Many protesters against the current war and occupation of Iraq will place their hopes in a victory of John Kerry in the coming elections. Although Kerry has stated that he favors more troops to Iraq, and that he is not opposed to unilateral action by the United States, there is widespread belief that he will not be as trigger-happy as George W. Bush. Kerry will no doubt seek to allay the fears of (former?) European allies regarding the alarming status of US foreign policy, a task that Bush may be ill-suited to achieve. After the bold attack on Iraq, the ruling class is now testing to see how stable its position is. Bush, played a leading role in forcing the military policy forward, and cannot be as successful at mending fences with Europe, or building a popular pro-US movement in Iraq.
However, US politics is not determined primarily by the struggle between the Democrats and the Republicans, despite popular belief. The class of profit-driven businessmen, the ruling class, plays a far greater role in determining the winners and losers of elections than the populace. The media is a privately owned business, and must necessarily express the will of its owners. The media can make or break a politician. It can confer “legitimacy” upon the most dishonest politicians, and it can pillory a politician and bring wide discredit upon him or her.
The ruling class has used Bush to push forward an aggressive, offensive, unilateral military policy. The interests of US corporations have been brazenly pushed, even at the expense of US allies. The US ruling class is interested in testing the limits of its power. But it is also interested in avoiding unnecessarily weakening itself through over-extension. Thus the ruling class alternates between support for administrations which push the limits, and administrations that test to see that the ruling class is still on stable ground. Kerry’s job, should he be elected will be damage control.
What will the ruling class conclude if damage control is successful? They will see that their domination was extended under Bush, and that the risks turned out ultimately to be negligible. Just back a Democrat for a term and relations with France and Germany will be restored to normal. They will conclude that backing Bush was not a mistake, because the apparent risks turned out to be not that serious. Once the ruling class knows that they are on stable ground, that they haven’t over-extended themselves, they will push to continue the war-plans that Bush has so far been unable to complete. The recent history of elected Democratic Party leaders is to fall into line under such circumstances. We need only remember how they voted to give Bush war powers, lied about Weapons of Mass Destruction, and pressed crippling sanctions against Iraq, leading to untold suffering. However, in the event that Kerry fails to fall into line, the ruling class, through the capitalist media, will unleash a vicious campaign to ensure that Kerry is ousted from the presidency at the earliest possible moment, and replaced, once again, by someone willing to continue along the warpath. A Kerry election would be only a short interlude before a new onslaught of US aggression.
To prevent renewed Bush-ite military aggression, the masses must be engaged in effective political struggle. Most importantly, the anti-war movement must reach the soldiers in the field, and the workers in the in their workplaces. The mood of the soldiers is an especially important factor. During the Vietnam war, social struggle in the US fed anti-war struggle by GIs in Vietnam. The US ultimately pulled out of Vietnam, not because 50,000 US soldiers dead was too many, but because discipline in the army threatened to collapse. That was the Vietnam syndrome, and it stayed the hand of the ruling class for many years. The Vietnam syndrome needs to be revived, or we will face new and more serious wars of aggression.
The labor movement in Iraq faces serious dangers. The Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions, and the Union of Unemployed in Iraq have been the target of US arrests. The US has reserved for itself the right to arrest strikers or even anyone encouraging strikes or “disruptions”. Public sector workers are forbidden from joining trade unions. This ban includes workers in the oil industry. However, the danger to Iraqi labor comes not only from the occupation forces, but also from the threat of a theocracy. Political labor strikes were instrumental in bringing down the hated Shah of Iran. However, the theocracy which came to power in the aftermath of that upheaval consolidated its power by repressing the labor movement. The rights of women, and of religious minorities were curtailed, while ethnic minorities, such as Kurds were savagely brought under heel. The labor slogan “an injury to one is an injury to all” urgently needs to be applied in the case of our Iraqi brothers and sisters.
Repression of the labor movement anywhere weakens the labor movement everywhere. The poorer, the more desparate, and the less organized the workers in one land, the more management is able to use the threat of relocation as a weapon against labor in other lands. Significantly more is at stake than bread and butter issues, however. Iraq has traditionally had the greatest separation between religious institutions and the state. Iraq’s history of women’s rights and religious tolerance give grounds for hope. However, recent developments pose the possibility of a theocratic state emerging, similar to that in Iran. Organized labor in Iraq is potentially the most potent force for protecting women and religious minorities from theocratic repression. The labor movement in the US must demand the end to all anti-labor laws enforced by the US and coalition occupation forces, the end to arbitrary arrests of unionists, and the release of any unionists still held captive.
Organized and unorganized workers comprise the majority of the anti-war /anti-occupation movement. However, the movement has a multi-class character. Though few members of management or capital attend demonstrations, Democratic Party politicians play a visible role, and the Democratic Party represents one of the tactical approaches for protecting the interests of capital. It is not wrong for workers to fight in broad coalitions against the occupations of Iraq, Palestine and Haiti, even alongside members of capital and management. But the conflict of interest between capital and labor does not end at the shop gate. In the anti-war / anti-occupation movement, capital aims at restricting the slogans to US out. Capital won’t fight for the interests of Iraqi labor. But US labor must defend Iraqi labor in order to defend itself and to defend women’s rights and religious freedom. Capital, represented by even the most liberal Democrats, won’t support GI protests against the war. But GI protests are among the most effective weapons available for fighting militarism. Anti-occupation capital, represented by anti-occupation Democratic Party politicicans, will lead the anti-war /anti-occupation movement toward support for pro-occupation, Democratic Party politicians. But US labor needs to build its own party. Not one that caves in to the likes of Tony Blair, but one that will really represent the interests of labor and not of capital.
The Democratic Party politicians who speak at anti-war / anti-occupation rallies will not be fighting for organized labor in Iraq or Haiti. Rather, they will try to limit the the issues to simply ending the occupations. The workers movement in the US needs to mobilize independently of the Democraty Party to fight for the real interests of the Iraqi people.