www.newsandletters.org
|
|
NEWS & LETTERS, March 2002
Bush's permanent war
Never was there a greater need
for the anti-globalization and anti-war movements to rethink and re-organize
their forces than now. George W. Bush has made it clear that he has no intention
of toning down, much less withdrawing the declaration of a globalized permanent
war he announced to the world in his State of the Union speech. What he had
presented as merely a shift of emphasis in his "war on
terrorism"—from a pursuit of the terrorists responsible for the carnage
of September 11, to a war against states that hold "weapons of mass
destruction"—was in actuality the announcement of an entirely new and
chilling policy: his imperial right to wage a preemptive attack on any state he
has declared an enemy, at any time and any place he chooses. It was the first
time since the nuclear age began that anyone has put forth the insane
proposition that reduction of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons could be
achieved by a war. MASTER IN ALL MATTERS While Bush supposedly addressed
two major problems in that speech—the economic recession and the international
situation—it was clear that he was not about to separate them, as his father
did, causing him to subsequently lose the enormously high status he had
supposedly won as the victor in the Gulf War. The economic crisis now
gripping the world is even greater than the one of 1991. Yet the very first
sentence of George W. Bush's address in 2002: was "The state of the union
is a state of war." That is the plank on which he evidently intends to
stand as world master in all matters, whether at home or abroad. Indeed, the
President's stop in South Korea during his recent trip to Asia seemed intent on
not budging an inch from tarring North Korea with his "axis of evil"
brush. As stunned as the world had
been to hear North Korea suddenly lumped together with Iran and both thrown into
the same pot as the U.S.'s long-standing "archenemy" Iraq, there is
little doubt that Bush knew exactly what he was doing. While the charge against
North Korea managed to complicate the talks aimed at improving relations with
South Korea, and while the charges against Iran succeeded only in strengthening
the zealot hard-liners and cutting down the reformist president, Khatami, it
became clear very quickly that it was Iraq which was to become the immediate
target. Only a few days after the State
of the Union address, the LONDON TIMES carried an article about an eight-week
plan presented to Bush by the Pentagon in conjunction with the CIA and the
National Security Agency, outlining a bombardment of Hussein's forces and
installations, followed by an attempt to turn his army against him. Although the
plan acknowledged that this might well precipitate the launch of chemical and
biological warheads by Hussein, the question of an attack on Iraq had moved from
"whether" to "when." There are a number of reasons
he feels he needs no "allies" in this war—and that he will get them
when he wins. The most important reason he feels confident that he will win is
because the tremendous military power of the U.S. is without rival. Even without
the $48 billion increase in the defense budget he has demanded and is sure to
get —which will bring the total defense budget to no less than $379
billion—U.S. defense spending is the equal of the total defense budgets of the
next nine powers combined. Moreover, this sum does not include the additional
billions to be spent on new weaponry, "fighting terrorism abroad,"
"bioterrorism," "aviation security," or "border
protection." REORGANIZE ANTI-WAR MOVEMENT Another reason he feels so
emboldened by his rapid victory in Afghanistan is that he feels he has nothing
to fear from any anti-war movement today, considering that no viable one
developed after September 11. The failure to hold fast to a total view of
freedom, to oppose the reactionary designs of the Islamic fundamentalists who
perpetrated September 11, as well as the bombs rained on the Afghan people,
spelled out defeat, not for Bush but for the anti-war movement. Despite this false start, there is a growing anti-war sentiment and discontent is sure to spread as the economic crisis deepens. The task now is the development of a deep and broad-based opposition to the permanent military future Bush is planning for us. That begins with aligning with all those forces from below who are looking for a totally different alternative to existing society in every land. That is what makes so urgent the serious reorganization of that movement we have been raising for discussion in the pages of NEWS & LETTERS, a task in which we urge you to participate. |
|
Home l News & Letters Newspaper l Back issues l News and Letters Committees l Dialogues l Raya Dunayevskaya l Contact us l Search Published by News and Letters Committees |
