Organize against Obama’s endless wars abroad & reaction at home!
The Bush administration used the September 11, 2001 terrorist atrocity to justify a policy of resurgent imperialism. Today, by escalating the bloodshed in Afghanistan, stepping up attacks on Pakistan, and passing the highest war budgets since WWII, the Obama administration continues to pursue the same disastrous course. The result has been untold suffering for millions of people in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. Furthermore, invading weak countries to overthrow unpopular governments has only brought new problems for the militarists in Washington.
In Iraq
In 2003 Bush invaded Iraq with the aim of removing a political thorn from the side of U.S. interests in the Middle East, the Saddam Hussein regime. In its place the U.S. planned to set up a puppet regime that would impose a neo-liberal economic program, privatize the oil fields, and obligingly turn them over to the U.S. corporations. Along with this the U.S. wanted to establish huge permanent military installations from which to impose its will on the rest of the region.
This was blatant imperialism sold with lies and scare talk. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died as a result, hundreds of thousand more have been maimed for life, and the depleted uranium-poisoning legacy of the 2004 U.S. assault on Fallujah is causing more cancers than did the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima.
In spite of this great crime against humanity, the arrogant Washington planners who thought they could control Iraqi politics ended up controlling little.
A section of the Baathists and fundamentalists went over to armed resistance while the dominant Shia clergy threatened rebellion if elections weren’t held sooner than the U.S. invaders had intended. These and later elections brought to power an Iraqi government that was happy to have U.S. troops murderously repress its rivals, but it also pursued independent aims. Hence, while it privatized the oil industry it gave most of the large contracts to non-U.S. corporations. And, for now, the Iraqi government has also established close relations with the U.S. nemesis, Iran. There is no way that U.S. imperialism can reverse these defeats with a garrison of 48,000 troops plus mercenaries, most of whom are going to be withdrawn at the end of this year.
In Afghanistan
The Afghanistan war is barely in the news these days even though 2010 was the bloodiest year yet, especially for civilians. This year is starting no better. U.S. jet attacks were twice as high in January 2011 as in January 2010. On February 19 some 65 Afghan civilians were reported killed by NATO air strikes, and on Feb. 28 nine children were killed in another air strike as they gathered wood on a hillside.
All of this is more than nine years after Republican Bush portrayed his Afghan military tactics as very limited, aimed simply at the terrorist networks. Further, it’s more than a year after Democrat Obama began the process of doubling U.S. troop levels while knowing that his own CIA estimated that less than 100 scattered “al-Qaeda” members remained in all Afghanistan.
Behind this is the fact that Afghanistan has never been the “good war,” as it was sold by the Democrats. It’s another imperialist war based on lies. Nearly 140,000 U.S. and NATO troops are being used to defend a U.S.-imposed Afghan government of fundamentalists and warlords against their fundamentalist Taliban rivals. And through this project the U.S. wants to establish permanent military bases as part of its rivalry with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran and Turkey for spheres of influence in Central Asia.
But after nearly ten years of torture, night-time raids, and the deaths of tens of thousands of Afghans, and after expanding the war into Pakistan, these imperialist goals remain as distant as ever.
There is no anti-imperialism without class struggle
Baathist and fundamentalist groups dominated the Iraqi armed resistance from the early days of the U.S. occupation, while the fundamentalist Taliban and other reactionaries continue to dominate the armed resistance in Afghanistan. But despite their disorganization, the progressive working and poor people have also struggled to fight the occupations of their countries, as well as against the domestic reactionaries who oppress them, thereby weakening the anti-occupation cause. These working and poor people are the real anti-imperialist forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and they deserve our support.
Meanwhile, revealing their class nature, several former anti-occupation groups have now joined the reactionary bourgeois government of Iraq, including fundamentalist Moqtada al-Sadr’s party. Indeed, with the decline of U.S. influence the struggle against the Iraqi oppressors is becoming more sharply posed. In early February protests developed demanding government services, food ration cards, jobs, and the firing of officials who blatantly enriched themselves. And some of the sharpest clashes occurred in Kurdistan, where the ruling parties have long been close allies of U.S. imperialism. Then on Feb. 25 tens of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets in a “day of rage” protest despite the warnings of Prime Minister al-Maliki and clerics al-Sistani and Moqtada al-Sadr to stay away. The government responded with arrests, beatings, and killing some 29 persons. This is only going to spark more struggle–and above all else–directly against the U.S.-armed regime itself.
New winds of change are sweeping the Arab world
The Feb. 25 Iraqi “day of rage” was inspired by the popular uprisings now sweeping North Africa and the Middle East. Although particular issues vary from country to country, the commonality is that the masses are rising up everywhere against decades of impoverishment by neo-liberal economic policies and rising prices, and rising up everywhere against tyrannies supported by the imperialist powers of Europe and America.
These are historic events. Decades-old political realities are suddenly being broken up by mass actions involving millions of people. A new period of ferment affecting more than the Arab world is beginning. Moreover, this uprising is part of the world struggle against austerity which saw huge demonstrations in Europe last year, and 250,000 Greeks marching on Feb. 23 this year shouting slogans like “Don’t obey the rich — Fight back!”
The U.S. and other imperialist powers are going to continue to support monarchists and military dictatorships across North Africa and the Middle East, and support oppressive replacements when this is no longer possible. They may also intervene militarily. But the decisive issue is that the anti-imperialist forces of the region, the masses, are now in motion and gaining confidence.
Class issues will increasingly come more to the fore, and there will be a new alignment of political trends over whether to continue the struggle. Whether the overthrow of the old tyrannies results in more freedom will depend on how far the working masses can unite on a class-basis and develop organization that speaks to their class interests, the interests of the exploited majority. This is the only way that they can defend their livelihood and their political rights, fight back against the neo-liberal economic order, and oppose imperialist dictate in the region.
Our enemy is at home
Obama has taken over and often expanded Bush’s war program. His military budgets are higher than Bush’s, and higher than at any time during the Cold War. In fact, U.S. military spending equals that of the next 15 countries combined (most of them allies) and represents 47% of total global military spending. Obama has also increased the number of countries that the U.S. has slated for dirty military operations from 60 to 75, and he gives himself the “right” to assassinate anyone, including U.S. citizens. Thus war and preparation for still more war is the bipartisan program of the American ruling class. Driving this is the fact that both the Republicans and Democrats represent the interests of the largest capitalists—monopoly capitalists whose global economic empire is being undermined by rivals, and who are viciously trying to hold on using their military might.
These same class interests are driving the bipartisan attacks on working people at home. Hence, Obama Inc. has given $trillions to Wall Street but has no jobs program for the unemployed; and lets millions of people be thrown out of their homes by the banks. In fact, Obama Inc. is so close-fisted when it comes to the poor that it wants to slash programs like Low Income Home Energy Assistance: “let ’em freeze!” And on the political side, Obama has again extended the “Patriot Act,” while continuing to give some $80 billion yearly to the huge intelligence/security bureaucracy, and hunting or incarcerating people like Bradley Manning, who expose the crimes of the U.S. government.
Moreover, while Obama found plenty of money to bail out the banks, he couldn’t find any money to bail out the states. Hence, whether in the hands of Democrats or Republicans, state governments are now laying off workers and implementing brutal budget cuts. And even though the Democratic Party allied union bureaucrats are on board with budget-cutting and the concessions bandwagon, the Feb. 27 demonstration of 100,000 people in Madison, Wisconsin showed that the masses themselves want to fight back.
Large numbers of the Wisconsin demonstrators (plus solidarity demonstrators around the country) have been inspired to action by the great, self-sacrificing mass upsurge that is bringing change to North Africa and the Middle East. Let us return the favor to our tens of millions of allies in those countries by stepping up the fight against our common enemy, the U.S. ruling class. On this eighth anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, let us push forward the fight against war and domestic reaction in conscious solidarity with the struggling peoples of Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, North Africa and all of the Middle East.
Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee, March 2, 2011
Demonstrate against Obama’s wars!
Saturday, Mar. 19 at Westlake (4th & Pine). Rally at noon. March at 1pm!
Cosponsors: ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), Seattle Anti-Imperialist Committee, SNOW (Sound Non-violent Opponents of War), Veterans for Peace Chapter 92, Vietnam Veterans Against the War-Anti-Imperialist, World Can’t Wait. Endorsers: Dyke Community Activists, Eastside Fellowship of Reconciliation, Ground Zero, Interfaith Network of Concern for the People of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out (Seattle), MLK Celebration Committee, Mobilization Against War and Occupation (B.C.), Seattle Fellowship of Reconciliation, Voices of Palestine.
4 Comments
As usually, this is an outstanding leaflet, as I expect from SAIC.
However there are also problems:
(1) In the reasons for the U.S. invasion of Iraq: you list “privatising the oil fields and turning them over to U.S. corporations” ahead of establishing permanent military bases in the region. The priority (it seems to me) is very much the other way. Controlling the oil is not so much a matter of the profits for the oil companies (ie: only one sector of the base of the U.S. monopoly class, otherwise known as the bourgeoisie) but of having China and India by the balls. China and India need this oil–now and in the future. For U.S. imperialism to continue to dominate the world (at least for as long as possible–they are not idiots–they have to know perfectly well they cannot do this forever) being able to control the flow of oil from this region is decisive. So your formulations here could be improved. On top of this–the rest of this section does not indicate that the military bases will actually be closed. We have gone over this before. I have always had the impression that the bases were the main priority of U.S. imperialism–and I will believe these bases will be closed–when they are closed–not when your leaflets hint that they may be closed.
Along with this–there is the matter of the way your group creates these leaflets. The entire process is closed. You simply report your opinions as if they are fact and readers are left with the choice of either believing you or not. How do you come to the conclusions you report? Yes, you read a lot of articles and discuss them. But your leaflet does not indicate what articles you read or anything about the process of your discussion–and activists like me, of course (ie: intelligent critics who sometimes may be able to recognize bullshit when they see it) are totally locked out of the process. So your process is neither transparent nor in any significant way accountable.
One of the biggest indictments of the way the bourgeoisie runs the country is that they wage these multiple imperialist wars (which kill hundreds of thousands or millions) while concealing the real economic and political reasons for these wars. The mainstream press (liberal as well as conservative) goes along with this and supports this. It is important that readers understand the real reasons for these wars. This requires a process that is transparent and accountable–so that readers can have _confidence_ in the analysis. Such a transparent and accountable process would have the ability to leverage (ie: draw in and make good use of) the experience and consciousness of other activists.
(2) Your leaflet has a bigger problem: hypocrisy
The section on the current Arab democratic revolutions says:
> Whether the overthrow of the old tyrannies results in more freedom
> will depend on how far the working masses can unite on a class-basis
> and develop organization that speaks to their class interests,
> the interests of the exploited majority
Yes, it is necessary that the working masses in these countries develop organization that represents their independent class interests. But it is total hypocrisy for SAIC to say this when you are not doing basic things that are necessary to develop such organization here in the heart of U.S. imperialism.
Open (ie: public) meetings and consistent use of public, internet-based forums are necessary to build a community and make it possible for activists to understand (and resolve) the contradictions in the movement. SAIC could do this. SAIC has had the ability (for many years) to do this. SAIC avoids doing this in order to conceal its dysfunctions from activists in the movement. This is my experience. Anytime I confront you on this–all I get in response is a mountain of obviously bullshit excuses. (Examples: Yes, you have a Facebook page–but your website does not link to it. Yes, you have “public” meetings–but they are private and secret.) One bullshit excuse after another. Yeah, organization is fine and necessary–but your enthusiasm for it is proportional to its distance from home.
– Ben Seattle (http, etc) struggle.net/ben/
www(dot)revleft(dot)com/vb/blog(dot)php?u=15414
Ben, these are just my personal views on your points.
If you read it again you‘ll find that the leaflet does NOT prioritize control of Iraqi oil over permanent military installations, etc. It simply points out both aims, one followed by the other. Also, while I do think that U.S. imperialism will continue to have a military presence in the country after the end of this year, it’s clearly going to be a fairly small one, and certainly not the seven or more large bases that members of the Bush administration and Pentagon officials once talked about.
But most of your comment is not dealing with the content of the leaflet. Instead, you agitate for what you think the SAIC leaflet-writing process should be, and then go on to charge that we’re totally hypocritical when we talk about organizing. How is this? We’re “not doing basic things that are necessary to develop…organization here in the heart of U.S. imperialism.”
Well, we’re currently trying to pass out a couple thousand copies of a leaflet that you say is “outstanding” (I wouldn’t at all say that, and really don’t know what it means), which is a pretty basic thing. Also, while we don’t follow your prescriptions for how we should be active on the internet, we are active there. Finally, while we haven’t had publicized meetings in a long time there were interrelated reasons for this: a) besides yourself, decreasing numbers of non-members were coming, and often no one else; b) problems of scheduling meetings at times when even members could attend; c) concerns that the working-meeting form was difficult for new people to fit themselves into.
So while continuing to organize, for many months we’ve mulled this question over, discussed perhaps having public meetings of a different type, and so on. And, as I again told you yesterday, we will very soon call a public meeting. We’ll also continue to sum up our experiences with advertised meetings, and their value in the present situation.
But according to you we haven’t had public meetings and used the internet in a way that satisfies you because SAIC allegedly wants to “conceal its dysfunctions from activists in the movement.” Moreover, I don’t think SAIC needs to make any excuses, “bullshit” or otherwise, for not following your suggested ways of organizing. For example, there’s no rule that says that a revolutionary or anti-imperialist organization must publicly advertise its meetings. What it does in this regard depends on it’s assessment of the political situation, its assessment of how this would help or hinder its organizing work.
You talk of building “a community and make it possible for activists to understand (and resolve) the contradictions in the movement” whereas I talk of building the anti-imperialist political trend. In my opinion, it’s only by doing the latter that the former can be accomplished. Hence, the present leaflet.
Hi Frank,
First, I appreciate your calm tone. It is important to make clear to readers, with our conduct, that activists can discuss (in a respectful and productive way) their disagreements concerning the necessary priorities of revolutionary work. We have our disagreements but we can also act as partners in productive discussion and I appreciate your help in this.
> You talk of building “a community and make it possible for
> activists to understand (and resolve) the contradictions
> in the movement” whereas I talk of building the
> anti-imperialist political trend. In my opinion, it’s only
> by doing the latter that the former can be accomplished.
> Hence, the present leaflet.
Creating leaflets (as SAIC is doing) is part of what it will take to build an anti-imperialist trend. But it is also important not to look at this narrowly.
For example, building a community of activists is also an important part of building an anti-imperialist trend. And such a community cannot, of course, be created only by leaflets.
If there are things that SAIC could (easily) do today that would better align its action with its inspiring words of enthusiasm for creating revolutionary organization–this would certainly be something to consider.
————————————————–
Public meetings?
————————————————–
You have told me that SAIC will soon call a public meeting. That is, of course, good.
However I have been hearing this for more than two years.
In any event, what the movement needs (ie: at least in my opinion–to create clarity and build the kind of organization we need) is not a single public meeting but _regular_ public meetings–on a weekly or monthly basis–where activists can interact with one another and the most important issues can be openly discussed and better understood over time.
It appears to me that SAIC stopped holding public meetings because it became inconvenient to deal with the public criticism that emerged as a result. It was not because activists were not dropping by (ie: new people came by at both of the most recent public meetings–more than two years ago). So your explanations (ie: decreasing numbers of non-members were coming, etc) strike me as less than truthful. Personally, Frank, you are an extraordinarily honest person. I do not believe you are attempting to deceive me or readers. Rather, it appears that you are overlooking this fact because you have a blind spot and have prioritized “maintaining appearances and control” over the needs of the movement. (Unfortunately, this is a common problem in the movement and none of us are immune from it.)
I should note that I meet once a month with other activists and our meetings are not public at this time. The reason for this is that we do not (yet) have the critical mass of energy, motion and enthusiasm that would be necessary for the experience to be worthwhile for activists who might come (ie: it would probably be a waste of their time). However I do post a report of our meetings on my blog and I certainly hope that we will have such a critical mass of motion within the next six months or so although, at this time, I have no idea whether our group even has enough motion to stay together and keep meeting. I will do what I can to put the right kind of energy into this project and see what happens. That is all I can do.
————————————————–
Clarifying contradictions in the movement
————————————————–
There are many questions in the movement that are confusing to activists. Some of these questions are big and important questions (and deserving of a leaflet with wide circulation) while other questions are smaller and less important (but probably deserving of clarification on an internet forum).
Let me describe one question that I have dealt with. The RCP recently held a meeting on police brutality in partnership with the NAACP. About a hundred people attended. One of them was me. I had not planned to write about the meeting. But then something happened that I considered noteworthy.
Most parts of the meeting were good and many useful things were said (that needed to be said) concerning the function of police in our society and so forth. For example, it was noted that it is not necessarily the case that when a cop brutalizes (or even murders) someone he is “not doing his job”–because that is often part of his job. We live in a class society. That is how it works.
But the meeting also had what I consider a big problem. The meeting was advertized (in part) as giving an answer to “how we can stop police brutality”. Two distinct answers were given by the speakers. One solution is that we stop police brutality by becoming involved with a cult and letting this cult do our thinking for us. The other solution is that we can put our energy into the electoral process. It was clear to me that the electoral solution generated more electricity in the room than the cult.
I commented on this problem in a post:
The Radical Edge of Liberalism
(The RCP’s forum on Police Brutality)
www(dot)revleft(dot)com/vb/blog(dot)php?b=1430
My overall assessment is that the meeting was a good thing but that we should not overlook the serious problem with it.
It is possible that my comments were one-sided or that some of my formulations were weak or poorly considered. While a topic like this is not important enough to be worth a leaflet–it is important in a smaller way–because it provides an example of a “radical” group in alliance with liberal politics for the purpose of (ideologically) pouring cold water on the movement (at least in part).
I believe it would be helpful if you or other members of SAIC (who might be expected to have a deeper understanding of the class nature of the contradictions involved that most other sections of the movement) could post a few sentences (ie: as comments on my blog post noted above) that might help readers better understand the political significance of this. Is my analysis in the ballpark? How could my formulations be improved? Is this kind of problem something that activists need to understand?
These are all questions I believe you and a number of SAIC members could help with. I am asking you to consider this. I believe this would provide an example of positive and principled collaboration between activists with different views. Such collaboration is part of building a functioning community and, as such, can also be part of building an anti-imperialist trend.
Ben Seattle
Ben, in just scrolling through your comment I find that it has nothing to do with either the SAIC leaflet or mobilizing for March 19. Thus, if I reply, it will only be after March 19. But with the real nuclear nightmare building in Japan, plus May Day coming up, I don’t know.