The Way Backwards for the Antiwar Movement

Justin Raimondo (like Max Dunbar), is not worth my time. But I'm a grad student and it's summer, so time isn't exactly a scarce commodity at this point. Lowest hanging fruit is sometimes the tastiest and all that.

Raimondo, a writer for antiwar.com, recently posted an article arguing that the Leninist notion of imperialism is a primary factor in the confusion and disorientation of the Left today. He makes a number of claims about the Left's analysis which deserve rebutting.

The central pivot point of his article is the following paragraph:

"This idea that the captains of industry – Big Oil, in particular – represent "the ruling class" is a myth, and a curiously old-fashioned one at that. Private industry has long played a subordinate role in the American power structure: far more powerful is the administrative-managerial class, which has had a firm grip on the levers of power since the New Deal and has only strengthened its hand since. "

First of all, the notion that US ruling class strategy is dominated by the interests of Big Oil is, at best, crudely Marxist. It's not an analysis put forward by any of the most reputable venues of Marxist analysis. You won't find it in International Socialist Review, International Socialism, the World Socialist Website, Socialistworker.org or Historical Materialism. In fact, most of those have polemicized against the view that the war can be attributed to a certain sector of the ruling class. That said, Big Oil has, of course, benefitted greatly from the war.

Oil is crucial to understanding the war, but not simply in the vulgar sense that the US wants to steal Iraqi oil or make its own energy corporations super-profitable. Oil is, quite simply, the most important commodity in the world today, and whoever controls oil has a great deal of power. If the US ruling class does succeed in controlling Iraqi oil and projecting US force over the entire region, it will have gained tremendous power (a word Raimondo apparently thinks is forbidden in the Marxist lexicon, as the opposition between it and profits structures his argument).

Raimondo's argument about who constitutes the American ruling class is equally mistaken. At the most basic level, he ignores the vast revolving door between "the captains of industry"and the "administrative managerial class." Condoleezza Rice was head of Chevron's committe on public policy, as well as on the boards of Carnegie, Hewlett Packard, and others. Dick Cheney was CEO of Halliburton. Stephen Johnson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, was head of Covance, a billion dollar clinical testing company. George W. Bush himself was a senior partner or officer in a number of energy corporations before entering into public service. The Secretary of Commerce, Carl Miguel Gutierrez, is former chairman of the board and CEO of Kellogg's. Andrew Card, Bush's former chief of staff, was president and CEO of the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association. I realize this list is a bit gratuitous, but I think it's worth emphasizing the tremendous interpenetration of the state and the "captains of industry" that has always existed under capitalism.

Beyond this most surface level of influence, the state also has to respond to ruling class demands given the latter's control over the ideological means of production: the media. Newspaper owners are bona fide members of the ruling class, and they can control what news gets produced and who it favors. The press offensive against the Republicans in the fall of 2006 was no accident, but a calculated move to install a more competent party into power.

Finally, there's the historical role of the state, which has always been to organize violence on behalf of the ruling class.

Raimondo brings up a number of other points which are easily dispatched. He relies heavily on the hoary myth of the Israel lobby to explain why the US is in Iraq if the ruling class is so subordinate. Of the many demolitions of this myth out there, Allen Ruff and Sherry Wolf's are my favorites. He also insinuates that the Trotskyist youth of several prominent neocons is somehow relevant. Gary Leupp points out that Raimondo's own political history has some less savory characters.

Raimondo's whole polemic is directed against the idea that war with Iran is unlikely because it is against ruling class interests. Because ruling class interests don't dictate foreign policy ("power" does), you can't use them to predict foreign policy. QED. What Raimondo steadfastly ignores (besides, apparently, everything the left has ever written on imperialism), is how the entire US ruling class does want to tame Iran. Socialist Worker recently provided a good overview of the divisions between carrots and sticks in US-Iran policy. An abstract lust for power cannot explain what's going on in the world today.

US Imperialism's Summer Vacation: Next Stop Iran?

CNN reports that a forthcoming article in the New Yorker by Seymour Hersh indicates that Congress has authorized $400 million for covert CIA operations in Iran aimed at intelligence gathering and undermining the government. This escalation once again reveals that nuclear weapons are not the issue as the Bush administration and Congress clearly are ignoring the National Intelligence Estimate and International Atomic Energy Agency reports that Iran's enrichment programs do not pose a military threat to the region.

Hersh also argues that the US is using Afghanistan as a staging ground for military and covert action against Iran. Following the recent 'surge' in Afghanistan (post forthcoming) and Israel's military exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean earlier this month, the pieces seem to be fitting into place for an Israeli strike against Iran coupled with a tried and true CIA destabilization campaign.

Iran, however, is no Iraq insofar as it has not suffered from a decade of bombings and sanctions, like pre-war Iraq. This conflict would cost the US and its allies heavily:

In the semi-official Mehr news agency Sunday, an Iranian general said his troops were digging more than 320,000 graves to bury troops from any invading force with "the respect they deserve."

"Under the law of war and armed conflict, necessary preparations must be made for the burial of soldiers of aggressor nations," said Maj. Gen. Mirfaisal Baqerzadeh, an Iranian officer in charge of identifying soldiers missing in action.

*UPDATE*
The full Hersh article is here.

Two on Iran

Andrew Cockburn has a good piece on Counterpunch today describing Bush's latest escalation of covert operations towards Iran. In the Asia Times, Pepe Escobar details the responses of the Iranian regime towards American escalation. He does an especially good job of detailing the different forces at play inside Iran at the moment.

Israeli Foreign Minister: Reality and Democracy Be Damned!

Joining Condoleeza Rice and George W. Bush in not allowing reality to interfere with dreams of war, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (the supposed Great Hope of Israeli politics) has announced that the findings of the National Intelligence Estimate will not deter Israeli aggression towards Iran. Fortunately, two-thirds of Israelis have their heads on straight, and oppose an attack on Iran (despite the hysterical gesticulations emanating from the right-wing Israeli press.)

Former CIA officer less hawkish than Dems

Today the National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal, had a brilliant article written about the saber rattling against Iran after President Ahmadinejad's recent trip to New York. Written by former CIA intelligence officer and Francis Walsingham Fellow for the American Conservative Defense Alliance Philip Giraldi, the article goes into detail about how, in fact, the Iranian president is highly unpopular and if he runs in the 2009 election, he will most likely be defeated by a large margin. This myth about all Iranians supporting the bizarre and often offensive claims of their president is the same bunk as the Red state/Blue state crap (if you need counter-examples see Texas, and the Deep South) peddled to rationalize Bush's reelection in any way aside from pointing to Kerry's miserable campaign.

Furthermore, Ahmadinejad has very little power:

"Contrary to the assertions of Columbia President Lee Bollinger last week, Ahmadinejad is no “petty and cruel dictator.” He is an elected president with very little power, frequently at odds with the country’s religious leadership and its parliament. Even if Iran had a nuclear arsenal, which it does not, his finger would not be on the trigger...He does not command the Iranian armed forces and he does not determine Iranian foreign policy. Far from being a belligerent expansionistic power, the last time Iran attacked a neighbor was in the seventeenth century."

I only wish those who froth at the mouth at the thought of attacking Iran to ensure regional stability and peace could point to our over 300 year abstention from invading other countries.

Giraldi continues by challenging the reality of the 'diplomatic approach':

"Bilateral sessions in Baghdad have consisted of little more than staking out adversarial positions. The United States is demanding that Iran suspend its nuclear enrichment program as a precondition for serious negotiations, but Iran is legally entitled to carry out enrichment as part of an energy program and both the Iranian public and the government are strongly supportive of that right. The U.S. insistence on Iranian capitulation in advance of any talks means that the negotiations are intended to be a non-starter, leaving only a military solution to the Iran problem."

As far as destabilizing intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, a key claim by both Democrats and Republicans, any definitive evidence proffered by the White House is undercut by the rampant arms black market in Central Asia and contradicted by the Iraqi and Afghani governments. Nor, according to this expert, is there any solid evidence of a nuclear arms program.

Ultimately, Giraldi chastises Congress for not challenging the White House and paving the way for military intervention with the Kyl-Lieberman amendment to the Defense Procurement that classifies the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization.

On the whole this article is a brilliantly sober assessment of the bluster and hawkishness that has been drippings from the presses and mouths of many these last few weeks. The major issue Giraldi fails to address (and considering his job, I'm not surprised) is the rise in anti-Arab and Muslim racism that pauly talks about in his most recent post. The effects of justifying imperialist policy abroad IS being felt at home.

Iran Recognizes Imperial Overstrech

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki had this to say in front of the UN General Assembly:

"Our analysis is clear: [the] US is not in a position to impose another war in our region, against their taxpayers"

Nonetheless, his sources say they have received plans of an attack and that they are preparing themeselves. An animal backed into a corner is always extremely dangerous. This lesson has not been lost on the Iranian government.

Si me quedo es doble...

The folks at National Review have done me the kind favor of concentrating all the right wing arguments for continuing the occupation of Iraq in one short five-page editorial. I must thank them for providing me with the opportunity to read the essentials of the conservative case without all the ridiculous fluff about freedom and democracy that usually accompanies it Unfortunately, they have declined to post their article online, so I'm forced to give a short summary of their argument.

Their argument can be reduced to three basic points, which supposedly form the nucleus around which a solid case for imperialism can be built. These are 1.) The conflict between al-Qaeda and Sunni tribes in Anbar means that the surge is a military success 2.) We need to stay in Iraq to fight al-Qaeda and 3.) Leaving would precipitate a humanitarian catastrophe. I'll take them in that order.

Given the snorts and grunts of self-satisfaction emanating from Washington over the last few weeks, one would think that in Anbar since the surge they have found both the WMDs and the candy and flowers with which the invaders were supposed to be greeted. As the NR folks say:

Today, al-Qaeda has nearly been routed from Anbar. Its campaign of intimidation, forced marriages, and repressive Islamism backfired...In his surprise Labor Day visit to Iraq, President Bush chose an airfield outside Ramadi for a meeting of his war leaders and the Iraqi government—something inconceivable six months ago.

So apparently the Sunni tribes have agreed to work with the Americans and kick the "terrorists" out of their province and accept the light of democracy from the freedom loving troops, right? Wrong. The residents of Anbar province thoroughly despise the American presence. Since the surge began, the percentage of Iraqis in Anbar who thought the US should leave immediately jumped from forty-nine percent to seventy-six percent. In the same poll, every single respondent from Anbar said that attacks on US troops were perfectly acceptable.

So what has actually happened in Anbar? As the NR boyz note, "The surge slated three additional battalions for Anbar" in early 2007. With an increased US troop presence, local tribal leaders decided it was a better tactic at this point to concentrate on kicking out the takfiris who are attacking their people than to try and attack the just-reinforced US presence. In the process of doing so, the Shaikhs have been more than happy to accept US guns. But this doesn't decrease the hatred Iraqis, and the folks in Anbar in particular, feel for the occupation. In addition, ordinary Anbaris are skeptical of their leaders' collaboration with the Americans, giving them only a 23% confidence rating. In short, none of this conforms whatsoever to the racist right wing myth of the Natives selling out their homeland for whatever trinkets of technology the occupiers can produce.

The second argument for staying, that it is crucial to defeating al-Qaeda is perhaps the most perfidious of the three. The "War on Terror" has never been primarily about terrorism, and the US gov't is not concerned at all about preventing terrorist attacks on the US citizenry. If they were, the first thing they would do is stop invading other peoples' countries and murdering them. Indeed, the 9/11 attacks were an enormous opportunity for the US ruling class to extend its control over oil supplies in the Middle East. I'm not advancing a conspiracy theory here, merely stressing something that is obvious to anyone who's glanced at this country's history: that its rulers don't give a damn for its people. All this to say that they don't really care about fighting al-Qaeda. They care primarily about their defeat insofar as it pertains to the US gaining effective control over Iraq.

That said, it must be further pointed out that the US has been all too willing to encourage al-Qaeda type ideologies in its battle for regional hegemony with Iran. As Patrick Cockburn explained last spring:

The line Bush is taking is actually rather similar to what the people who support al-Qaeda say, which is to blame whatever happens on the Shia side on Iran--to say the Shia are pawns of the Iranians, if not actual Iranians. It’s almost something that could appear on the al-Qaeda Web site, because that’s their argument.

It’s one of the most poisonous conceptions in the Middle East--one which says the Shia in Lebanon and Iraq are just Iranian pawns. It’s going to increase sectarianism in the region, and the smaller Shia minorities are going to be further repressed and victims of terrorist attacks, as they already have been in Pakistan and other places.

In seeking to turn Iraqis against Iran, the US has actually helped to legitimize the Salafist arguments that the Shi'a are mere pawns of an infidel nation. So the NR boyz argument that if we leave we will "enhance the terror group's prestige" is really quite disingenuous. If enhancing the prestige of terror groups is what will effectively block Iran from extending its regional control, then the US is more than willing to do it.

The final, "moral" argument (the shortest of the bunch, it is worth noting) is the most disgusting. It's short enough that I will quote it in full:

V. The Moral Case
THE self-interested reasons to win in Iraq are enough to justify sticking with the surge. But there are compelling moral considerations as well. In almost any other circumstance, many on the left would find these reasons sufficient in their own right to continue our intervention. Without us, there would be more suicide bombings against Shiite targets, ripping apart markets, mosques, and children standing in line to get candy. There would be more Shiite deathsquad killings, with innocent Sunnis abducted, tortured, murdered, and dumped on the streets. The ethnic cleansing already underway would accelerate, and the refugee crisis—2 million Iraqis have fled the country, and 2 million more are displaced internally—would worsen. Forthright opponents of the war admit that a humanitarian catastrophe would follow our pullout. The New York Times editorial page recently conceded that American withdrawal might bring “reprisals against those who worked with American forces, further ethnic cleansing, even genocide.” Instead of summoning a ringing call of “never again,” the Times shrugs all this off as the unfortunate price of withdrawal. Barack Obama has explained that we needn’t worry overmuch about genocide in Iraq since we don’t do much to stop it in Africa. As a moral principle, this is perverse. It doesn’t follow from our inability to stop all genocides that we shouldn’t stop them when and where we can—especially in a case where stopping mass slaughter doesn’t require new intervention, but simply the continuation of what we are already doing. We also have a special obligation to Iraq. Unlike in Somalia or Kosovo, where we intervened on humanitarian grounds, we played a direct causal role in bringing about this maelstrom. Yes, Saddam Hussein did much to ruin Iraq, and the country might have fallen apart someday regardless (upon his death or overthrow, for instance). But America picked the day. The Iraqis have paid an enormous price in their struggle to found a new state—and they have paid it at our instigation. Our national honor is therefore implicated. This consideration alone would not justify the cost in blood and treasure that the war extracts, but it is another weight on the scales in favor of finishing what we started.

Note how the pious entreaties to consider the lives of innocent Shi'as and Sunnis gives way at the end to a statement that our national honor is really what counts here. As Nancy MacLean has shown in her brilliant book, Freedom is Not Enough, National Review's roots are in arguing that the Civil Rights Movement should have been met with harsher repression (apparently terrorist bombings and firehoses weren't brutal enough. These are the same people who say we could have won Vietnam if we just would have "untied the arms" of the military.) so I shouldn't be surprised by their moral degeneracy.

The argument itself is specious in the extreme. Take the refugee crisis, for example. While Iraq today is home to the worst refugee crisis on the planet, the NR boyz decline to mention that since the surge began, the rate of ethnic cleansing has actually increased. The number of internally displaced persons doubled since the surge began. The number of Iraqis fleeing their homes every month has gone from 50,000 to 60,000. The refugee crisis is in short a desperate example of why the US must leave now.

The arguments about ethnic strife are similarly disingenuous. As described above, the US is perfectly happy to inflame ethnic hatred against Shi'as if it means countering Iranian designs. Even more chillingly, through the use of "the Salvador option" the US has created an apparatus of Shi'a death squads. These squads were in essence a terror campaign to destroy the initially Sunni-led insurgency. If innocent Sunnis had to die to demobilize the insurgency, the US attitude was basically one of omelettes and eggs. While the failure of the secular left in Iraq is surely part of the reason sectarian identification remains the predominant articulation of political identity, the bulk of the culpability for the crime must lay on US hands. To bring it back the NR boyz, the single greatest blow against the sectarians would be the removal of their greatest sponsor.

To conclude, I realize that there are harder targets than the intellectual flatulence of National Review. However, it's important for our side to take down the talking points of their side. And I'm an implacable polemicist who can't resist easy targets.

No Rest for the Wicked

It seems like only yesterday that the New York Times was apologizing for its role in leading the country to war in Iraq (of course, this apology came only after it was abundantly clear to the US ruling class that the war was being lost). Yet here they are, at it once more with that admirable level of bloodthirsty vigor required of a major newspaper in the empire. Let's take a moment to examine in detail some of the ways this report blurs reality to make the case for war with Iran.

My favorite example is the paragraph dealing with "the Green Salt Project:"

One involves what Western intelligence officials say is a secretive Iranian entity called the Green Salt Project, which worked on uranium processing, high explosives and a missile warhead design. They suspect links between Green Salt and Iran’s ostensibly peaceful nuclear program. If that evidence were substantiated, it would undercut Iran’s assertions that its program’s sole aim is producing electrical power.

Note the several layers of ambiguity in this paragraph. First, the existence of the project is asserted by Western intelligence. It is not substantiated fact. Then they suspect links between this alleged weapons program and Iran's nuclear program. Then, for the kicker, the Times goes on to speculate about how if these allegations were proved it would damage Iran's credibility. One could write about 9/11 conspiracy theories in a similar fashion:

One theory involves what many professors say is a secret plot by the US gov't, which seeks to manufacture any excuse for leading the country into war. They suspect Vice President Cheney ordered the Air Force not to shoot down the planes, allowing them to crash into their targets. If their allegations are correct, it would seriously undercut Cheney's credibility with the American public.

The unspoken consequences at the end of the paragraphs are key in both quotes. In the first, the ramifications would clearly go beyond a simple disproof of Iranian claims. It would lay all the groundwork Washington needed for an attack on Iran. In the second, proof of Cheney's culpability on 9/11 would also clearly go beyond a simple loss of trust. The real advocacy in both cases is kept hidden, but its absence is so glaring that it can't help but be read. This warmongering fits in well with the timetable Juan Cole exposed for a media blitz around Iran this Labor Day.

For an alternate perspective on Iran and the bomb, check out the Asia Times' reporting.

Iran and Terrorism (part II)

This is, in many ways, a follow-up to my post on Iran, though somewhat dictated by current events.

So now Iran's biggest military unit is a terrorist organization. Setting aside the triviality of such a labeling process, we would do well to remember what that designation entitles the U.S. government to do. Executive Order 13224 is concerned mostly with financial support for "terrorist organizations," but it also comes with some "Other Effects:"

Other Effects

1. Deters donations or contributions to designated individuals or entities.

2. Heightens public awareness and knowledge of individuals or entities linked to terrorism.

3. Alerts other governments to U.S. concerns about individuals or entities aiding terrorism, and promotes due diligence by such governments and private sector entities operating within their territories to avoid associations with terrorists.

4. Disrupts terrorist networks, thereby cutting off access to financial and other resources from sympathizers.

5. Encourages designated entities to get out of the terrorism business.

I certainly hope that the IRGC considers itself sufficiently "encouraged to get out of the terrorism business" (fun imperialism fact of the day: the document listing organizations considered terrorist pursuant to E.O. 13224 is 113 pages long, and available here).

With approval ratings for the war at all-time lows and Democrats falling over each other to propose the right way to deal with the naked exposure of U.S. imperialism, we might do well to examine why the IRGC was labeled terrorist, and for what purpose.

The Washington Post, in the above-linked article, has this to say:

The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.

And even though we've not given them a penny, the NYT offers its thoughts:

In taking aim at the guard, the administration is also trying to divide Iran’s population. During his news conference on Thursday, President Bush addressed the Iranian people directly. “My message to the Iranian people is, ‘You can do better than this current government,’ ” Mr. Bush said. “ ‘You don’t have to be isolated. You don’t have to be in a position where you can’t realize your full economic potential.’ "

Apparently, now Bush is for democratic revolution in Iran. Of course, this is the case only insofar as the Iranians choose to realize their "full economic potential" as U.S. allies, I would wager.

There are several things worth mentioning here:

1. My earlier post showed that the Bush Administration can't be serious about having proof of direct material support from Iran for the Iraqi Resistance. Therefore, this move has to be seen as political in the extreme, and not a reaction to the increased use of roadside bombs supposedly shipped from Iran.
2. When the U.S. government wants to divide a people, the situation doesn't look like Iran's military being labeled a terrorist organization, but instead, the situation looks like Iraq or (better yet) Kosovo in the wake of Clinton's "humanitarian intervention." If the bourgeoisie of Iran decides to side with Washington, all the better for Bush, but don't count on it being the raison d'etre of the declaration.
3. Congressional pressure on the Bush administration to toughen its stance against Iran IS up. So much for the Dems taking us out of war.

So what are we left with? In the midst of too much discussion about the ills of capitalism and the war in general, the Bush Administration, abandoned by the U.N. and overstretched by its engagements in Iraq, makes the only logical move: unilateral economic action little stronger than rhetoric. But just don't expect the Democrats to oppose it.

NB: Logic Fun! The IRGC was labeled such because of "its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East."

U.S. Army in Iraq - Check.
U.S. Army in Afghanistan - Check.
U.S. Army weapons sold to Israel - Check.

Oh, wait...