What Do the Anglo-Americans Stand For?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition : Article Index :

Cynical Calculations on Iraq:
What Do the Anglo-Americans Stand For?

After the comments of US President George W Bush last Wednesday about pledging to consult with US allies on an invasion of Iraq, the debate may not have become less ''frenzied'' but it has certainly become more cynical.

Following Bush’s remarks, Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was to say that getting UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq is still a priority for the British government, but that military action ''remains an option''. Such statements prompt the question of what Anglo-US imperialism wants from Iraq. Is anything positive about the Anglo-American stand? The answer which presents itself is that the most cynical calculations are under way with no more justification than that a ''regime change'' must be brought about in Iraq. Even the question of whether the US should completely ''own'' Iraq or whether it should be ''shared'' with Britain and the other European allies of the US superpower has been opened up for debate as though the rest of the world, let alone a sovereign Iraq, were nothing but a chess board on which predatory powers played out their game for domination.

The Foreign Secretary in his comments claimed that the stance of US officials had softened and the Bush administration would prefer a peaceful solution.

"I don’t believe from all my discussions with the Americans that they think that military action is the option of choice. They would much prefer this to be resolved in a peaceful manner because the risks for them and their interests, as well as for everybody else, are so much greater," he said.

George W Bush had said, "I’m a patient man. We will look at all options and we will consider all technologies available to us and diplomacy and intelligence. But having said that, we take all threats seriously. We will continue to talk with the people concerned with peace, how to secure the peace."

It is the case that the issue of weapons inspectors being allowed into Iraq ''without condition, without restriction on them'' has been constantly used as a pretext for armed intervention to overthrow Saddam Hussein. It is possible to see in the ''shift'' of Jack Straw’s position, which has been seized on in certain quarters as evidence of ''clear blue water'' between the US and Britain, a response to the people’s opposition to aggression against Iraq, as well as the divisions within the dominant political and military circles as to the cost of such aggression. But no principle emerges. Not even any facts emerge about the reality of the alleged threat of ''weapons of mass destruction''.

Instead, the facts which emerge are that as the British government is preparing for conflict in the Gulf, the armed forces are facing a recruitment crisis, that they are ''overstretched'', and that the Ministry of Defence is facing a 3.9 per cent shortfall on the required strength for a ground offensive against Iraq.

In these circumstances, voices are being raised of the ''devastating'' consequences of a military attack against Iraq from the highest sources in the diplomatic service and elsewhere which ''could set the Middle East alight''. Proof is being demanded on all sides about Iraq’s possession of ''weapons of mass destruction''.

The issue is becoming increasingly exposed as geopolitical and strategic for Anglo-US imperialism. Should pressure and sanctions be stepped up, should a pre-emptive attack be launched, if the Middle East is set alight, who would gain the advantage? These are the calculations which are coming to the fore.

In reality, US imperialism, the British government and other ''allies'' of the US are faced with an insoluble problem. There is no justice in their position, and the opposition of the world’s people is gathering momentum. There is no legitimate conception of ''freedom'' which imperialism is seeking to ''impose'' on Iraq. In these circumstances, the British working class and people must strengthen the movement to stop the military adventures of the British government, demand that it stop supporting the US. Above all, they must strengthen their programme and movement for the alternative, for a just society, in opposition to all that is rotten and chauvinist in the stand of Tony Blair and Jack Straw and the ruling financial oligarchy.