The final argument against invading Iraq was that the oil companies, even after losing the concessions, were still making massive profits from shipping, refining and marketing oil and oil products. In that period, oil supplies were abundant and the price was on the rise. However, all this was about to change.

Since the late 1980s, all the arguments against war in Iraq and to regain direct control over oil had become irrelevant. First, the fall of the Soviet Union changed the balance of forces in the region. With the Soviets out of the way, the US had become the world's only superpower. An intoxicating feeling of omnipotence swept through all the top ranks in Washington. They felt they now owned the world and that they could do anything they wanted.

Second, as demand for oil increased reserves in oil fields around the world started to go down, while new oil discoveries in the Persian Gulf were still increasing. Persian Gulf oil started to become the most lucrative and abundant oil reserves in the world. Controlling the Gulf thus became much more urgent for American imperialism.

Finally, Saddam Hussein had ceased to function as an agent of "stabilisation" in the Gulf. Faced with the bankruptcy of his country after the costly war with Iran, and furious at the US and his regional neighbours for not providing financial help after fighting Iran for them, Saddam decided to occupy Kuwait. After witnessing Kuwait flooding the oil market and thus reducing oil prices, he knew that by conquering it, he would have greater control over oil prices. He naively thought he could reconcile US fury by reducing oil prices. However, he did not take into consideration who was now in charge of the White House - the Bush family and its very close links to the oil giants - the ones who had their eyes on controlling Iraqi oil again after decades.

The accumulation of these conditions paved the way for the first Gulf War. In that war, while the Soviet Union was still in existence, replacing rebellious leaders by means of direct military intervention was not the option of choice for the US government. In such a delicate matter, it usually preferred to intervene indirectly. It encouraged coups by the local opposition using economic sanctions and covert aid from the CIA. That is how Saddam himself came to power in the first place, together with many other contemptible dictators. This is why during the Clinton administration, there were US and UK attempts to destabilize the regime through sanctions and continuous low-level military attacks, but not through the use of direct military means to oust Saddam from power.

As we have seen, during the time of George W. Bush, a feeling of omnipotence flowed through the veins of the American leaders, and with such important goals at stake, the choice was to intervene directly.

The terrorist attacks in 2001 on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were just a pretext for something that had been planned long before. According to a testimony of Mr. Paul O'Neill, the former Secretary of the Treasury, the Bush administration started planning an invasion of Iraq almost immediately after being elected. In fact, it was reported on the BBC in 2005 that US officials had started to look among the Iraqi opposition for a successor to Saddam well before September 11.

The big oil companies started operating in Iraq immediately after the US-led invasion, using their own personnel to direct oil extraction, receiving immunity from the local puppet-government. The recent agreement reported in the New York Times is another important step in assuring American and Western control over the oil fields. It made sure that Russia and China would be kept out of Iraq, thus securing American control over the Gulf region and its oil fields - the greatest treasure in the history of humankind.

The Complexity of the War's Balance Sheet

From the shortsighted point of view of the oil giants and their prime butler George W. Bush, the war may look like a victory. However, in reality it is creating new contradictions that can be very damaging for the future of American imperialism.

The American entanglement in Iraq teaches us that the political exponents of the bourgeoisie do not always act according to the interests of the class they are supposed to represent. In terms of how quickly the US forces were able to take Iraq the war was a staggering victory. Now the Bush clique thought they had control of the country and could set about exploiting its huge oil reserves.

However, things have turned out somewhat differently to what Bush had anticipated. From a political perspective, the war has been a staggering defeat. US imperialism has in fact been weakened by the war. The feeling of omnipotence that permeated the US ruling class a few years ago has proven to be unfounded.

They underestimated the power of local resistance and the implications of such a war for the US. Getting bogged down in an unwinnable war in Iraq has severely damaged the ability of the US to intervene elsewhere. It has also had a huge impact on the American masses themselves. The fact that Democratic Party candidate for president, Barack Obama was the first candidate in history to say publicly that he is sometimes ashamed of his country is an indication of how bad things have become. He would never have said such a thing if he did not know for sure that millions of Americans today would sympathise with such a statement. The fact that he raises the idea of a phased withdrawal from Iraq also indicates what the real mood in the USA is.

The American ruling class is trying to get out of the mess it created by blaming everything on one man - George W. Bush. The ongoing common narrative, shared by both Republican and Democratic leaders, is that once Bush leaves everything will start to sort itself out. Even the extremely critical documentary made about the war by the "provocative" commentator Michael Moore goes along with that story. The victory of Obama within the Democratic Party also indicates a desire to see something completely different in the White House. However, what will the response of the American masses be once they see that Obama as President - if he manages to win - will continue to act according to the interests of the US ruling class?

The contradictions that led to the war will still be present after Bush leaves office. The United States will still need to maintain some kind of control over the oil-rich Gulf and keep its competitors, mainly Russia and China, out of the region. The US ruling class are facing a dilemma. As long as Iraq is unstable, the American army cannot leave because then nothing would guarantee the existence of the pro-American regime. At the same time, they cannot win this war.

On the other hand, the longer they stay the more bogged down they get. As more and more US soldiers are killed, together with the growing economic crisis in the USA, the masses will demand more and more that the US administration pulls out of Iraq. US imperialism could end up being forced to pull out of Iraq prematurely. Thus all of the economic "achievements" in controlling the oil fields would be lost.

Thus, it seems that the second Gulf war has produced a contradictory and unstable situation. It weakened US imperialism, while formally strengthening the US oil companies. This contradiction cannot continue for too long. It is clear that by weakening US imperialism militarily there are serious implications for American capital as a whole.

For that reason, the Iraqi war may turn out to be the undoing of the "American empire". And this comes only a few years since US imperialism seemed so powerful and unchallenged on a world scale. The debacle in Iraq has revealed the real underlying weaknesses of US imperialism.

Is Iran Next on the Imperialist's Agenda?

There is another country in the Persian Gulf that slipped out of US domination long ago - Iran. In an ideal situation, controlling Iran along with Iraq and the rest of the Gulf States would definitely complete the picture of US world domination. It would give it control over huge oil reserves. It would break the independent OPEC cartel and would give American capital the almost total ability to control oil prices in its own interests. Profits would also be huge.

At one stage it seemed that Bush was indeed preparing to attack Iran, but the quagmire of Iraq has changed that perspective. IF they are unable to stop the insurgency in Iraq they have no hope of dominating Iran. The failures in Iraq have forced the US ruling class to seriously rethink their whole strategy. Even the obtuse Bush has had to start thinking in terms of the real situation on the ground and not the dream world of his limited cerebral capacities.

Already the Baker Report - or as it is known officially, The Iraq Study Group Report: The Way Forward, A New Approach - back in December 2006 came up with a completely different solution. It suggested reducing US military forces in Iraq to a minimum and involving Iran and Syria in helping to bring the fighting to an end. Bush wasn't too happy with the Report's proposals, but it clearly revealed the thinking of an important section of the US ruling class. They had concluded the war was unwinnable, too expensive and was causing more serious problems than had been anticipated. The contradictions created in Iraq made it impossible for American imperialism to take over Iran directly. The irony of all this is that Iran, which had been classified as one of the world's "rogue regimes" had actually emerged strengthened in the region.

On the basis of this new situation, the prospect of a US attack on Iran receded. Initially there was talk of a US missile strike on Iran's nuclear research facilities, but even this became less and less likely. How to solve this dilemma? Among the Bush entourage an idea emerged that there might a way out of this complexity. The United States could rely on one of its satellite states in the regions to protect its economic goals, while the political burden would be carried by that satellite state.

Can Israel Solve the Problem?

That satellite state is Israel. Recently, Israeli senior officials have repeatedly and threateningly raised the idea that Israel is very close to taking military steps against Iran, using its nuclear energy projects as the pretext. Moreover, both the incumbent American president and the two candidates have issued clear statements of support for Israel and its "right to defend itself", some saying that the amber light was on for Israel, indicating that could prepare to attack.

In Israel, the state is using the media for propaganda against Iran. The media keeps bombarding the Israeli masses with frightening images of Iran's "crazy", "fanatical" and "anti-Semitic" leaders waving a nuclear arsenal. Even "science" has been recruited for this mission. An Israeli "expert" on Islam with an international reputation, Professor Moshe Sharon, recently stated in an interview to the state-owned radio station, that "according to Shiite principles", Iran, unprovoked, would definitely use atomic weaponry on Israel as soon as it develops a nuclear capability.

A military conflict between Israel and Iran would most definitely result in thousands of victims, if not much more. After losing the war in Lebanon, the Israeli ruling class, and its military chiefs, need to demonstrate that are still a powerful military force. They are building up the illusion, fed by the army bureaucracy, that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) may be incapable of fighting guerrilla forces, but are most capable against a regular army.

The fact that they desire war as a means of distracting attention away from the serious internal crisis Israel is facing, can be seen in the bombing of a Syrian facility not so long ago. The problem was that the Syrians didn't take the bait. They refused to retaliate. Syria would have been the ideal, a sit shares a border with Israel and a conventional war would have been possible. How does Israel fight a conventional war with Iran, with two armies moving against each other across a border? This means that a military conflict between Israel and Iran would be reduced to a bombing campaign.

In any case, a larger part of the Israeli army's training programmes in recent years was about combating terrorist and guerrilla fighters rather than regular armies. Furthermore, the soldiers combat experience has mostly been in policing the Occupied Territories. These soldiers may be experts in bullying, destroying homes, chasing and shooting at Palestinian workers and torturing tied-up prisoners, but their combat training is much more questionable. The army's commissioned ranks are not in a much better shape: consumed with greed and corruption, they care much more about their future political careers and financial investments than about the shape of the army they are commanding, as the previous war against Lebanon revealed.

On top of all this, as the US administration attempts to retie diplomatic relations with Iran, an attack by Israel would not help the situation. It is clear that the US administration and the Israeli ruling class see things differently on this issue. It is enough to recall the "leaking" in the USA that intelligence sources claimed Iran had no nuclear research for military purposes. That was clearly to blunt Bush' ability to convince the US public of the need for air strikes on Iran. Israeli intelligence sources immediately came out with a statement that according to their information Iran did have in place nuclear research programmes for military purposes. Clearly, the interests of US imperialism and those of the Israeli ruling class are not always the same!

Israel, for its own interests, could launch air strikes against Iran. They would claim that this is to stop the nuclear programme. The problem is that Israel cannot stop Iran' nuclear research. At best it can damage it, delay it, slow it down. But that would only convince the Iranians of the need to accelerate their nuclear research programme, as a deterrent against future attacks. So, whichever way it goes, it is not likely that Israel can save America from its contradictions in the Middle East.

The media in Israel is whipping up war frenzy, claiming that Iran is a threat to the very existence of Israel. But even here we have to see that any verbal threats on the part of the Iranian president are really for domestic consumption. The Iranian regime is facing growing internal turmoil, with strikes and student protests. The living conditions of the masses are becoming unbearable. In reality, the conditions for revolution are maturing and the regime is being weakened. Sooner or later it will fall.

Serious bourgeois analysts in then West can see that the regime is weak and they are pushing for a different approach. This involves opening up diplomatic links, entering into "dialogue" with the Iranian regime, opening up its economy, using investment as a means of pressurising the regime into moving in the direction imperialism requires.

In Israel too, there are growing social and economic problems. There is also a crisis at the top with scandal after scandal emerging, involving Olmert himself. The sabre-rattling is thus a useful tool in diverting people's attentions away from the real problems.

The tragedy in Israel is that there is no leadership of the labour movement prepared to offer a real alternative. The leadership of the Israeli labour federation - the Histadrut - has a history of handing the Israeli workers to the state on a silver plate when "national security" issues are raised. On the other hand, the Israeli masses are still convinced that the army is their sole protector against the "barbarian" Arab world. They feel they are surrounded by hostile regimes that only wish to see the end of Israel. In reality that is not true. The despotic Arab rulers find in Israel a useful tool. They can blame it for all the ills that afflict the Arab World. So they mouth condemnation of Israel, while in practice they are allied to the same US imperialism that backs Israel. The case of Saudi Arabia is the most obvious one, but most of the others are in a similar situation.

The situation is a tragic one. The Israel ruling class could drag the nation into another messy military conflict, which would solve none of the problems. The Israeli masses will sooner or later awaken to a new understanding of the true nature of the Israeli state, which is not at all to provide a safe homeland for the Jews. It is in fact a satellite of imperialism in the region, albeit an unstable one.

The interests of the Israeli masses and those of the Zionist ruling class are not the same. The Zionists use the historical fear of the Israeli masses of a new holocaust to keep them within a political straitjacket. To break out of that straitjacket a genuine socialist perspective is required.
RENEGADE EYE

Food and Blogging Continues: Try Kurdish-Turkish

There is no interest in my sardine tacos, or my use of coffee as a spice. I asked several bloggers, to send me recipes; preferably easy to prepare, common ingredients, ethnic etc. In addition if I print the recipe, I'll plug your blog. Send recipes to me at the email address at my profile. I was going to print them all in one post, but I acquired too many. Political agreement doesn't matter. Atleast every month I'll continue this series. Leave comments about food, the blog, restaraunts etc. Everyone who sent recipes, will eventually have them published. I'm going in random order.

The next recipe comes from the Turkish-Kurdish blog Rastî. If you are interested in the struggle of the Kurdish people, particularly in Turkey for national rights, this blog is where to go for the latest news. You will find information not found in mainstream sources. Where else will you learn that there are few Turkish Kurds on the Iraq border, contrary to what Turkey will tell you.





Now the Main Event

Eggplant Kurdish Style

I never use the large, roundish eggplants for this because they have to be soaked in salt water to remove the bitterness. For this recipe, the eggplants must be whole. The slender eggplants in the West, known as "Japanese" or "Chinese" eggplants, are the ones to use for this recipe, as they are not bitter and require no soaking.

Eggplants cooked on coals acquire a smoky, slightly sweet, taste. The addition of red pepper flakes compliments the smoky sweetness very well. This dish can be served with grilled meats or as a meze selection.


6 slender eggplants (called "Japanese" or "Chinese" eggplant and available at Asian markets)
salt to taste
red pepper flakes to taste
olive oil
one lemon
one garlic clove, finely chopped


Wash and dry the eggplants. In a grill with hot coals, lay the eggplants directly on the coals, turning them as they char. Cook them until they are completely soft. Don't worry if they turn black on the outside but take care not to let them burn. Remove them from the coals and let them cool a bit. Peel them, removing all the skin with your fingers or a paring knife. Cut off the tops and throw them away. Slice the eggplants on a plate and mash them with a fork. Add salt, red pepper flakes, a couple of tablespoons of olive oil, the chopped garlic, and a few squeezes of the lemon. Mix the added ingredients into the eggplant flesh well. Serve just warm or at room temperature.

Alternately, some people leave out the red pepper flakes and garlic, and instead substitute a couple of tablespoons of thick yogurt, like labne, and black pepper to taste.

Cacik--Cold Yogurt and Cucumber Soup

This soup is eaten all over Turkey, including the Kurdish Region. It's included with meals or is used as part of a meze selection, and it's wonderfully cooling on hot summer days.


1/2 lb. cucumbers--preferably "Persian" cucumbers (available at Asian markets)
2 cups whole milk, whole fat yogurt--don't even think of using that nasty low-fat/no-fat kind
2 tsp white vinegar
1 tsp olive oil
2 tsp fresh mint, finely chopped or 1 tsp dried
1/2 tsp fresh dill, finely chopped or 1/4 tsp dried
1 tsp salt or to taste
ice cubes

If you use regular cucumbers, peel and seed them, then coarsely grate. "Persian" cucumbers only need to be grated. In a large bowl, whisk the yogurt until smooth. Mix in the grated cucumber, vinegar, olive oil, mint, dill, and salt. If the yogurt seems thick, add a bit of water to thin it. Put the cacik in the refrigerator for a couple of hours until it is very cold. Serve in individual bowls, adding ice cubes for extra chill.

Alternately, mash one garlic clove and stir it in with the other ingredients. Leave the clove in the cacik while it chills, but remove it before serving. It will add just a hint of garlic flavor to the cacik.

Ayran (called "Dew" in Kurdish)

Ayran is a yogurt drink that is served everywhere in Turkey. It's especially popular as the drink to accompany grilled meat or kebap meals, although I've had it with other meals as well. It can be made with plain water or with carbonated water. It should be served as cold as possible and it's very cooling and thirst-quenching on hot days.


Whole milk, whole fat yogurt--again, ban the low-fat/no-fat kind
Tap water or carbonated water
salt to taste

You should use equal parts of yogurt and water (for example, two cups yogurt and two cups water). Put the yogurt in a large bowl and whisk it until smooth. Add an equal amount of water and whisk until well blended. Season with salt to taste. If the yogurt seems to make the ayran a bit thick, add a little more water. Ayran should be served very cold. If you use carbonated water, make sure you have chilled it well ahead of time because you will need to serve the carbonated version rather soon after mixing so it doesn't go flat.

Alternately, sprinkle each individual ayran serving with finely chopped mint.

Rastî

RENEGADE EYE

USA: Obama and the Democrats' Foreign Policy

By Shane Jones
Monday, 31 March 2008

"War is politics by other means." - Carl von Clausewitz

"I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars." - Barack Obama

Many people are looking to the Democrats, and in particular to Barack Obama for a real change, specifically when it comes to the Iraq war. But on the question of war and foreign policy, does Obama really differ from the current White House administration, or from his party mate Hillary Clinton, or for that matter, from the entire DC political establishment?

You can tell a lot about a person based on the company he or she keeps. Obama is backed by people like billionaire Warren Buffet, who has made his fortune forming and investing in companies that exploit literally millions of people around the globe. Obama's main foreign policy advisor is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a staunch anti-communist who was a key player in the U.S. support and aid to the counter-revolutionary Mujahedin in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In a time of true Double Speak, where "democracy" means "imperialism" and "freedom" means "occupation", "reform" means cutbacks and attacks on social services. In Obama's case, "change" means the continuation of the current state of affairs. He has sung the praises of people like Ronald Reagan, who oversaw a huge expansion of the U.S. military at the expense of the standard of living of millions of U.S. workers and the poor.

When it comes to foreign policy he is a regular smoke and mirrors magician. While boasting about his tough stance against the war on Iraq, he is at pains to prove his reliability to the interests he truly serves. Far from calling for an immediate withdrawal, Obama says that U.S. forces may remain in Iraq for an "extended period of time" maintaining "a reduced but active U.S. military presence" that "protects logistical supply points" protecting "American enclaves likes the Green Zone" so that U.S. troops "remaining in Iraq" will "act as rapid reaction forces to respond to emergencies and to go after terrorists."

Obama has also suggested that he would be in favor of attacking Iran under the pretext of stopping its nuclear program:

"We should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons."

And on another occasion:

"In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in ... On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran."

Obama, who would "take no option of the table," clearly sees the limits of the Bush style of maintaining U.S. imperialist hegemony, and understands that the threat of overt military force must be coupled with maintaining U.S. imperialist power through an international web of diplomacy, that is, deals where others carry out the dirty work at the behest of the U.S.:

"Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran's major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs. It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and developing our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down."

When it comes to Israel, Obama is committed to the status quo:

"We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."

He even goes the extra mile to show his support for the Israeli ruling class:

"We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli prime minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States."

When pressed on comments he made about the "suffering of Palestinians" Obama makes his position very clear:

"Well, keep in mind what the remark actually, if you had the whole thing, said. And what I said is nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region. Israel is the linchpin of much of our efforts in the Middle East."

Although he said he would be willing to meet with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, Obama has personally helped advance imperialist propaganda against the Venezuelan Revolution. He co-sponsored a resolution that urged Venezuela to re-open "dissident" radio & TV stations. Like much of the propaganda produced at the time by corporate media, the resolution blurred the issue with that of free speech:

"[The Senate] expresses its profound concern about the transgression against freedom of thought and expression that is being committed in Venezuela by the refusal of the President Hugo Chavez to renew the concession of RCTV ... [The Senate] strongly encourages the Organization of American States to respond appropriately, with full consideration of the necessary institutional instruments, to such transgression."

RCTV was not a "dissident voice". Rather, in 2002, with the backing of the U.S., the Venezuelan ruling class staged a coup in which many people died, and the democratically elected government was thrown out along with the new constitution which had been written with the involvement of millions of ordinary Venezuelans. RCTV was an integral part of the coup, intentionally broadcasting false information and helping to lay the basis for the violence that followed. In 2007, the Venezuelan government simply did not renew RCTV's license to use the publicly owned air waves. RCTV still operates on private cable and satellite feeds. Obama, however, was ready and willing to confuse the issue in the interests of U.S. imperialism.

He has also come out in favor of opening up relations with Cuba. But what does his mean in practice? He would immediately pressure the Cuban government to open up the doors to U.S. corporations and the privatization of the planned economy. And while Obama has paid some lip service to the notion of closing the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo, he has yet to sign on to any legislation that would actually do so.

Obama has also said he would use military force in Pakistan even without consent, under the guise of fighting al-Qaeda:

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

But he is also willing to bribe a path for U.S. interests too, as he said he would make the hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Pakistan conditional on following U.S. "suggestions".

On March 17th it was reported that the U.S. launched missiles in the tribal area of Waziristan in Pakistan. The strike was unannounced by the U.S. and unauthorized by Pakistan. Obama is a proponent of this very type of aggression:

"The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

Obama also sees no problem with the Colombian military crossing the border into Ecuador to launch an attack:

"The Colombian people have suffered for more than four decades at the hands of a brutal terrorist insurgency, and the Colombian government has every right to defend itself against the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC)."

While Obama squarely blamed the FARC, he was silent on the role of Colombian government and military, the Colombian paramilitaries, and the huge sums of military "aid" that have flowed there since the 1960s. In the last 20 years, 2,574 union organizers and thousands of political activists, peasants, workers and youth have been assassinated by the Colombian government. Is this the "every right to defend itself" that Obama speaks of?

Obama also supports expanding the military. When asked if he would vigorously enforce a law that allows military recruiters on campus, Obama gave an affirmative "Yes". He goes right along with the so-called "war on terror" as a justification of such expansion:

"Our most complex military challenge will involve putting boots on the ground in the ungoverned or hostile regions where terrorists thrive." and "That should mean growing the size of our armed forces to maintain reasonable rotation schedules, keeping our troops properly equipped, and training them in the skills they'll need to succeed in increasingly complex and difficult missions."

He also voted to renew the Patriot Act, and has voted to militarize the border between the U.S. and Mexico.

Obama, who is playing on people's sincere desire for change, has taken a slightly more nuanced approach to foreign policy. Whereas Bush is only semi-coherent, Obama is capable of spinning words to soften the real role he hopes to play to keep the U.S. capitalist class dominant both at home and abroad. Fundamentally, Obama represents the same class interests as Bush and co., but is able to pass it off as though he is something fresh and new. We must understand that real change can only come through our class moving in a revolutionary direction to break the domination of the capitalists. Short of this anything else is simply a "changing" of the guard. RENEGADE EYE

Recession Will Hit Workers & Poor Hardest

This is an editorial that will be in the next issue of Socialist Appeal when it hits the streets.

Almost overnight, the media, corporate CEOs and government officials have gone from proclaiming that the U.S. would somehow avoid an economic slump, to all but recognizing that the country has probably already entered a recession. They are simply acknowledging what millions of workers have known for months and even years: the economy is in trouble, and working people and the poor are being hit hard.

Incredibly, we are told by some pundits that there is nothing to worry about, that it is all part of the “natural cycle” of the system, that less spending on dining and entertainment will lead to a healthier population that eats less and exercises more, that expensive gasoline leads to fewer cars on the road and therefore to less pollution, and so on. Yes, it is indeed part of the “natural cycle” of capitalism, and yes, belts will need to be tightened.

But for some, the “natural cycle” will mean a lot more pain than for others. While some CEOs may need to purchase one less corporate jet this year, millions of workers and poor people will have to choose between buying food, gasoline, heating, medicine, education and keeping a roof over their heads. Merrill Lynch has reported that by the end of 2007, 36 percent of Americans’ “disposable income” went to cover food, energy, medicine and health care, the highest proportion since records began in 1960.

The stock market has taken a beating, as investors realize that the trillions of dollars in fictitious money they have been trading back and forth has little of substance behind it. The dollar has sunk to new lows, oil and gold have risen to new highs, with both food and gasoline prices rising fast. Bear Stearns, once a top-five U.S. investment bank, collapsed in a single day, surviving only due to an emergency buyout by rival JP Morgan Chase for just $2 per share. Less than a year ago it was worth over $158 per share.

The Philadephia Fed index on manufacturing fell to -24.0 in February, from -20.9 in January, a further contraction of the sector. The reading for New York was similarly grim, registering its steepest drop on record. There is a very real danger of stagflation: rising inflation combined with rising unemployment and slow growth or contraction.

The months-long crisis in the housing market has now definitely spread to other sectors of the economy. Home prices have collapsed in many markets, and many borrowers now owe more than their houses are worth. Hundreds of thousands of households are defaulting on their mortgage loans even before the rates reset to a higher level, with twice as many defaults in 2007 than in 2006. The media has even reported cases of people resorting to arson to avoid foreclosure and bankruptcy.
To make ends meet, many workers have had to resort to “pay day” loans at exorbitant rates as high as 800 percent. The Center for Responsible Lending (CRL) recently reported that the average borrower has to pay a total of $793 for a $325 loan. Far from helping people, these predatory lenders succeed only in digging a deeper hole for workers already on the brink of financial disaster.

The loss of millions of quality unionized jobs over the last 30 years means that those with less education are more vulnerable to the effects of a recession than ever. In the past, even many people who didn’t finish high school could make a decent enough life for themselves and their families by learning a trade or working at a factory. These days, even college graduates with specialized training are more and more likely to find themselves working at a low wage, dead-end service job.

A “good job” is defined by the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) as one that provides health insurance, a retirement plan and earnings of at least $17 per hour, or about $34,000 per year. In 1979 there were 19.6 million such jobs in the manufacturing sector, the peak of U.S. manufacturing. Since then, nearly 6 million such jobs have been lost, with another 52,000 down the drain in February alone. 30 years ago, one in five high school graduates had a “good job”, by 2005 it was one in seven. According to the CEPR, in 1979, 41 percent of those who didn’t finish high school had “bad jobs”, that is, jobs without health or retirement plans paying less than $16.50 an hour. By 2005, that figure had reached 61 percent.

As the economic crisis worsens, those who lose their jobs will find it even harder to find new employment, and without savings, unable to keep up with mortgage payments, and a gutted social safety net, millions of people will be “out of luck”. Those that do find work will likely have to take major pay and benefits cuts. Many young people and even some not so young have been compelled to move back to their parents’ homes to try and regroup financially and avoid homelessness.
One sector of the economy that remains highly profitable is the so-called “defense” industry. The CEO of Lockheed Martin made nearly $25 million last year. Compare that with the average wage earned by a private in the Army: $25,000. Unable to find work or educational opportunities in the private sector, thousands of working class youth are sucked into the military in an “economic draft”.

Over 4,000 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqis have died, and the billions of dollars spent on this tragic adventure of imperialism have meant a steady decline in U.S. workers’ standard of living. Bush’s approval rating has sunk to a new low of just 31 percent, forty points lower than it was five years ago when he launched the invasion. This is a decline similar to Lyndon Johnson’s in the late 1960s during the Vietnam War. And still the occupation of Iraq continues, a full 16 months after the Democrats were swept into congressional power with a mandate to end the war. Not one of the Republican or Democratic presidential candidates has a plan to immediately pull all the troops out.

It is in this situation that workers are being asked to vote for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to bring about “change”. There is even talk of a “Dream Ticket” with both candidates on the ballot. This is more than enough proof that there are no fundamental differences between them. At root, they both defend the status quo, albeit with this or that cosmetic change. This is why working people need a party of our own. And not only for those born in the U.S., but for all workers.

On May 1st, workers across the country will march for immigrants’ rights. The magnificent mass movement that erupted two years ago has largely been driven underground by a wave of state terror, with tens of thousands being rounded up in raids and deportations. But nothing fundamental has been resolved. Sooner or later, the mass struggle will erupt again, on an even higher level, as the economic crisis forces all workers to come together to defend their common class interests. In the meantime, the scapegoating of immigrant workers for the problems caused by the system itself has increased exponentially. The labor movement must denounce these attacks and stand shoulder to shoulder with our working class brothers and sisters.
John Peterson

Contracting Out the War in Iraq

After Blackwater USA’s recent street shoot out in Baghdad, which resulted in as many as 17 civilian deaths, the role of mercenaries in Iraq has received extra attention in the media. Although they have played a key role in the occupation of Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein, these “private security contractors” have for the most part flown under the public radar. For example, the debate over a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq usually centers around the 160,000 military personnel occupying the country. But what about the estimated 182,000 private contractors now deployed in Iraq? During the 1991 Gulf War, the troop-to-private contractor ratio was about 60 to 1. Now they outnumber uniformed troops, more than doubling the actual size of the occupation force.

Private contractors in Iraq do everything from cooking food and doing the laundry to driving trucks and building bridges. Using them on such a vast scale is part of the privatization of the war, which is not only politically convenient, but results in massive profits for the companies involved. As of July 2007, there were more than 630 war contracting companies working in Iraq for the U.S. government.

Not only has there been a “surge” of uniformed troops, but mercenaries have headed to Iraq by the thousands. The use of mercenaries has allowed the Pentagon to increase the number of armed troops on the ground without resorting to a draft. Although the UK has steadily drawn down its troop levels, many of these troops have been replaced by private contractors, and thus aren’t counted in the troop levels disclosed, thus cutting across the growing anti-war mood. And since they are technically “civilians”, the estimated 900 dead mercenaries and 13,000 wounded aren’t counted in the official casualty figures (over 200 Blackwater contractors have been killed alone).

Blackwater USA was founded in 1997 by former Navy Seal Erik Prince – with the help of his billionaire parents. Headquartered in North Carolina, it is one of at least 28 private security contractors operating in Iraq. It has an estimated 1,000 employees in Iraq, and specializes in protecting high level functionaries and dignitaries. The four mercenaries killed by a mob in Fallujah in March 2004, which subsequently led to the “Guernica”-style pulverization of that city by the U.S. military, were working for Blackwater.

They are part of a “shadow army” of an estimated 30,000 security contractors operating in Iraq that is better armed, trained, and funded than the militaries of many countries. According to Blackwater’s corporate website: “We are not simply a ‘private security’ company. We are a professional military, law enforcement, security, peacekeeping, and stability operations firm ... We have become the most responsive, cost-effective means of affecting the strategic balance in support of security and peace, and freedom and democracy everywhere.”

As with everything else under capitalism, the security contractor industry is ultimately about profits. In an astonishing report by Vanity Fair, it is estimated that private contractors working in Iraq are paid as much as much as the combined taxes paid by everyone in the U.S. with incomes under $100,000. Jeremy Scahill, an independent journalist who has written extensively on the subject reports: “Some in Congress estimate that up to 40 cents of every tax dollar spent on the war goes to corporate war contractors. At present, the United States spends about $2 billion a week on its Iraq operations.”

He continues: “RJ Hillhouse, a blogger who investigates the clandestine world of private contractors and U.S. intelligence, recently obtained documents from the Office of the Directorate of National Intelligence (DNI) showing that Washington spends some $42 billion annually on private intelligence contractors, up from $17.54 billion in 2000. Currently that spending represents 70 percent of the U.S. intelligence budget going to private companies.”

With a $750 million-plus contract in Iraq alone, Blackwater is a clear example of how family connections and hefty campaign contributions to politicians can lead to enrichment through government contracts. In total, billions of dollars have been handed out to companies such as DynCorp, Triple Canopy, Erinys and ArmorGroup.
These and other mercenary corporations also operate in Latin America, Africa, and other parts of the world. In Colombia, under the fig-leaf of the “war on drugs”, private defense contractors receive as much as half of $630 million in U.S. military “aid” sent as part of Plan Colombia, a spearhead of U.S. imperialism against the Latin American revolution.

In African countries such as Congo, Sudan, and Somalia, mercenary companies are cashing in on lucrative contracts handed out by the United Nations’ “peacekeeping” missions. Doug Brooks, a lobbyist for the private military industry, proudly explains that his association’s “member companies have more personnel working in U.N. and African Union peace operations than all but a handful of countries.”

These mercenaries are hired at extravagant rates of pay, far more than uniformed troops. Many soldiers “retire” from active duty military service and work for private security companies instead. It has been noted by some commentators that many are actually paid more than the Secretary of Defense. They are mostly ex-U.S. and UK special forces personnel (trained at tax-payer expense), but also include Chilean special forces from the Pinochet era and South African mercenaries from the apartheid era. It is not uncommon for the most-experienced of these “guns for hire” to make as much as $1,000 per day, with the average closer to $600 a day. By contrast, the average U.S. soldier makes just $57 per day.

The September 16th shooting of innocent civilians was not the first time Blackwater has been involved in this kind of incident. It was recently revealed that Blackwater guards had previously killed 21 Iraqi civilians and wounded 27. The State Department has reported 56 shooting incidents involving Blackwater USA in Iraq this year alone.
And yet, it remains unclear whether or not the “sovereign” Iraqi government has the “authority” to expel Blackwater from the country. Former U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer, who headed the Coalition Provisional Authority that governed Iraq after the fall of Saddam, passed “Order 17” before “handing power” to the Iraqis in 2004, an order which guarantees immunity from prosecution for private contractors, including his own private Blackwater guards.

The latest incident was too much even for the puppet government of Al-Maliki. But after initially “expelling” Blackwater from the country, the Iraqi government had to back off. Blackwater is such an integral part of the occupation that without them, the security situation would deteriorate even more quickly. They now say that Blackwater’s license to operate in Iraq expired on June 2, 2006, meaning its employees are no longer immune from prosecution. They now want the U.S. to terminate all contracts with Blackwater in Iraq within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the victims’ families. This situation underlines the true relationship of forces in the new “free and democratic” Iraq. The fact is, the Iraqi government is entirely at the mercy of the U.S. imperialists and their hired guns.

But who really controls these forces? Even from the perspective of the ruling class, the widespread use of mercenaries has gotten out of control. Former Ambassador to Iraq Joseph Wilson thinks “it’s extraordinarily dangerous when a nation begins to outsource its monopoly on the use of force and the use of violence in support of its foreign policy or national security objectives. [This] makes [private security contractors] a very powerful interest group within the American body politic and an interest group that is in fact armed. And the question will arise at some time: to whom do they owe their loyalty?”

Blackwater mercenaries – specialists in protecting private property through the use of overwhelming force – were among the first sent into New Orleans after the Katrina disaster. There is talk of privatizing the Border Patrol as well. This is not the distant future, but the very real present. Capitalism has nothing to offer the world working class but repression of the majority and mega-profits for the few; or at least, to the highest bidder.John Peterson

USA: The Anti-War Movement, the Troops & Some Lessons from Vietnam

By Mark Vorpahl
Thursday, 20 September 2007


Life inside the U.S. military reflects the conflicting class interests in this country, often in its deadliest forms. While technically a “volunteer” military, the great bulk of its recruits come from working class families and are largely joining because of a lack of job and educational opportunities. For them, signing up is a chance to acquire the skills they need to get a decent job once they become civilians, though, in reality, military service has little to offer in this regard. On the other hand, the majority of the military’s professional officers and policy makers come from more privileged layers of the population. For them, the military is a career where they can take their “rightful place” lording over the grunts and climb the ladder as they would if they were working for a corporation or financial institution. Because of this divide in opportunity and expectations, which is rooted in class inequality, the great majority of soldiers are subject to the arrogance, lies, and disregard for their personal well-being at the hands of their superiors, as are workers are to the capitalists in civilian life.

Potential working class military recruits are promised money for college, a brighter job future, and sometimes even that they will be able to avoid combat, though few soldiers ever see any of these promises fulfilled. Once in the war zone, they are frequently given missions that unnecessarily put their lives in danger in order that some officer can get a promotion for having had his unit draw out and engage the “enemy”. Rank and file soldiers are exposed to depleted uranium, the anti-malarial drug Lariam, and infectious diseases, not to mention insufficient body and vehicle armor, much of which could be avoided if it wasn’t for the criminal disregard of the military’s higher ups. In Iraq, many troops have been deployed multiple times in tours of duty averaging eleven months each. 50 percent are on their second tour and 25 percent have toured three or more times. This is creating a tremendous strain on the soldiers’ families and their own mental health. Army studies have found that up to 30 percent of soldiers coming home from Iraq suffer from depression, anxiety, or post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Army’s suicide rate is the highest it has been in 23 years: 17.3 per 100,000. When the soldiers make it back home, they find that the VA is strained at the seams because of corruption and insufficient funding, and their attempts to get help with PTSD are frequently denied. For some, this lack of support leads to homelessness. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs has so far had some 1,200 cases in which Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are dealing with homelessness, and this is likely only a fraction of their actual numbers.

While the Republican and Democratic politicians pontificate on the heroism of the troops, in practice they disregard their needs. The recent $100 billion bi-partisan vote to continue the war would have likely been enough to ensure that all returning veterans’ needs were met. Instead, the war continues and the troops are left hanging out to dry. The cost and effects of this criminal policy will grow exponentially as more soldiers return and their health requirements increase.

It is therefore in the interest of the majority of soldiers to oppose the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They have a key role to play in ending them. The anti-war movement must find effective ways of supporting the growing discontent in the armed forces by linking the soldiers’ material needs to the anti-war movement’s aim of bringing all the troops home. This includes not only supporting conscientious objectors (CO’s) and AWOL soldiers in their legal and living challenges, but, even more importantly, engaging with and helping rank and file soldiers actively oppose the wars. Pacifist appeals to individual soldiers’ consciousness alone will not effectively utilize the discontent in the military. These isolated incidents of resistance, while symptomatic and symbolic, cannot end the war. In fact, this is precisely what the military would want in order to weed out and isolate the “bad apples” from the rest of the soldiers. The anti-war movement must do all it can to encourage and support the mass education, organization, and action of active duty soldiers, in order to bring the war to a grinding halt.

The experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement is rich with examples of what can be done to build unity between the anti-war movement and the troops. The popular image of anti-Vietnam War protesters spitting on troops has more to do with right-wing demagogy and urban legend than the actual attitude of peace activists toward the soldiers. In reality, the efforts of many of these activists to build solidarity with the troops, including going into the military when drafted in order to do anti-war work, helped to create one of the most powerful social movements in U.S. history. While the military during Vietnam was made up of draftees and today there is a volunteer army (more accurately described as a “poverty draft” army) many of the same approaches and tactics can and are being used today.

The first and foremost important aspect of the anti-Vietnam War movement was that it was broad-based and built through mass actions. The massive demonstrations proved to be the most effective tool for displaying the strength of anti-war sentiment, bringing more people in as organizers, and encouraging more people to take a stand against the war – including the troops. Without this approach the soldiers in Vietnam who questioned the war would have been left isolated and powerless.

Anti-Vietnam War activists recognized the need to develop ways to encourage troops to resist the war. Initially this started with publicizing and defending COs, AWOL soldiers, and those who refused deployment. The case of Lieutenant Henry Howe Jr. and the Fort Hood Three were some well-known examples of this work at the time. But it was quickly recognized that these efforts by themselves would not be enough. The anti-war movement needed to reach the active duty troops.

Activists passed out leaflets to GIs at bus stops and outside of military bases, engaged them in conversations where ever they gathered, and helped to set up GI coffee houses where the troops and anti-war activists could discuss and make plans. They also publicized and defended the right of soldiers to organize and speak out against the war, as was the case with the Fort Jackson Eight. All this work planted the seeds for active duty soldiers’ opposition to take on a massive character as the war wore on and moral plummeted.

Soldiers began to play a more active and prominent role in the movement. Numerous marches were led by active -duty soldiers such as the October 12, 1968 “GIs and Vets March for Peace” in San Francisco. There were many teach-ins and conferences focused on defending soldiers’ freedom of speech. Opposition to the war among active duty soldiers was beginning to swell.

Hundreds of anti-war papers such as “Vietnam GI” and “Stars and Stripes for Peace” began to circulate within the military’s ranks, with a combined total circulation in the tens of thousands. This was all the more remarkable since the editorial boards of these papers were subject to harassment and frequently broken up by arbitrary transfers.

The linking of the anti-war movement and the “grunt” soldiers’ interests began to translate into action on the battlefield. Whereas the troops had previously been considered mindless and disposable killing machines, they now began to assert their collective power. The “Search and Destroy” missions that officers sent their units on in order to increase the body count and earn the officer a promotion, became known as “Search and Evade” missions. Mutinies or soldier strikes began to spread to a degree never before seen in U.S. history. The military officially recognized 10 major occurrences of such actions, with hundreds of smaller mutinies during the course of the war.

“Fragging”, or the killing of a commanding officer by his own troops, became common during Vietnam. This practice, or even the threat of a fragging, proved to be an effective way for the soldiers to assert their control over battle plans and defend themselves from gung ho officers. Eventually, the soldiers’ rebellion became so widespread that the top-down command practices of the military were often replaced with a form of collective bargaining called “working it out.” No longer could a commander expect his troops to blindly obey. He had to negotiate with them. Since most of the troops no longer saw the point of fighting and dying in Vietnam, the officer corps lost their ability to conduct the war.

This history demonstrates a number of important lessons relevant to today’s anti-war movement. It shows the effectiveness of broad-based mass mobilizations. From these organizing efforts, activists were able to come together and effectively pursue different areas of anti-war work such as outreach to the GIs. These demonstrations also helped to reinforce a mood of wide opposition to the war that gave confidence to the troops to speak out and organize. It also shows how the initially modest and awkward attempts to build solidarity between the civilian anti-war movement and the troops helped to lay the foundation for a massive, united movement against the war. As the war wore on, the conflicting interests of the grunts on one side, and their commanders, the policy makers, and the war-profiteers on the other, became intolerable.

Most importantly, the experience of the anti-Vietnam War movement shows how the collective action of the youth and working class, both in and out of uniform, was able to help bring the world’s largest imperialist power to its knees, when previously it appeared unstoppable. Unfortunately, the anti-Vietnam War movement did not develop into a catalyst for the socialist transformation of U.S. society. However, the struggle against the war showed that even in times when capitalism was expanding, it was possible to strike a debilitating blow against imperialism to the benefit of the international working class and the oppressed in general.

The Iraq War is taking place in a different historical period. The U.S. is by far the largest imperialist power, but its economic and political foundation are more unstable then was the case during the Vietnam War. Furthermore, it is now more clear to tens of millions of Americans that the Iraq War is being accompanied by a war on workers’ historic gains, living standards, and democratic rights here at home. The situation today is potentially far more combustible then it was even at the height of the Vietnam War.

To take full advantage of this we must first have a united anti-war movement building the largest demonstrations possible to end the war now. We must link up opposition to the war with defending active duty soldiers’ democratic rights, including advocating, when possible, that they have the right to elect and recall their own officers, the right to trade union representation, freedom of speech, etc. We need to link the troops’ needs with those of the entire working class by fighting for quality jobs and universal health care for all. The anti-war movement can highlight the role soldiers have to play in our demonstrations, teach-ins and conferences. The anti-war movement must approach the rank and file soldiers as workers in uniform since the working class as a whole has nothing to gain from imperialist war but more misery.

With such an approach, the anti-war movement can and will help to end the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But in the final analysis, the problem of imperialist war cannot be solved under capitalism. To win a peace that is more then just an interim between further wars, we must fight for socialism based on workers’ democracy.RENEGADE EYE

The Iraq War Comes Home to Roost

Like the Katrina disaster two years ago, the collapse of the I-35 bridge in Minneapolis, MN is yet another reminder of the real effects of the capitalist policy of “guns before butter”. A key bridge in a city with some of the worst rush hour congestion in the country, it is just one of the 73,784 U.S. bridges found by the American Society for Civil Engineers (ASCE) to be “structurally deficient or functionally obsolete” – including 64.8 percent of the bridges in Washington, DC. The thirteen people who lost their lives are just part of the tragedy.

The disrepair of the country’s roads and the lack of an efficient public transportation system results in an incalculable amount of lost time, stress, and exhaustion, as over ten million U.S. workers now spend an hour or more each way on their way to work. In the ten years beginning in 1995, the number of miles driven has increased by 23 percent, while the length of the roads has gone up by 2 percent. That’s a tremendous increase in traffic and wear, particularly on urban arterial roads, 27 percent of which are now classified as “poor”. Between 1960 and 1965 the U.S. built 144,000 miles of new highway. Between 2000 and 2005 it added just 59,000 miles, although the population has grown by over 60 percent since 1960. This graphically reflects the real priorities of the ruling class – to invest the minimum necessary to keep commerce moving and profits flowing.

During the post-WWII economic boom, the capitalist class could afford to make some concessions to the working class while still pursuing its aggressive foreign policy. Now, faced with a looming economic crisis and a choice between imperialist adventures abroad and fixing crumbling schools, social services, and infrastructure at home, the ruling class’ only solution is to increase the attacks on workers at home and around the world.

The ASCE report gave U.S. public infrastructure an overall grade of “D”, concluding that $1.6 trillion would be needed over a five-year period to address problems with roads, bridges and other systems. This seems an incredible amount of money, which we are constantly told is not there. And yet billions upon billions of dollars have been spent in Iraq, which has benefited no one but the big corporations and their cronies in government. It has certainly not benefited the 3,750 U.S. soldiers killed so far in the war, or the 1,809 Iraqi civilians killed in July alone. And just think how many bridges, schools, and hospitals could be built with the estimated $12 million being spent every hour on the occupation?

A safe and efficient transportation network is clearly in the public interest. Massive investment is needed to rebuild and modernize it, including the expansion of rail, light rail, bus, and other forms of mass public transportation, which will not only increase the system’s efficiency, but also reduce fuel costs and the impact on the environment. Further privatization of the system is not the answer; a “solution” some have advanced in the aftermath of the Minneapolis collapse. On the contrary, the entire system should be nationalized under democratic public control.

To ensure that public resources are put to efficient and fully accountable use, the government must end the practice of using private contractors, and instead launch a massive program of public works, creating hundreds of thousands of jobs with union wages, benefits and representation. It is clear that the current big business government will never do this. Nor will the big business government to follow. For this to happen, U.S. workers will need a party of their own, a party that puts the interests of the majority first. We cannot expect the representatives of another class to defend our interests.

For its part, the Bush administration is in a mess, with the rats jumping ship faster than ever. White House Press Secretary Tony Snow, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and chief architect of Bush’s electoral campaigns and presidency, Karl Rove, have all left in recent weeks, the latter two under a cloud of scandal and controversy.
With the Iraq War rapidly draining the national treasury and the public’s patience, it’s no wonder they want to get out while they still can, most likely into lucrative careers in the private sector. A recent opinion poll showed that Americans are as concerned about corruption in government and the economy as they are about the war in Iraq. This is an indication of things to come, as opposition to the war begins to shift to domestic issues, as the war inevitably starts to wind down.

General Petraeus’ much-anticipated report will be more of the same: partially-reached benchmarks that herald “progress”; vague promises of at least a partial withdrawal of the troops at some point in the future; an impassioned appeal for “just a little more patience and time”; and the assertion that the light can be seen at the end of the tunnel. General Westmoreland dragged out the Vietnam War in much the same manner.
U.S. imperialism has already been strategically defeated in Iraq, it is now a question of what they can salvage. Although they will eventually be forced to pull out the bulk of the combat troops, they will resist and delay a total withdrawal as long as possible, as they are compelled to defend their interests in the region, chiefly the Saudi oil fields and to combat Iran’s growing influence.

Even more alarming for the ruling class is the danger to the economy presented by the meltdown in the housing and mortgage market. The stock market has swung wildly up and down over the last few weeks, as investors alternate between extreme panic and irrational euphoria. The Federal Reserve has been forced to lower interest rates, which will only exacerbate already rising inflation. Despite this effort to loosen credit, demand for homes fell 12.2 percent to a six-year low in July. Home foreclosures rose 9 percent in July from June, a 93 percent increase from a year ago, as once white-hot housing markets now suffer the greatest number of loan failures.

According to Martin Feldstein, president of the National Bureau of Economic Research, “The multiplier effect of home price declines and declines in consumer spending could push the economy into recession.” Ironically, even “free marketer” President Bush has promised a government bail out to prevent the total collapse of the sector and its spread to the rest of the economy.

This is the picture confronting U.S. workers as we enter the 2008 electoral campaign. None of the main candidates are speaking seriously about universal health care and education, repealing anti-labor laws, immediately ending the war or creating jobs through massive investment in rebuilding the country’s infrastructure. Working people are being made to pay for the crimes and greed of the capitalist class. The end of even the illusion of an economic “boom” will mean an intensification of the class struggle. The only lasting solution is a fundamental transformation of society: socialism.John Peterson