The whole world breathed a sigh of relief when the imminent threat of a U.S. air assault on Iraq was halted, following a mission to Baghdad to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

Heck, even some swivel-chair warriors in Washington welcomed the sudden reprieve, having caught a glimmer of what was blatantly obvious to anyone not drooling on themselves: Washington had deftly maneuvered itself into a lose/lose situation.

Yes, the Masters of the Empire had crafted a script wherein U.S. victory could only be achieved by wiping Iraq clean of all living souls; in fact, a top-secret directive (as revealed in the 2 FebruaryNew York Post) did authorize using nuclear weapons against Iraq.

Here was the scenario: first, the best and the brightest--having maintained a relentless, seven-year embargo against Iraq, an embargo which has killed nearly 700,000 children--made clear that there was no prospect of the embargo ever being lifted.

Outrageous

Then, they deliberately provoked Iraq by dispatching a supposed UN inspection team composed almost entirely of Americans, and headed by a former U.S. military intelligence officer.

Next, when Iraq had the audacity to ask for a more representative team, Washington launched an international outcry about some sudden new danger posed by Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction." This charge was rather curious, to say the least, given that weapons inspectors--so important that they were worth going to war over--had already been there for seven years. Hmmm. . . . . so either the weapons inspectors had long since proved themselves utterly useless . . . or Iraq's weapons programs were substantially weaker than they were in 1991.

Forward, ever forward

But, never one to let obvious facts stand in its way, Washington pressed on, unleashing a massive worldwide diplomatic and public-relations campaign which reaped the powerful support of . . . Kuwait, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the beachfront nation of Australia.

Limitation of international support to these fawning allies which, as one wag put it, "would support an American cheese-gathering mission to the Moon," slowed not the accelerating U.S. military juggernaut. Washington spent over $600 million to assemble a vast destructive force in the Gulf and was at last poised to (as George Carlin says) do what the U.S. does best: bomb another small country.

After that, surely the United States could survey the results with pride, having achieved . . . . having achieved. . . . . . having achieved what?

Unfortunately, the grand strategists in Washington neglected to consider that Iraq need only endure conventional U.S. military attacks--which, however horrific would be dwarfed by the human devastation already wreaked by the existing murderous "sanctions"--for Washington to seemingly come out the loser. All it would take is a single surviving Iraqi saying "nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah. "

Ooops.

But wait--there's always nuclear weapons. See if anybody's still laughing then. . . . .

* * * *

Much as everybody would like this story to join the vast twilight junkyard of old media hoopla's (where the likes of Tonya Harding, Richard Jewell and Princess Di still dwell, wraithlike and abandoned), the sad news is that this is one story that is far from over. All the actors, all the scenes, all the machinery are still in place.

The 21 February "Memorandum of Understanding" issued by the UN Secretary-General did nothing to close down the production. It didn't even turn back the clock.

Everything still hangs in the same position as on 20 February.

Yet when better but in a moment of frozen time to look at what's behind the still-impending American use of weapons of mass destruction?

For that matter, when better than to plan our response? After all, who hasn't suffered verbal ridicule--or even a bully's punch--and come up with a devastating response . . . maybe a week later. So now, as the clock stands still, is our chance--a freebie if there ever was one.

Meltdown

But first let's take a look at the backdrop and the cast of characters.

The Iraq drama, like all others nowadays, plays out in the setting of a profound economic crisis: the old classic "crisis of over-production" that cyclically brings Depressions and world wars under capitalism (fates from which we've been anomalously spared for some 50 years).

But it's back: what the New York Times has called a "market glut" in virtually every area of the world economy. Wealthy capitalist nations are forced to scramble for competitive advantage. They slash wages and social benefits at home ("austerity"), ship production to what economists call "low-wage export platforms" (i. e. , the Third World), demand increased tribute from their semi-colonies (including imposing breath-taking currency devaluations which have increased impoverished nations' debts by as much as three times ), and wield trading blocs (e. g. , NAFTA or the European Economic Community) and even health scares (e. g. , Mad Cow disease) against each other.

Meanwhile, normal Imperial operations submerge alleged "emerging economic miracles" from Mexico to the Czech Republic to the "tigers" of Asia, albeit at a now-accelerated pace.

No answer but war

But none of this has broken the chokepoint, and so capitalists strangling on their own system face only two solutions: war against each other (World War #3) or opening vast new markets.

Of course there's only one place that such markets can be found: the still-noncapitalist economies of Eastern Europe, Russia, and China.

Problem there is that despite all the vaunted "collapse of socialism," profitable capitalism has yet to be re-established in any of these places, even in Yugoslavia where racist genocide was inflicted. And despite the emerging rule of open Mafioso-style wannabe capitalists in the non-capitalist world, workers there persist in demanding levels of health, education and welfare benefits far beyond the you're-own-your-own-Jack levels found in the wealthy United States, let alone in the death-squad riddled nations of Africa Latin America that the "former socialist countries" are scripted to become like.

And so the Empires--especially the Northern Colossus--are driven toward violence, toward using their vastly-superior military power as the only way to save themselves.

The drive toward war, then, is the pre-eminent fact in the world scene. This is not something that will simply wilt before protests, or even international isolation. It's a question of survival for the rulers.

Method to their madness

Within this scene the seemingly mad and self-destructive ("lose/lose") course of lead character, Uncle Sam, begins to make sense. To Sam, Iraq itself is not a major concern--but controlling MidEast oil resources is a powerful blow against its competitors in France, Germany and Japan; and Sam's wielding of military force in the Gulf a strong message to any Third World nation that decides to get uppity. (Toss in the fringe benefit of enlisting American workers in a nationalist frenzy which isolates them from their fellows around the world, while establishing a useful witch-hunt atmosphere at home. )

Then there's the need to someday use military force against the former Societ Bloc to make it truly part of the Free World--the American-ruled portion, of course.

Put this all together and you've got a nation driven toward war, consequences by damned.

Ill-behaved quisling

As for Saddam Hussein, he stands revealed as simultaneously weak and vile. He is being jammed by his former bosses--despite years on the CIA payroll and his dutiful offering-up of a million dead and injured Iranians from his proxy war against the 1979 Iranian revolution. Yet he dare not truly mobilize the Iraqi--or even neighboring--people against the Empire, knowing full-well that given half a chance the peoples he rules will impose their own will and overthrow his dictatorship.

Given the choice between the will of his foreign master and that of his own people, Saddam knows who will merely fuck his throat and who will cut it.

Meanwhile, Uncle Sam--so outraged at his hireling's uppity behavior that he'd love Saddam's head on a stake for Imperial subjects to view and ponder--dare not touch his wayward agent lest the Iraqi people--Sam's true enemy, the one he's spent seven years starving--erupt and blow Imperial rule of the Middle East apart. (The Kurds are of special concern here, for should Saddam's grip on them slip, they would quickly dismember not only Iraq, but Sam's darling, Turkey. That's why the ol' Uncle deviously called on them to rebel after the Gulf War--and then stood back smiling while Saddam butchered them by the truckload. )

Audience's Turn

Operatic as this drama might be, its current re-staging still looks to much like (a la Yogi Berra) dejá vue all over again. What's missing is the greatest actor, the majority of humanity--the vast number of normal human beings silly enough to work and farm for a living, folks who wield neither dictatorships nor nuclear weapons.

True, we did manage a bit appearance at the infamous staged "town meeting" in Ohio and had an impact far beyond our few unscripted lines.

And so back to the chance to think out our response. . . .

Surely it's time to seize the stage and tear up a script obviously headed for disaster, perhaps even of a nuclear variety.

Surely it's time to follow the lead of the two thousand people who were demonstrating in New York even as these words were written: not just no bombing, lift all sanctions against the people of Iraq.

Moreover, it's time to demand that all UN weapons inspectors--and every other violation of Iraqi sovereignty--be permanently withdrawn.

For who are the Iraqi people? "Camel jockeys?" "Sand niggers?"

Or are they us--workers and farmers, women and children, fellow working people?

Different vision

What Third World country--let alone what working class organization--can be free when the Empire can wantonly violate our independence and national sovereignty? When it can disarm us while reserving the greatest arsenal in history for itself?

Ask the workers who spent years fighting for democracy in the Teamsters (largest union in the U.S.) about the benevolence of intervention by Washington: their reformer president was just removed by federal action after he dared lead a successful strike against one of the country's largest employers.

Surely it is time to revive the old labor slogan "An Injury to One is an Injury to All"--which today means "Hands off Iraq!"

For in this moment of frozen time--which even now Washington is trying to turn into a blank check for future unilateral military action--does not the spotlight reveal that our enemy--the enemy of humanity--is here at home?

_____________

    home     |     subscribe     |     talk     |     help-about     |     back issues     |     resources