Bush Moving Closer To War Against Iraq

Prakash Karat

 THE United States has moved closer to launching a war against Iraq in the last fortnight. President Bush now seeks to portray aggression against Iraq as a necessary part of his global war against terrorism. He manufactured the lie that Iraq is linked to the Al-Qaeda, without presenting an iota of evidence. He reiterated once again, without a shred of evidence, the charge that Iraq is preparing weapons of mass destruction --- biological and chemical. The speech made on October 7 was meant to influence public opinion and the US Congress to adopt a resolution giving him sweeping powers to launch a military attack on Iraq. 

INTRASIGENCE

The US Congress --- both the Senate and the House of Representatives --- adopted a resolution titled “Authorisation for the Use of Military Force against Iraq.” It declares the aim to be the removal of “the current Iraqi regime” from power. The resolution permits Bush to wage a war to: a) defend the national security of the US against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and b) to implement all the “relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” The resolution allows the president to wage a war as long as he informs the Congress within 48 hours after the initiation of military action. The resolution was voted 77 to 23 in the Senate and 296 to 133 in the House of Representatives, thanks to the cooperation of a sizeable section of the Democrats.

Thus armed, Bush is now engaged at the diplomatic level in pushing the UN Security Council to adopt a new tough resolution on Iraq, which he can use to launch an attack. Failing which, he has made it clear that the US will attack nevertheless. The US is concentrating on softening up Russia's opposition to a fresh resolution and its stand that UN weapons inspectors should go into Iraq immediately. France is prepared to consider a resolution which is less stringent and intrusive than the draft proposed by the US and the UK. 

The cynical drive to invade Iraq led the US to reject the agreement arrived at between the UN weapons inspector team head, Hans Blix, and the Iraqi government for sending inspectors who would go to all defence and  army installations. Colin Powell, the secretary of state, rejected  the agreement as it was based on the 1998 UN resolution which required that inspection of presidential houses had to be announced in advance. The Iraqi government was prepared to waive this condition too.

PROJECT OCCUPATION

 Faced with Iraqi cooperation, the US wants the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution with a short period ultimatum. Till then, it is against the UN sending any inspectors to Iraq. It is a sad commentary on the plight of the United Nations that due to US intransigence it is forced to refrain from going ahead with its own negotiated agreement with Iraq.

While mounting diplomatic pressure to scuttle any UN-sponsored agreement, the Bush administration has stepped up its troops and weapons movement to the Gulf. The Central Command of the US armed forces is geared up for the attack. The focus is now on plans on how to occupy Iraq.  Should a provisional government be put in place with US proxies, or should there be a  period of  direct US occupation? The New York Times has reported seeing a plan which is modelled on the US occupation of Japan after the second world war. General Tommy Franks, chief of the Central Command, would govern Iraq just as General McArthur did in Japan.

The invasion of Iraq does not find unanimous support among American military circles. The former Central Command chief, Anthony Zinni, who preceded General Franks, has publicly come out in Washington recently against the invasion of Iraq. For many other observers, an inflamed Arab world with mounting anger against the US is an alarming prospect.

Yet, Bush goes ahead. The real face of the US global war against terrorism is unmasked by its targetting of Iraq. Iraq has a secular regime that is against Islamic fundamentalist forces. It is implausible that the Iraqi government sponsors or supports the forces of Osama bin Laden. Whether it be the terrorist outrage in Bali or the attack on the French oil tanker in Yemen, or the shooting of a US soldier in Kuwait --- none of these incidents can even be remotely linked to Iraq. Yet Bush targets Iraq. Global domination, control of the strategic Gulf region and capturing the oil reserves of Iraq are the actual reasons for the next war against Iraq. The US policy on Iraq strikingly reveals that the war against terrorism is nothing but a cover for naked imperialist domination.

GROWING PROTEST AGAINST WAR  

Bush has kept the war drums beating to divert attention from the dismal economic situation at home. The recovery from the last year’s recession has not take place, the stock markets have crashed, the savings of ordinary people wiped out, unemployment is high and tens of thousands of jobs are being axed. Jingoism is a tool for Bush and the Republicans to build a smokescreen to cover up their abject failure. Further, the talk of war has been used to browbeat the Democrats and sideline the real issues before the congressional elections in November. Bush does not have a majority in the Senate. War is a useful electoral tactic.

Though the US Congress adopted Bush’s Iraq resolution, popular opinion against the war is growing. A poll reported in the Washington Post on October 8 showed that support for the invasion of Iraq had dropped to 53 per cent as against 61 per cent in June.

All over the US, on October 6 and 7, big anti-war demonstrations were held. Thousands marched in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities. On October 26, Washington will see a huge anti-war protest.

In London, 400,000 people marched to oppose the war and denounce Blair's policy. In Rome, another 100,000 marched on September 28, demanding no war against Iraq. The popular mobilisation around the world and the opposition to the war by America’s own allies highlights the virtual isolation of the USA on Bush's aggressive posture. A war on Iraq will blow up all  the  grand plans for a global coalition against terrorism. Imperialist aggression will spawn more terrorist acts, not eliminate them.