This article was first published in Internationalist
Perspective # 40, Fall 2002
The
Gulf War of 2003
Judging from the preparations that are already under way, the
American government is dead serious about its intent to invade Iraq.
As we write this, US logistical personnel are swarming over the Gulf
region. In Persian Gulf states such as Bahrain, Oman and Qatar,
munitions are being stocked, harbors are being prepared for the
arrival of war ships, bombers and fighter planes are amassed. The HQ
of the US' Central Command has been moved to the region. Several
invasion plans have been drawn up and leaked to the press. The
Defense Intelligence Agency has established a long list of Iraqi
targets for air attacks. President Bush has announced that preemptive
attacks and limited nuclear strikes are from now on an integral part
of US military doctrine. Kurdish leaders and Iraqi opposition groups
have been told that "payback time" is approaching. Turkey has been
warned that it cannot count on US aid to stem its devastating
economic crisis unless it cooperates. Saudi Arabia has been
threatened too, with highly publicized hints that there are people in
the Pentagon just itching to occupy its oilfields.
US capital feels it's on a roll since 9/11. Having been handed the
ideal pretext, it has exploited the tragic fate of the thousands who
perished in the terrorist attacks to unleash a barrage of jingoist
propaganda, to establish an almost permanent climate of fear in the
population in order to promote feelings of helplessness and support
for military action, to strengthen its repressive powers and
eliminate legal obstacles to it, to intimate striking workers, to
hide the real cause of the economic slide, and to advance its
geo-strategic interests worldwide. There is no question that the US
possesses overwhelming military superiority over anybody else. What
restrains its use in the first place is the risk of a loss of social
control. But 9/11 has opened a window of opportunity which allows
Washington to get away with murder -- literally. It fully intends to
do so, before that window closes again.
The pretexts to launch yet another war are paper-thin. An early
attempt to link the regime in Baghdad to the terrorists responsible
for 9/11 -the so-called Prague-connection- collapsed. The State
Department's own report on worldwide terrorism in 2001 does not
mention a single terrorist act for which Iraq is deemed to be
responsible. Far from us to deny that the rulers of Baghdad are
ruthless butchers. They are gangsters like all the rest of them,
those in the White House included. It just so happens that this
secular regime and the Islamist terrorists are rivals rather than
collaborators. As for the military threat emanating from Iraq, it
can't be that great since it has been unable to import new tanks,
planes, missiles and other military hardware since the Gulf war, and
UN-inspectors declared in 1998, just before they were withdrawn on
orders from Washington, that Iraq's nuclear program and its missile
capacity were destroyed. It is true that Iraq possesses anthrax and
other deadly biological material. It received them from the US in the
'80's, even after it was confirmed in 1988 that Iraq had used
chemical weapons against civilians. Oh well, Saddam was an ally then.
And now the US claims it must invade Iraq because it possesses some
substances given to it by the US! Iraq, feeling cornered, may at some
point allow UN-inspectors to return but the US already has declared
that this would not derail its war plans, contradicting its claim
that this is all about preventing Iraq from acquiring weapons of mass
destruction.
No one of course has more weapons of mass destruction than the US
and it does not hesitate to use them. They're not all high tech. The
economic sanctions against Iraq for instance, which killed at least
half a million infants according to a UN-study (without, of course,
disturbing the opulent lifestyle of the Iraqi ruling class), are a
form of mass destruction through deprivation, the most commonly used
weapon of mass destruction in capitalism's arsenal. But rarely, very
rarely, is the immense suffering of regular people as a result of
capitalism's imperialist games even mentioned in the debates about
the impending war in the media, Congress or other forums of US
capital. Half a million of Iraqi dead? That's just a number for these
people, and one that evokes much less emotion than the one indicating
the latest swing of the Dow Jones index. In a debate of 'experts' on
CNN about one of the proposed strategies for the invasion, the
so-called 'inside out'-option that would begin with the bombardment
and conquest of Baghdad, nobody said a word about the implications
for the more than 4 million inhabitants of this city. In their
polite, soft spoken way, these talking heads contribute to the
dehumanization of the enemy, a necessary ingredient of war
preparation, just like Randall Graham and many other 'evangelist'
leaders who have launched a vicious campaign against the Islamic
religion. They cannot claim ignorance about the looming mass
destruction. Classified Pentagon documents have been leaked which
estimate a death-toll of 10 000 civilians and the outbreak of
epidemics as a result of the bombing of water purification stations
and other infrastructure (according to a Unicef-report, in the first
Gulf war such bombings indirectly killed hundreds of thousands of
Iraqi's, "particularly children").
While such objections against the war are seldom heard, others
are. Many point to the risk of destabilization in the Middle East, as
corrupt and weak pro-American regimes would come under heavy
pressure, to the probability of increased terrorism, to the need,
after the war, to keep an army of occupation and a colonial-style
management in Iraq for a long time, to the danger of Iraq falling
into pieces and the implications thereof for neighboring countries,
to the risk that an unprovoked American attack might be seen by other
nations such as India as a green light to do the same and so on.
These arguments come from within the capitalist class, from people
such as Brent Scowcroft, the national security advisor under Bush
senior. They are also said to be voiced within the US government, by
secretary of State Colin Powell and CIA-director George Tenet.
Circumstances may yet change so as to strengthen their hand. But for
now, the war perspective has the upper hand, in the government as
well as in both ruling parties.
Given that the risks are both so great and obvious, the question
is what Washington thinks it will gain. The war in Afghanistan has
already yielded substantial benefits to American imperialism. It is
now militarily implanted in all seven 'Stans', including Kazakhstan
and Turkmenistan which have large oil and gas reserves. Russia has
not objected to this. In the short term, Moscow is banking on closer
relations with the Western powers. After the installation of an
American sponsored regime in Baghdad, Iran would be the only
remaining anti-American country among the big oil producers. But it
would be surrounded by American allies and become the next target for
military pressure. In this way, the US is weaving a web of control
over the world's oil supply.
The implications are both economic and geo-strategic. It is
expected that the demand for oil from the Middle East, which
possesses two thirds of the world's oil reserves, will double in the
next 20 years. By strengthening its political-military control over
the region, the US would assure a steady oil-supply for its own
economy. At the time of the previous Gulf war, the US imported only
10 % of its oil from the Middle East but because of the relative
depletion of its own reserves, this figure is expected to rise
steeply. Other countries, such as Japan, China and most of Europe,
are even more dependent on Middle Eastern oil. By establishing a
strong control over the oil spigots, the US would also be in a
position to cripple them economically at will. It would be a factor
that for instance China could not ignore when it's casting a greedy
eye across the Taiwan straits.
The war against Iraq would be a huge cost for the American economy
but it needs a stimulus badly. Its private sector, wrestling with
overcapacity, falling profits and a large debt-overload, cannot
provide such a stimulus and the Federal Reserve has already lowered
interest rates so much that it risks running out of ammunition. So
the stimulus can only come from a return to vast deficit spending and
nothing justifies that better, for the capitalist class, than war.
There is a remarkable correlation between wars in the Middle East,
the accompanying oil price hikes, and economic slumps. At first sight
the latter are caused by the former but in each case, the economic
problems preceded the war. The oil price hikes made them worse but
especially so for the countries that lacked energy sources
themselves. Less so for oil-rich countries like the US who improved
their global competitive position. The rising price of a particular
commodity is never in itself the cause of deterioration of the global
economy. The buyers lose but the sellers win, there is a transfer of
surplus value but it's a zero-sum game unless the winners spend their
windfall profit less productively than the money would have been
spent if it had remained in the pockets of the buyers. In the case of
Middle Eastern oil, much of the extra profits resulting from the
price hikes ended up in the US. Saudi-Arabia alone invested roughly
700 billion dollars in the US economy. About 80 % of the costs of the
last Gulf war were paid by America's allies, mainly Saudi-Arabia and
Kuwait. In economic terms, these countries 'bought' the American war
effort and paid for it by taxing their customers with a higher oil
price -- in dollars. Not a bad deal for US capital.
The economic sanctions against Iraq are another smart business
deal for the US. All the money resulting from Iraqi oil sales, on
which restrictions have been gradually lifted, are deposited in a
bank account in New York, administered by the Security Council. Money
is disbursed from that account for Iraqi imports, only with the
permission of the US, and it goes almost exclusively to foreign
companies, many of them American. It goes without saying that if the
sanctions were lifted, the present Iraqi government would stop all
imports from the US and would make oil exploration deals with
European and Russian capitals. That's why the Europeans and the
Russians have been pressing for lifting the sanctions while the
Americans have resisted this. It wants to assure that Iraq has a
regime that's loyal to the US before the sanctions are ended.
We are not suggesting that all wars and political crises in the
Middle East are constructed by the US to improve its competitive
position. Sometimes, this factor was more important in triggering
these wars, sometimes less so. But the roots of these conflicts are
more complex; America's goals are wider, the role of local
imperialisms weighs heavily too, as do social pressures. to
But the ability of the capitalist rulers to exploit even those
events which they have not machiavellistically created, should not be
underestimated. US capital is now facing a serious worsening of
global economic conditions. There is nothing it can do to prevent
that, the cause is capitalism itself, the global overcapacity and
falling rate of that result from its fundamental contradictions.
Given that prospect, the war against Iraq makes (capitalist) sense.
The war would powerfully reinforce the 'safe haven'-effect (the
flight of capital from all over the world to the US) and thereby
re-inflate the American bubble (the overestimation of the value of
American capital, which gives it purchasing power in exchange for
nothing) at a time that its hot air is escaping at an alarming rate.
This, and the probable rise of the oil price, would stimulate the
global demand for dollars (oil is paid in dollars) and thus restore
king dollar's hegemony. It might give the nationalistic
propaganda-campaign that was so useful for capital since 9/11 new
vigor and thereby strengthen capital's deadly grip on society, and
represent an important step in the US imperialist designs.
But while the potential gains are great, so are the risks. It
could all blow up in the US's face and lead to a diminished control,
both over the geo-strategic game and over the working class. For the
sake of the countless innocents who would be the victims in this war,
we hope that the risk-averse among the rulers in Washington, will
eventually prevail. But don't count on it. The war in Iraq, and other
wars behind it, are likely because they are quite rational from a
capitalist point of view. The inevitable prospect of a deepening
crisis of the global capitalist economy makes the threat of mass
destruction ever greater, despite the end of the cold war. Capitalism
must be killed before it kills us.
(August 2002)
Back to Against Capitalist War,
Against Capitalist Peace / Back
to Home Page