After September 11, Bush's government has evidently taken advantage
of the shock caused by the attack to the Towers to put forward a
reactionary offensive against the peoples of the world, under the
so-called "war against terrorism". The defeat of Afghanistan,
the hardening of reactionary measures and the restriction of democratic
freedoms by means of exception laws -also used to attack labor rights
- the hunt of witches against immigrants, the prosecution of Arab
and Muslim communities, the unconditional support to reactionary
agents as Sharon, the plan Colombia and the support to the fascist
Uribe, along the military campaigns on a global scale, are visible
examples of the reactionary character of international situation.
However, beneath the surface and warrior speeches, the contradictions
expressed and accelerated after 11-9, although with great setbacks,
continue being developed.
The world economy slowed down during 2001, similar to the postwar
period, -with a small and weak recovery at the beginning of the
year - and it is actually on the edge of a new international recession.
Meanwhile the risk for a long-term stagnation grows.
The situation in Afghanistan, where the US have achieved to knock
down the Taliban regime, the separation of Al Qaeda refuges and
the coming to power of a puppet government, is deteriorating, and
Bin Laden has not been captured due to the negative of using infantry
in the attacks.
In the meantime, after months of isolation and in the framework
of a deepening world crisis, the revolutionary days in Argentina
and the economical and political effects of the collapse -presented
as one of the most successful economic plans by IMF -, has extended
to the whole region and has destroyed the so-called Washington Consent,
opening potential great challenges in the "backyard patio"
of US imperialism.
The Intifada has received strong blows by the Zionist enemy, supported
by the antiterrorist policies of Washington and their strong pressure
on the Arab bourgeoisies. However, stability of reactionary governments
in the region like the Saudi monarchy in Saudi Arabia is wearing
down, they have been an ally of Washington for decades in exchange
for a secure and cheap provision of oil.
In the US, the corporate scandals of Enron and WorldCom, the fall
of the markets, and even the not-so-high earnings of the boom of
1990s are being questioned -in some cases reverted- because of the
current stagnation, all these facts are provoking a strong rejection
of workers to "Big Business"; this rejection can hit directly
the administration and political establishment, bound by all means
to the voracious tendencies of the great financial and corporate
At last, one year from 11-9, one of the few aspects where Bush administration
showed improvements was the great support and wide international
coalition, but it has now disappeared and become its contrary.
An analyst from Financial Times says: "... contrary to the
Cold War, where a common enemy built lasting solidarity, the common
enemy revealed by the 11-9 attacks has divided the West more than
it has united it". (FT 30/08/02 "Divided West").
In synthesis, the hardening of imperialist policies is increasing
the tension and polarization at world level. In this framework,
Bush seems to have decided that it is time of acting on Iraq. The
impressive opposition to Bush's plan -domestic and international-,
has not made them revert their unilateral policies, regardless of
the actual look for support, consulting the Congress and the members
of the Security Council of the UN.
Neither they have replied to the hate provoked by their policies
in the Middle East calming the dissatisfaction. Rather they have
hardened the policies hoping to defeat the opposition.
The reasons of the strike against Iraq
The reasons for the campaign against Iraq respond to regional
and international reasons as well as domestic politics.
Washington seeks to resolve the crisis of the regional status-quo
based on the support to the State of Israel and the alliance with
Arab bourgeoisie governments who tolerate, finance and give space
to Islamic fundamentalism -who were used against the "communist
threat" in the past- seeking to change the regime at Iraq to
put forward a subservient government allowing to strengthen their
interests in the whole Islamic world.
The intelligence agency Stratfor, points out that the Bush administration
carries out this attack "... because they believe that a successful
campaign against the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein will prove psychological
superiority within the Islamic movements and demonstrate the power
of U.S.". "The destruction of Iraqi regime will prove
two things. First, that American power is overwhelming and irresistible.
Second that US is more patient, persevering and much more powerful
that the whole Islamic movement... Specially since an attack against
Iraq, contrary to stopping Al Qaeda and the militant Islam, it can
be accomplished. The wars with any state-nation with big armies
are something that the US does quite well. To destroy a highly dispersed
global net is something that nobody can do very well. The US cannot
support an atmosphere of permanent stagnation". (Stratfor 08/02.)
However, more important than this regional "message",
is the meaning on an international level, where a wide opposition
of friends and allies as in all the US and the world resists the
action of Bush. However, like the US sociologist Wallerstein says:
"The point is that, from the point of view of the hawks that
now include George W. Bush, the opposition is irrelevant. They are
actually happy of carrying ahead without any backups. They want
to prove that nobody can challenge the US government and get away
with it. They want to demolish Saddam Hussein, no matter what he
does or what others say, because Saddam Hussein has stood up against
the US. The Hawks believe that, only destroying Saddam, they can
to persuade the rest of the world that they are the guardian dog
and should be obeyed completely". (Comment N° 96 1/09/02).
Lastly and as a third objective, the war looks for keeping domestic
In conditions of a growing economic and social inequality and popular
dissatisfaction with the political system, the US ruling class needs
to keep their ideological control and deviating the people's political
awareness, channeling his offense towards the "war against
the terrorism"; He is now replacing the figure of Bin Laden
for Saddam Hussein.
In synthesis, Bush seeks for an almost complete control in this
strategic area of the planet - main oil reserves worldwide -reinforcing
the rule and influence of US in world matters, looking for co-opting
US peoples behind this counter-revolutionary enterprise.
Bush is getting ready to desolate Baghdad and other cities
and to inflict an unheard suffering to the punished Iraqi peoples.
The Pentagon believes that this company will lead to a successful
war without risk of strong losses, thanks to the military revolution
of precision weapons, supported with detection, command and control
systems in certain operations. They are encouraged with the failure
of the most pessimistic presages in the Gulf War, in the Kosova
War and in the recent campaign at Afghanistan.
Undoubtedly the great economic and military superiority against
a small semi-colonial country like Iraq who has suffered 11 years
of a brutal economic blocking, constantly harassed by the US-British
aviation, is overwhelming.
On the other hand, the bourgeois and reactionary character of Saddam
Hussein regime, based on the exploitation and oppression of its
own peoples, as the Kurds and Shiites, and the enmity with the brother
nations in the region -like their fratricidal war with Iran in the
1980s- is an great handicap for Bush and his counter-revolutionary
However the difficulties of a punitive operation cannot be underestimated
in this region, mainly if the idea is to establish a "change
of regime", as proclaimed a thousand times by Bush. Any events
increasing the probability of a long and difficult war would cause
hesitation: how long will the US last, before beginning to give
credit to those who argue that a preventive military action is not
worth such a price?
The turn of Bush administration towards a new era of -imperial-
military adventures, as consequence of a combination of the vulnerability
expressed at 11-9 and their unequal military power, is no guarantee
of a stable world order, in spite of the great reactionary forces
acting for this.
The US are going for a quick victory in Iraq that opens a process
of new regimens totally submissive to imperialism, in the same way
that the military defeat of Argentina in Malvinas in 1982, began
a cycle of transitions to pro-imperialist bourgeois democracies
after the wearing out of the military dictatorships.
However, contrary to the Southern Cone of Latin America where this
change only affected the regimens, a prone Iraq runs strong risks
of disintegrating as unified state. If the US does not decide to
establish a protectorate and to post more than 200 thousand occupation
troops for a long term -counting on the experience at Afghanistan
and due to the great costs and risks, nobody seems to want this-,
an Iraq post-Hussein would be subjected to the disintegration of
the internal and external ethnic forces that could tear it apart.
This result would threaten the regional regimens to greater instability.
These are the difficulties of the US to designing a war plan.
In second place and with regard to the international order, the
divergences between the US and Europe both in the economic level
and in the matter of security, there are differences in the alliance
of the two main imperialist poles with long term consequences. The
analyst William Pfaff points out: "Anything that happens to
Iraq or ' after Iraq' the western Europeans and the North Americans
seem now to be clearly on divergent tracks. This is not particularly
surprising. This relationship is weakening since the end of cold
war. This would happen sooner or later". (IHT 5/09/02).
Lastly and mostly important, a US intervention without a strong
international consent, only supported in the strength of their military
force, can only generate a greater rejection and resentment in world
masses. Because of the increasing misery of peoples in the whole
planet after two decades of neoliberal offensive and the undisguised
US corrupt democracy and corporations, are making anti-US feelings
A war against Iraq may do so even more. Zbigniew Brzezinski -former
consultant of US national security- points out in the newspaper
Washington Post, that a preventive attack to Iraq could have deep
unbalancing effects in the whole structure of international relationships.
Our enemies -he said-, would present the US like a "global
The wild-warrior style of Bush can open up in the next period very
reactionary situations; however, an hegemonic power that bases its
rule only in military power, produces hostility in most of the planet,
it cannot guarantee a stable ruling and will be subjected to permanent