The Iraq War, the American Bourgeoisie – A Failed Strategy!

For a while now, the American failure in its war with Iraq has become a common debate within world-wide political circles, even in the White House, the Pentagon (Department of Defense), and the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency).  They are all are talking about this failure, but what exactly has failed or the achievement of what goals has failed is a subject that either will not be discussed or in the wrong way infuses their minds.  The failure of the American bourgeoisie and its allies in the Middle East, if not in the long run but in the short run, was a failure of many expectations and goals.  The failure of these expectations and goals was in prolonging the wars in the Balkans, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq which was a combination of another dominant pole of the global capital warmonger approaches.  These goals include the following:

1.    The creation of a political-military milieu is in proportion to the necessary strategic and secure retreats of the international workers movement.  That is, the raid of the bourgeoisie on the livelihood of working class will not face any effective resistance from the working class in order to again divide the further needed labour and surplus value in the interest of the profitability of capital.  In relation to this contest it does not mean the working class balance of power or its arrangement was in a situation of resistance to attack in the early days of invasion.  The international working class, certainly, was neither in that situation nor at this period.  The real issue is that the outcome of the current economic crisis and its potential effects jeopardize the capitalist system’s survival and becomes a prerequisite and indissoluble part of capitalism to maintain the reproduction of global capital; this requires huge threats to the means of subsistence of the international working class.  The bourgeoisie inevitably has to answer to it with a strategy and create such a suitable situation for this attack and invasion.  Also, this is a subject matter that all capitalists’ governments and all murderers of the retentive political order of global capital production would not neglect for a second.   Either the war in Iraq or any war in the future is taking a serious place in this strategy.

2.    To ensure the role of the American bourgeoisie as a hegemonic pole to exert political, military, and economic global capital order which at the end of this role can allocate more surplus value of production from other rival poles of the global bourgeois for itself.  Being in this situation in the early stages of renewed capitalist pole-building inside the global bourgeois, and the aggravated crisis of the capitalist structure system, and the emergence of other threatening and powerful poles such; China, India, Russia, and the European Union, all are considered important and essential for the social capital of America.  

3.    The refining of the political order of global capitalism and the unification of them in order to have similar aims.  Furthermore, they are cleansing the unstable nation-states and their incompetence for ensuring the political stability of capitalism - such as Saddam in Iraq, the Taliban in Afghanistan; and the removal of political situations to prevent international extortion including the extortion of some regimes such as Iran, and the settling with the rest of the remaining previous capitalist governments such as: Cuba, North Korea, and the former Yugoslavia.

4.    The direct dominance of the political–economy of the American bourgeoisie in the Middle East and Central Asia as a powerful lever to push the competitive process among the other poles of global capital to create more surplus value by production by the workers, and seizing the oil capital in that region.  Additionally, there is the continuous strengthening of more of the American strategic situation in the Persian Gulf, and more of the direct and sufficient appearance of the military, the political, and the economy in this region which is very important for global capitalism.

Any failure or success of America in the Middle East needs to be reviewed with these factors in mind, and to be judged.  At a glance, it could be seen that the war in Iraq could not only progress to their expectations but also, it undermined the strategy and the framework of these goals.  The global bourgeois situation with respect to the working class prior to the war in Iraq was not gaining strength, and if it was, it was a result of other factors.  Furthermore, the hegemony of America did not have the strength to exert their politico-economic order; and its situation with respect to the other poles of global bourgeoisie not only indicates no gaining of any strength rather its weakness. The military failure of the Bush government to establish a puppet regime has decreased the credibility of the White House even among other political satellites in the Middle East, and it causes other rival forces in that region to take a more aggressive position.  The bourgeois government of Iran is in a more powerful situation in terms of its political situation compared to the times prior to the war in Iraq.  Now, Iran is playing an important role in Iraq either in the economic or the political arrangement of the bourgeois of Iraq.  Weakening American allies in the Middle East such as Prime Minister Fouad Siniora in Lebanon and the increasing power of the reactionary Hezbollah, or the greatly decreasing validity of the Palestinian forces such as the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) who are more inclined to the West (or Fatah), and at the same time the declining situation of Israel are all results of the invasion of Iraq.  Additionally, the emergence of the great advantage for Iran to use the situation of Hezbollah and Hamas to demand more shares of the economy and its political role are subjects that through the invasion of Iraq, they have risen to the political surface. 

The huge spending on war is another factor that has impacted America’s economy which has subsequently decreased its competitive situation against other global capitalists.  For example, the balance of trade of the United States compared to China is an obvious example of the shifting of the balance of economic power.  The new action of China’s government to change 100,000 billion dollars of its resources to Euros, as well as other countries such as Iran, Libya, Romania, Lithuania, and others.  All of these are indicating the new wave of unemployment in America, and the diminishing of the rate of profit of the giant industrial and financial corporations of the United States and its huge impact on the European economy and its rate of profits.  These are all indicators of the impact of America’s offensive military.

The effort of the American bourgeoisie to dominate Middle Eastern and Central Asian resources accompanied with the reinforcement of its strategy and economic situation in the Persian Gulf and that entire region, has failed substantially.  Iraq and its war have brought such instability in terms of the political and military authority for America in which the relation of Russia and other countries of the former Soviet Union with Iran has become more firm.  The relationship between Iran and Russia jeopardizes America’s economic outlook.  Also, the war with Iraq has to a large extent undermined the ability of the military to be used against any opposing force.  The affect of such an outcome can be seen in the relationship of America with Latin America, and in this case specifically, Venezuela.

Without a doubt, the list of consequences of the American failure in Iraq war is an exhaustive one.  However, what is important here is not the failure of America, rather the following outcomes of the American strategy in that region; the fate of the worker masses underneath the crimes of global capital and the important duties in which the international working class has to face the warmongering of capitalism and the future of the Iraqi people.  The bourgeoisie of the United States has failed in its war in the Middle East, but the administration of the White House, and generally all of America’s allies will not surrender to this failure rather there is much evidence indicating preparation for more bloodshed against humanity.  For example, the new assertions from the Foreign Minister of the White House, Condoleeza Rice, Jimmy Carter, some of the Senators of the Senate Committee, the head of the CIA and the Pentagon are all demonstrating the extension of the “shock and awe”.  All of these groups are well experienced in warmongering, coup d’etat, and the wickedness from the conservatives to the democrats, whether they agree or not agree with Bush, they are all admitting the failure and have accompanied their clamoring with the amendment of this failure and the transferring of the current situation to a victorious situation.  

All of these events are indicating that the American strategy in the Middle East with the aim of transferring the power balances and pushing back the wave of failure is about to change.  What would be the context of this change or changes is not easily predicted, but the sequences of events are indicating;

1.    The composition of the Iraqi government at the present time does not satisfy the United States.  The expectations of the Bush administration was that Iraq becomes a stable island of capital; or to be another Israel or to some extent similar to Saudi Arabia, Jordan, or something like Iran before 1979.  The political supremacy after the war in Iraq and the strategic landscape of Washington was supposed to play an important role to guarantee this supremacy in the framework of the social-political and military of global capitalism.  This dream has been changed into a nightmare.  This does not mean that the interim reactionary forces within the Iraqi ruling coalition do not like to play such a role and mission - rather this coalition is not capable of playing such a prophetic role.  The military invasion by America has brought a situation such that reaching this success is not possible due to the contradictory political composition and background of the coalition.  Even if we for a second ignore these parties, and the official reactionary forces such as; the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Islamic Dawa Party, or Chalabis’ gang (Ahmed Abdel Hadi Chalabi) or Kurd Nationalism; every human being in the world is loathing the American invasion.  To impose their own political stability of one of the most brutal global capitalism on the worker masses which the war has coerced them to a situation far worse than Saddam’s regime was not an easy job.  The reactionary bourgeois ruling coalition of Iraq either for this reason or under its own huge contradictory pressure is not able to succeed in forcing the political order of the Bush administration to be desirable, and therefore ironically has no choice but to rely more and more on this bourgeoisie of America.

2.    On the other hand, the inability of the Iraqi bourgeois coalition to accomplish the expectations of the United States makes it more aggravated and complete.  This coalition does not see the military and political support of America as a solution to its problems from the collapse of Saddam’s government till present time.  From the point of view of the coalition’s interest, kissing the ass of the White House was effective as long as Saddam would be removed from power and they could establish their own power.  With the collapse of Saddam the relationship between the forces in the coalition and the Bush administration was nothing but a disaster according to the characteristic and outcome of the situation of the war.  The savagery of America’s army in Iraq is dreadful for the Iraqi people and gives pretext to the brutal terrorism of the reactionary forces of the other sectors of the bourgeoisie to exist in Iraq.  As a result, in both cases, the opportunity of the reactionary transitional government would be limited to take advantage of the illusion of Iraqi people.   Also, all of the forces that form the transitional government due to their dark political background are carrying out various commitments within different global sectors of the bourgeoisie.  The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (SIIC) which has not only been long based in neighboring Iran but also it receives training by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards in Iran.  The Islamic Dawa Party has been funded for such a long time from entire reactionary regimes in that region.  Due to their patriotism, the Nationalist Kurds sell themselves to Savak (SAVAK  Organization for Intelligence and National Security) which was the domestic security and intelligence service of Iran from 1957–1979); and later to the capitalist ruling religious of Iran. The important issue for all these forces is climbing the ladder of political power and finding a place in the structure of the government power of the bourgeoisie.  The basic calculation of all of them was that the US Army would not meet their expectation but now with the situation after the war, not only did the US army not meet their expectation but also it has become problematic.  By observing the new situation, all these forces are reaching out to the bourgeois Islamic government of Iran for help such as military power, and the economic and political role of Iran in that region as a solution in front of them. The necessity of such an approach can be seen in the daily relationship that has extended between the present governments of Iraq with Iran in every aspect. The extensive need of such a strengthening relationship is so huge that even Jalal Talabani had tried to show that he knows some Farsi. 

Part of the strategy of the U.S to overcome the symptoms of its failure in the war is trying to change the composition of the interim coalition forces in Iraq.  With respect to the American expectations of its daily strategy, the new political powers in Iraq must stop the terrorism from other sectors of the bourgeoisie that opposed the U.S.  Also, they must disable the mass dissent that is frustrated with the invasion and has the ability to extend its relation to all U.S. allies in that region as well as guarantee political order and then capitalist production in Iraq in relation to the America’s capital and its government.   The bourgeois of the U.S. in its process of changing its strategy to overcome its failed outcome is recognizing, independent of being successful or not, the body of the remaining political and military of the Baath Party; and these days for the attainment of such a policy.  For example, the pressure on the ruling coalition of the U.S is involving more of the Baath’s army and its political cadres in any meeting in such an approach.  Bush’s recommendation to Nuri Al Maleki for postponing Saddam Hossain’s execution was another action in the new strategy in which the transitional government of Iraq accepting such a recommendation did not benefit itself.  The White House, essentially, was not against Saddam’s execution because by involving the remaining Baath Party without Saddam to some extent seemed more rational and more explanatory.  The main aim for postponing the execution verdict was more the preparation of a primary task for implementing the new strategy.  From the point of view of the White House what could be guaranteed in the interest of the America’s bourgeoisie and compensate the disgraced failure of the war in Iraq is the establishment of a powerful dictatorship in that country.  None of the governments in Iraq that came after Saddam were able to accomplish this task, even the government of Nuri Al Maleki.  The composition of all these forces in the government owed their entire power and existence to The White House and its invasion in Iraq.  These coalition forces not only had no legitimacy and support among the working people of Iraq but also did not have any political skeleton or any deeply rooted political apparatus to exert such power.  The invasion of Iraq placed them in power.  None of these governments in Iraq had any governmental apparatus, police organization, or army to wield such power and suppression which is a pre-condition for running such a government after the war.  For example, the Islamic Republic of Iran after the revolution (1979) apart from the weakness of the working class situation had advantages to use a prepared army, Savak, the machine of police for the suppression of the revolution.  The created governments by the American war in Iraq did not inherit anything from the previous regime.  And, that is, what the White House has understood and takes it into its calculation for a new strategy. Referring to the body of the remaining Baath Party is supposed to be the solution for this problem.  The Pentagon’s pre scri ption for forming the next government in Iraq is to organize a powerful coalition in which the composition of such a government would be the forces that currently are in the government and the security, police, army and the political institutions of Saddam’s regime.  The current debate on changing the strategy related to Iraq revolves around this issue.  And. that is what is not pleasant for the Kurd Nationalists, the Supreme Islamic Iraq Council (SIIC), the Islamic Dawa Party, and their range of allies but is a necessity for America to overcome this situation.  The adoption of this policy would bring some support from some Arabic governments who are allies with the U.S.  Additionally, this is probably another chain of another strategic attempt of the U.S. which would bring more power balance for the U.S. and its allies.  However, even this new strategy would not bring any opportunity for Bush and his administration.  At a glance it could be surmised that all of these changes would bring more benefits for the Iranian regime.

What has been stated here is part of a new approach of the American strategy in relation to Iraq and the Middle East.  The other part of this new strategy needs to be discussed.  Unless the United States without weakening the political situation of the Iranian regime  connects more and more with the socio-political interest of the bourgeoisie of Iran with its own foreign policy and international economic aim it will not be able to solve the problem in Iraq.  The bourgeoisie of America has considered such an important merger historically besides using military force such as it did in Iraq.  During the twenty-eight years of the Iranian regime ruling, it obviously demonstrates in each step that neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party pursued these goals and used all possible means.  For example, the persuading of Saddam to attack Iran is a similar policy where it endured the humiliation of bearing the seizure of the American embassy (Iran hostage crisis November 1979) which resulted in the holding of sixty-three U.S. diplomats.  Or, the widespread campaign against the access of Iran to Nuclear Power or the threatening of Iran with military attack is pursuing the same plan as the various commands to attain a socio-economic relationship.   None of America’s governments had any serious plan to invade Iran or replace it with another regime because all of these actors know that the result of such an invasion would be devastating for the bourgeoisie of America and the entire global capital.  The core issue for America is to convince the head of the bourgeois government of Iran to abandon extortion and adopt the expectations and policies of either America or another key centre of a dominant pole of global capital.  On the opposite side, the Islamic Iranian regime from the beginning until now, from the hostage crisis (1979) to the Iran-Contra Affair (1987), from the anti-American sentiment of Khomeini and Ahmadi Nezhad to Rafsanjani (Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani) who has a moderate position or Mohammed Khatami with his Dialogue of Civilization - position themselves all in the same direction as asking for the recognition of the bourgeoisie of Iran and the acceptance of the hegemony of Iran in that region.  The concepts of all the disputes between Iran and America have not gone further than asking for such privileges or recognition.  The important point is that all of these disputes between Iran and America have benefited Iran even with all the tumultuous situations.  Furthermore, with the situation of America in Iraq, this balance has shifted towards Iran.  This situation is not tolerable for America but it has no other choice than to adopt the same direction.

The effort of the American government to implement a new strategy in the Middle East in relation to the Iranian regime is a failed challenge - the condition in Iraq comprises some of the operations which seem to oppose each other but in reality are fundamentally in accordance with each other.   The United States is attempting to: first of all reinforce as well as extend their alliances in the Middle East; secondly, they are putting more pressure on the Iranian regime; and thirdly, they are weakening the situation of the Iranian regime; and finally, they are providing some privileges to the Iranian regime in order to foster an agreement by the Iranian regime for the establishment of a political order and for capitalist production in Iraq.  What Bush has accomplished thus far and especially more recently, was attaining these goals which seem contradictory yet are in accordance with each other.  The White House policy makers, on one hand, are trying to recruit Bashar al-Assad and trying to bring Syria to ally with America, as well as supporting the Fouad Siniora government against the Hezbollah and the other opposition groups against Siniora.  Furthermore, the administration is attempting to convince Ehud Olmert to have an active relation with the Palestinian forces that lean more towards the West and thereby bringing more isolation for Hamas and Hezbollah.  Additionally, the American government finally agrees with the conditions of Russia and China for preparing a common resolution against Iran and the approval of this resolution in the U.N. Security Council.  At the same time, there was emphasis on having a dialogue with the Iranian regime.  All of these attempts and policy-making indicate the current diplomacy of the United States, however, it seems contradictory.  This is not the case - rather it is part of a connected chain rather than a contradiction.

At a simple glance, what seems more obvious is the process of a failed attempt by Bush and his administration which continues to drown in this swamp.  The bourgeoisie, in general, includes the current government of the U.S. which is unable to comprehend any historical fact due to its reactionary class pressures.  The clear truth of imposing such brutality in order to sustain wage-slavery even in a situation where the working class is suffering enormously due to the lack of its horizon and class formation is very difficult.  The new strategy of the U.S. in the Middle East has no new prospect for overcoming the current situation.  The people of Iraq have already paid a price for such brutality.  The American bourgeoisie has destroyed the lives of millions of people completely with the pretext of getting rid of Saddam.  These masses cannot be witness to all these crimes again with the aim of restoring the political–military body of Saddam into power.  In spite of the huge need for strengthening their power bases and temporarily accepting direction from Washington, the current coalition forces do not perceive the benefits for the long term with respect to the political and economic structure of Iraq.  That is, it would bring more distrust in the U.S. Other factors in the political realm have no indication that show any way out for the United States.

The Working Class of Iraq and the International Workers Movement

The above discussion was a review of the current approach of the capitalist system and the American bourgeoisie to drive the working class of Iraq into the depths of poverty, bloodshed, starvation and destruction.  The fundamental discussion point is what has the international working class done during this period?  What has to be done? And, what can the working class do?  What has been lost to the people of Iraq; to the women, children, young and old during the last sixteen years?  The de scri ption of the aggravating degree of this brutality from 1990, compared to the previous period, on one hand, is difficult and on the other hand, it is not necessary.  It is difficult because such brutality cannot be described and not necessary because we are witnessing it everyday in the media.

The media coverage is full of lies – it is a sham.  All media outlets dependent on any power spectrum of the bourgeoisie are insisting and singling out terrorism as a phenomenon whose purpose is to hide the real source of what is happening to the millions of people working in Iraq.  This current terrorism in reality is a solution for different actors and sectors of the bourgeoisie for the liquidation of other sectors of the bourgeoisie by means of creating bloodshed and the mass slaughtering of oppressed people.  What is happening in Iraq is a direct continuation of a military invasion by global capitalism and its opposition to other sectors of the bourgeoisie.  All the crimes, including terrorism are characteristics of capitalism.  The aim of such brutality is to sustain capitalist ruling over the working class and the impenetrable existence of wage-slavery.  Additionally, all these media outlets bury the truth with this sham.  They are providing the lie that there is war between America and Iraq, Bush and Saddam, terrorism and the transitional government of Iraq, a war on terror, a war between Alqaedeh and the U.S. and a war between Islam and the West.  It is true that there is a different part of the bourgeoisie involved with the war in Iraq, but the essential issue is that all of these wars are about the role and the amount of the existence of these actors to attain more political power over capital in order to gain more shares from the exploitation of working people.  This war and generally all wars that have occurred around the world are part of the aggravated exploitation in the interest of capital. 

What is happening in Iraq is a capitalist war at the expense of the worker masses in that region.  The working class of Iraq in this situation is not able to oppose this war due to a long historical term of enduring a dictatorship, the slaughter and the brutality of capitalism.  The working class of Iraq has never displayed its independent class power; either it was under the huge pressure of the criminal Saddam regime or was under the destructive illusion of the “left’.  Furthermore, in the situation that after 15 years of war and invasion from global capitalism and a recent war it has become more and more exhausted.  The emancipation of the working class of Iraq from the hell that has been imposed by global capitalism needs an international solidarity workers movement.  The working people of Iraq without an emerging international working class movement will not be able to overcome this situation.  The international working class disregards and lacks sensitivity with respect to the dreadful situation of Iraq and this is a catastrophe for our movement.  Why we and our movement are quiet about this handmade dreadful situation by global capitalism must be discussed.  But, one thing is obvious.  It is a result of a long-time dominance by all left-wing  spectrums; either those who were receiving directions from Big Brother (the Eastern Bloc), the right-wing reformism of syndicalism, as well as the corporate Union movement, social democracy, left nationalism, and the populist movement within our movement; where they have all created this situation for our movement.  This is our situation which they have imposed on us but, there is no reason to stay in such a situation. 

Worker internationalism is not a common moral solidarity, that is, it does not reflect the attitude of an empty bourgeois humanitarian.  On the contrary, it is a fundamental class occurrence, a radical and anti-capitalist situation which rests in our socio-historical existence of the international working class.  What the people of Iraq bear now is a part of the capitalist agenda which is happening everywhere over the working class for more profits and labour force.  The defense of the working class of Iraq and protests against the crimes of the bourgeoisie is not merely a moral humanitarian prophecy rather it is an organic chain of a class emergence and is compulsory against wage-slavery.  The defense of the working class in Iraq is a defense of our movement.

Probably the most important difficulty is how the international working class in this dreadful situation would help their fellow members in Iraq?  Probably, the answer for many workers is to refer to Trade Unions and request such class assistance.  The reality is that deferring to Trade Unions goes nowhere.  The Trade Unions, everywhere, are playing the role of a cane, that is, they are an assistive aid for the bourgeoisie in order to get rid of the anti-capitalist movement of the working class.  It has been a long time that the bourgeoisie of the West with the help of these Trade Unions has gotten rid of the workers movement.  This pole of global capitalism is in competition with the previous Eastern Bloc which was utilizing these Unions for the dirtiest job against the other pole.  Even the most right-wing in the U.S., the bourgeois within Congress attempts to rely on union reformism against the bourgeoisie of Iran.  For example, the objection by Rick Santorum, a senator, is interesting when he states that the United States needs to pay attention to and support the Bus Drivers syndicate in Iran.

What is stated here about Trade Unions would apply to all campaigns and meta-class movements such as the anti-war movement.  Relying on these campaigns would not solve any of the problems for the working people in Iraq.  Being anti-war without a true class struggle against the existence of those who make a war if not demagogical it is an illusion.  In order to move against the warmongering of capitalism, we must bring out the forces of anti-capitalism of workers. The flags of anti-Americanism and anti-globalization would not permit the engagement of any successful struggle against the warmongers of capitalism and would not grasp the root.  The working class cannot remain in the same campaigns and lines that other sectors of the bourgeoisie are standing on.  The history of the working class in the world shows that if the working class does not form its own line enviably it will be played out by another sector of the bourgeoisie.  An example of this can be observed after the invasion of Iraq when even Jacques Chirac, Vladimir Putin, the Iranian regime, and Hamas became anti-war and tried to hide their ugly faces behind this. 

In defense of the working class in Iraq we must find another way.  The formation of committees and anti-capitalist councils to organize the support for the working class in Iraq is an effective international way to take on such a task.  Furthermore, all of these committees and councils that can be formed are able to be a container of anti-capitalist activists around the world to move against capitalism and be a chain within the struggle.

These anti-capitalist councils can bring international solidarity for the working class of Iraq and can work on many tasks - from organizing a march in a street to disrupting economic production, to organizing food, and medical aid for people in Iraq.  The demand of controlling the process of work and production and the political order of the working class can be one of the major demands.

Forming anti-capitalist councils with a very transparent job against the brutality of global capitalism in the Middle East can be the realm of a current struggle everywhere.  Instead of Turkish, Pakistani, Palestinian and others going under the false flag of reactionary forces, they must be brought under one flag, and that is the international flag. 

The dominant atmosphere in the current working class movement everywhere, probably, would think that it is a dream.  However, this atmosphere is the same poisonous environment as what there is within global capitalism, within the right-wing reformism of the Trade Unions, and the left reformism of sectarian lefties which were imposed on the working class.  This environment must be smashed.  The international working class within this environment would witness more barbarism.  Smashing such an environment is the duty of any anti-capitalist activist.  The establishment of such anti-capitalist councils for the solidarity with the working class in Iraq is possible.  We must be the starting point for making it happen.