Capitalism Means Wars Without End

"Whom the gods wish to destroy, they first make mad." (Scholiast's Antigone)

But with more than 3,000 US troops already dead in Iraq, greater than the number on 9/11 which was used as a pretext for war, together with countless Iraqi deaths, Bush's actions are no more than a desperate gamble in a war that will soon enter its fourth year of "shock and awe".

While this is madness, there is method in Bush's madness. While there is growing awareness that the coalition forces have been defeated in Iraq, to withdraw now would be seen as a catastrophe for the American Administration, a humiliation with far-reaching consequences similar to their defeat in Vietnam. But as we explained at the beginning of the war, the opposition to occupation will turn their "victory" into defeat. They lost the Vietnam War at home as the American people turned against it. They are doing so today, with only 25% supporting the President's decision to send more troops to Iraq.

This is not surprising, as the situation on the ground has gone from bad to worse. "Iraq has reached advanced social breakdown, with ethnic cleansing on a regional, neighbourhood and even street-by-street basis", states the Financial Times. "The US deployed a similar number of troops last summer to ‘lock down' Baghdad, since then the number of killed in the capital alone has rocketed to more than 100 a day, while on average an attack occurs against Anglo-American forces every 10 minutes..." (12/01/07) The humiliating fashion in which Saddam Hussein was hanged is intensifying further the bloody conflict.

The White House is caught between the devil and the deep blue sea. It has no room to maneuver. As a consequence, Bush is now preparing to bomb Syria and Iran, as with Somalia, most likely using its ally Israel. He has already ordered the US military to break up so-called Iranian networks in Iraq. Every day increasing pressure is being applied to Iran. The Iranians are being accused of "meddling" in the affairs of Iraq by the meddling American imperialists. The recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, which urged talks with the Iranians, have been ignominiously cast aside. In February, a second US carrier strike force will arrive in the Gulf to join the carrier USS Eisenhower in a new display of military might. Extra US F-16 fighter planes have also reportedly flown to Turkey.

This calamity in Iraq has split the Republican Party between those keen to save their political skins and the coterie around Bush who are desperate to preserve their legacy. Nevertheless, "Republican support for the President is draining rapidly", according to a party strategist from Bush's own party.

The more intelligent strategists of Capital are also alarmed by Washington's belligerent stance. Again, in the editorial of the FT, it states with dread: "Mr. Bush is instead threatening to expand the war... The Iraq surge is beginning to look like the Vietnam escalation, spilling over into Iran and Syria the same way that one did into Cambodia and Laos."

As Bush lurches from one adventure to another, he is followed by his faithful lapdog, Tony Blair, who has said Bush's surge "made sense". Blair looks callously to the future in anticipation of further wars, stating that Britain will jealously guard its status as a global military power. "September 11 changed everything," he recently said in a lecture to military top brass.

Despite Blair's dreams, third-rate British imperialism is even now completely overstretched militarily. General Sir Richard Dannatt, the new army chief, has urged the government not to "break" the army over its twin engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even here they are facing a loosing battle. According to Anthony Cordesman, the experienced US military analyst: "The British have essentially been defeated in Basra." In reality, British troops are dispirited and demoralized by the experience, and cannot be used for another adventurous war.

However, Blair, who is concerned about his place in history and his own "exist strategy", has provoked opposition to his blind submission to US foreign policy - even from docile Cabinet Ministers like Peter Hain. Of course, Hain voted for the war, but his change of heart is linked to his candidature for the Labour Party leadership and the need for a "left" image. It is a clear case of rats deserting Blair's sinking ship, determined to distance themselves from unpopular policies, to save their lucrative careers.

Bush's policy was determined by the interests of American imperialism, which is seeking world domination. Blair was keen to support the United States, reflecting the miserable dependency of weak British capitalism. Blair is a bourgeois interloper who was determined to destroy the Labour Party by breaking the party's link with the trade unions and turn New Labour into an openly capitalist party. Despite all his efforts, the "Blair Project" has failed.

With Blair's immanent departure, Gordon Brown is keen to take over the reigns and continue with New Labour's capitalist policies. There is no difference between Blair and Brown. Both are committed to the capitalist system ("the market economy"), which have served to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. That is why Socialist Appeal gives support to the left wing candidature of John McDonnell for Labour leader. Success for his left wing stance will transform the situation in the labour movement and open the road for genuine socialist policies.

A Labour government committed to socialist policies at home and abroad will mean the withdrawal of troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and opposition to imperialism. The struggle for socialism in Britain, which would put an end the power of the bankers and big business, must be linked to a struggle for socialism internationally. Only then can the world's resources be planned harmoniously and democratically in the interests of the vast majority, resulting in the abolition of poverty, unemployment, homelessness and war. We have nothing to loose but the chains of war and oppression and a new socialist world to win.