WASHINGTON MARCH

Bush, with the help of the Democrats, goes deeper into his military and politics offensive in the Middle East

Bush has just announced his intention of sending more than 21.500 soldiers to Iraq. This new wave will be added to the existing 132 thousand men who are occupying the country since 2003.

The plan is to send these soldiers to Bagdad so they can occupy the city and, with the help of the Iraqian policy, hunt the members of the resistance house by house. The plan is to also keep men permanently in the neighborhoods of the capital.

The “new strategy,” in accordance with the Iraqi first-minister Nouri Maliki, also includes a plan of attack to militias connected to Muqtada Al Sadr, a Shiite cleric who stepped out from the forged “National Unit” government. He represents a mark of resistance to the Yankee occupation force that wants to control Baghdad. At the same time they will be attacking Al Sadr’s people, more than four thousand soldiers would be send to Anbar to confront the Sunni resistance.

Great part of the so called “global public opinion” followed by revisionist Trotskyist parties such as the International Marxist Tendency (IMT) headed by Allan Woods, the Moreno’s International Workers League (LIT in Spanish) affiliated with the Brazilian PSTU, the Trotskyist Fraction affiliated with the Argentinean PTS, International Workers' Unity – IWU, affiliated with the Argentinean MST, etc. together with the intellectually “progressive” small-bourgeoisie saw the Pentagon’s decision as a “political suicide.” They pointed Bush’s resolution as a “sign of complete isolation”, an “irrationality”, a product of a “lunatic, idiot” President.

As “prove” of this characterization, this block argues that Bush did exactly the opposite of what was “requested” by the Americans voters during the November election. The election gave to the Democrats control over the House of Representatives and Senate. It was portrayed by the revisionist and “progressive” groups as a sign of public disapproval to foreign policy conducted in Middle East by the White House.

Bush’s foreign policy represents nothing other than the interests of the ruling class, group for which he speaks. The war gives them complete control of new free markets, areas of influence and colonies that provide mineral and natural resources such as oil and water for exploration. While debating in the Senate about sending more troops, Bush firmed a pact with the corrupted Sunni leaders and Shiite clans for the control over the commercialization of the Iraqi oil. The deal would be done through a plan of sharing production made possible by the opening of concessions that would be given to the Yankee transnational companies. This transaction would wipe out for complete the old contracts firmed by the European Union and the Hussein’s regime in which they exchanged oil for food.

It is not out of the blue that the majority of the Democrats, who open their mouths to say that they are against sending more troops, voted for the approval of more than one billion dollars to finance Bush’s “new strategy.” They argue that if they haven’t done it, the White House would accuse them of not giving money to protect the American soldiers in Iraq. Hillary Clinton herself, while criticizing Bush’s plan, didn’t bother organizing the Democrats to vote against it in Congress. More than that, she defended the proposition of sending more soldiers to Afghanistan in order to “eliminate the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”

This fundamental pact between Democrats and Republicans exists because the Yankee Imperialism and consequently its two parties do not have an alternative for Iraq and for the rest of the Middle Eastern countries other than a contra-revolution. By deepening towards the opened contra-revolution based on the national security doctrine of “preventing attacks” developed by the Bush’s government after September 11 and introduced as a state requirement by the USA.

To better guarantee the actual strategy, the Yankee Imperialism needs to change its most important player given the deterioration suffered by Bush. They also need to honor the turn taking presidential agreement established between Democrats and Republicans. Said that, it becomes clear that independent of who takes charge of the White House after the 2008 elections, the Yankee Imperialism will not alter its objectives and methods of global control. It includes: occupation wars without justifications, amplification of military presence in the whole planet, deposition of “enemy” governments through internal contra-revolutionary acts so it can guarantee free markets and freedom to impose titers.

We are in the middle of a reactionary period complete unfavorable to the proletarian world. This is guaranteed to the Imperialism by the utilization of forms of domination that characterizes an empire without strong adversaries. Empire that goes in a constant way supported by its incomparable military force and never confronted because of the absence of an authentic anti-imperialist mass reaction. Even if the USA finds some resistance, for instance inside Middle East and Latin America, these actions are complete disproved of a proletarian and revolutionary cut, or either, Communist. We cannot say that the catastrophic performance of the Anglo-Yankee troops in Iraq, even if it gets worst, is comparable to US historical defeat in Vietnam. The Vietnam War was headed by the Stalinist direction which was obligated in order to defend itself against the Imperialist aggression to run a military fight supported by USSR.

The false thesis stating that the Bush’s electoral defeat to the Democrats represents the beginning of the end to the Yankee Imperialist hegemony in the world is weak like a castle of cards. It is enough to mention that while some “Trotskyists” go in defense of this big lie, an AC-130 American flight conduct a devastating attack in the Southwest of Somalia. It threw to the air trucks with hundreds of Islamic Somalians who were running away after the gigantic offensive orchestrated by the Pentagon, troops from Somalia and Ethiopia against the Islamic guerrilla UCI. It is interesting to mention that UN forces, posing as a “humanitarian mission” coordinated by Clinton, were defeated in its intent to control Somalia in 1992. This is the task in which Bush is succeeding.

The revolutionary Marxists do not based its analyses on the vulgar impressionism peculiar of those who see “revolutions” on each corner and, because of that, characterize Bush’s electoral defeat as an expression of global decay of the Yankee Imperialism. Quite on the opposite, we understand the November’s election as a transitional process in common accordance with the Yankee bipartisanism which gives rise to the Democrat government in 2008. It will take further the Imperialist offensive against the oppressed people and nations which has been stocked since the historical overcome suffered by the world’s proletariat occurred during the contra-revolutionary liquidation of the USSR. Today, these same parties who see the Yankee decay near by, in the past portrayed the decay of the Berlin Wall, the ending of the Eastern European workers’ state and the elimination of the “Stalinist global apparatus” as a “left turn against Imperialism.” It is not coincidence that they get so confused when trying to explain the origin of the escalating “neoliberalism” in the 90s and the reason why the workers’ struggle has assumed a defensive character which as established as a consequence of the political, ideological, military and economical recrudescing deferred by the capital after 1989.

Without the USSR and, much more relevant, without an revolutionary proletarian mass opposition in a global scale, the Yankee Imperialism feel free to push its unscrupulous raping plan. The Islamic forces in the Middle East, fundamentalists and nationalists, who portrayed themselves as a relative obstacle to the Imperialist plans and also for being theocratic bourgeois directions, are always available to seal pacts with the Empire in exchange for the safeguarding of their class interests. It becomes evident when you look at the behavior of Iran and Syria who have already shown signs or even the Palestinian hamas who implicitly accepted to recognize the existence of the Zionist enclave. They have also accepted the politic of “two states” in exchange for the return of the international financial “support” to the so called occupied territories.

Not only the  switch of the OLP and the Al Fattah towards the contra-revolutionary sphere, a process already crystallized since the Olso pacts celebrated by Arafat, but also the direct armament of the tendencies committed to Israel and the US. It was done as an intention to push a civil war in Palestine so they could stop a new antifada. This closed the imperialism offensive scenery, which didn’t get much worst only because of the retreat suffered by Israel against Hezbollah. Hezbollah, however, end up agreeing to send UN peace troops to Southern Lebanon as part of the temporary deal firmed with the European an American Imperialism.

The Iraqi resistance is pulverized by a civil war of a fratricide inter-religious character which is stimulated by the occupation forces to make to popular reaction weaker. Sending more Yankee troops two years before the presidential election to Iraq is far from being Bush’s isolated maneuver. It express a recrudescing military plan against Iraq previously accorded with the larger sphere of the democrats during the disintegration of Iraq.

The workers’ struggle against the Imperialist occupation, systematically betrayed by the Islamic directions is in a crossroad situation because it get every day more involved in sectarian and theocratic conflicts. Confronting the military difficulties, the White House try to form “alternatives” to keep its dominium under Iraq, opening way to regimes much more reactionaries than the old one headed by Saddan Hussein.

It is a task for the Bolsheviks-Leninists to identify the hard lessons presented during this period of history. This does not mean to give in to the difficulties provided by the historical and present challenges. The justified hate of the Arabic masses, particularly Iraqi, to the Imperialism points to a perspective of serious obstacles to the American Imperial domination project in the Middle East. The duty to reorganize the military resistance through popular multiethnic commands democratic elected, combined with actions promoted by the workers’ struggle on big urban centers when fighting for the popular demands. The first and bigger demand in Iraq right now is for the invasion troops to leave the country. This is the only progressive perspective to avoid the complete “balkanization” of Iraq.