What's Behind the US War Moves on Iraq?

by Matt Siegfried

The United States government is preparing a new war on Iraq. A section of

the Bush administration, reflecting a section of the US ruling class, has

long been pursuing an assault on Iraq to overthrow the regime of Sadaam

Hussein. It will come as no surprise to anyone that this group is intimately

associated with the oil and, to a lesser extent, the military industries.

Vice President and former Defense Secretary and chief of Halliburton

Corporation Dick Cheney is the main representative of these interests in the

administration.

Halliburton, at a nominal market value of over 18 billion dollars, is the

largest oil supply company in the world. It has also become a leading

construction contractor for the US military since the Bush administration

took office. If Chevron-Texaco (which named a ship after Bush's National

Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice) needs parts in Nigeria or new oil wells

in the arctic wilderness, Halliburton is there. The runways that launch

American bombing sorties on Afghan wedding parties and the prisoner camp in

occupied Cuba are built by Halliburton.

This is not a conspiracy, nor is it a coincidence -- it is how American

capitalism works. The government sees its primary role to defend and extend

American corporate interests. There is a constant revolving door between

government and business in the US. This, of course, is not a uniquely

American reality but one shared with all the capitalist governments of the

world.

Utilizing the bellicose mood of the post-September 11th political

atmosphere, the US right wing has made a concerted effort to win the

government to launching a new Gulf War. The hawks have been in the

ascendancy since the early spring, though not without contradictions and

real opposition from parts of the ruling class, government, and military who

fear some of the consequences of a new war. These consequences include the

prospect of a jump in oil prices and the inflationary pressure that would

put on the already troubled economy; the further destabilization of a region

already seething from the "War on Terrorism", continued sanctions on Iraq,

and US patronage of Israel; and strains on an increasingly active

"volunteer" army's resources, to name a few.

The forces advocating a new war also have divisions among them. Some of them

want revenge for their own failure to dislodge Sadaam Hussein in the last

war and his continued existence in power after all the attempts made over

the last decade to isolate and replace him. This looks and sounds a bit like

the red-faced rage of the schoolyard bully whose attempts at intimidation go

unheeded. He cannot remain the bully if others refuse to be bullied.

Another motivation is that the US has awfully little to show in its "War on

Terrorism". Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden have, so far, been unwilling to

offer up their corpses for a trophy photo. Though the imperialists have

clearly won many gains in Afghanistan, the all-looking-and-no-finding war

seems to have powered down without many of the big issues being resolved in

their favor. A war on Iraq would deflect charges of being "soft" on Al Qaeda

and the Axis of Evil from the far right of American politics and,

coincidently, some Democrats. When other enemies prove too elusive, Sadaam's

nefarious star tends to rise in the US government's psyche. They seem to

wilt without an enemy to compare to Hitler.

Another motivation is oil, and not just the oil within the borders of Iraq.

While strictly economic aims are sometimes simplistically laid out as the

primary reasons behind US war policy, and all the proponents of war have a

combination of reasons for their advocacy, it would be foolish to

underestimate the power of oil interests in shaping American policy.

Competition among the imperialist powers over access to and control of oil

has increased since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

One reason for this is that the previously off-limits resources of the

former Soviet Union have opened up, leading to a new "Great Game" for the

riches of the Central Asian states (now conveniently hosting US military

bases for the war in neighboring Afghanistan) and the Caspian Sea. Why leave

all that oil to the Russians and the Central Asians? The privatization of

the old state energy companies is a potential windfall of many billions of

dollars for American oil interests, provided that the new companies partner

with US ones and upgrade their facilities with the parts and know-how of the

Halliburton Corporation.

Another reason is that the old equilibrium between the imperialist powers

facing a common Soviet threat has broken down, meaning that each is more

likely to pursue its own energy goals, including direct access to oil. This

is what is at the heart of France's opposition to the sanctions on Iraq.

While many countries buy oil from the Iraq Petrochemical Company (IPC,

nationalized in 1972), France is the only Western power which has partial

ownership in the IPC. The sanctions prevent them from fully exploiting that

relationship.

The US and Britain, with four of the top five oil companies in the world

between them, were frozen out of investment in the IPC and therefore out of

control over 10 percent of the world's oil, which is produced by Iraq. Is it

really any surprise then that these two countries are the most adamant about

continuing the sanctions and now about going to war, whatever the

consequences for the Iraqi people?

Japan and Germany have almost no indigenous oil resources, so the second and

third largest economies in the world have to buy their way into the oil

market. While their wealth provides them access, they are still confined

militarily to their own countries as a consequence of World War II. Thus

they remain beholding to the US to protect their oil access. For the US,

control of oil means power over its friends, who are also its rivals. In the

largest gas bill in history the US made Germany and Japan cough up tens of

billions of dollars for their Kuwaiti oil in the last Gulf War. Recession

and political problems at home make Germany and Japan much less willing to

do this again.

The more mercenary warmongers in the US government see control over oil as

the starting point of their policy, rather than the regime of Sadaam

Hussein. When they look at maps of the world they see resources and zones of

influence, rather than countries and people. With all that has happened in

the last decade they see an urgent need to reshape parts of the world in

their own interests and, by virtue of being the only superpower, almost the

ordained obligation to do so.

This attitude is not new with the Bush administration. The "humanitarian"

interventions of the Clinton administration were rooted in the same arrogant

view, which holds that the Middle East is too important to be left to its

people. The goal of this patrician group is to impose a Pax Americana on the

region. The costs and consequences of such brutal folly can only be guessed

at, but the destruction Israel is inflicting on the Palestinians is a good

place to start.

Iraqi oil is part of the motivation. Oil in general is a greater motivation.

But the root of the cowboy attitude of the current US government is the

nature of capitalism and imperialism in general, whoever practices it. That

is, the violent imposition of the interests of the few, the rulers of the

capitalist "great powers", on the vast majority of the world's people. The

ruined lives of the many underlie the profit and the power of the few.

We, the working people of the world, are not simply "exploited masses" to be

pitied. We are a power who, by fighting for our own interests, fights for

the liberation of all humanity. Crisis are currently shaking continents from

the consequences of the last twenty years of Neo-Liberal's crusade.

>From Jakarta and Buenos Aires, from Johannesburg and Jenin, from

>Seattle and

Genoa people have marched under the banner "Another World is Possible". It

is time to give that world a name; socialism, and in the face of still

another American war set about, urgently, to change this world. For the

common, rational, and shared utilization of what nature, finitely, has

endowed the planet, that is, for socialism.

Working people, the "exploited masses" also exist in the US, though usually

more silently than in the rest of the world. US workers need to enter this

struggle with their own voices rather than those voices who would speak for

them. That the US has decided on war does not make it inevitable, and the

louder we are now the greater chance we have to prevent it. Should they

succeed in launching their war we will oppose them. If they triumph in their

plans we will demonstrate the perfidy of their victory and use the lessons

learned to resist the next war, which we are sure will come. Wars are in the

nature of imperialism and we must press home this reality- to defeat war it

is necessary to defeat capitalism.