On May 24, after pushing through the vote in Congress to fund Bush’s “surge” in Iraq with no conditions attached, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced, “September is the moment of truth for this war.”
In a supremely cynical ploy, Pelosi played a key role in engineering the approval of more than $100 billion in additional
|
Last week, Bush announced that the Pentagon wants another $50 billion on top of the $145 billion. That would bring the price tag for the Iraq war to over $3 billion per week. That’s $430 million per day or $5,000 per second! Meanwhile, even more cuts in nutrition, health care and other social programs are on the agenda. The economy is going downhill fast.
The scene is certainly set for Pelosi, Senate leader Harry Reid and their cohorts to fulfill their May promises. After all, they like to pose as the “party of the people.”
Imagine—and you have to really exercise your imagination here—what would happen if the Democratic leaders actually came forward and said: “Enough of this horrific war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of U.S. soldiers, displaced and injured millions and already cost half a trillion dollars. We refuse to fund this disaster any longer. We are not going to pay for the war any longer, but instead spend that money to provide health care, jobs, housing and childcare for everyone who needs it and to repair the schools and bridges and other broken infrastructure.”
The popular support would be huge, especially among the families of military personnel, many of whom are serving second or third deployments in Iraq. Similar support would come from the millions of people who are losing jobs, homes and benefits as the economy sinks. More than 70 percent of the population, according to public opinion polls, wants the war ended immediately or very soon.
But the chances that any of the Congressional leaders will make such a speech, much less take the steps to block the continued funding of the war, are exactly zero.
Why do Democrats keep funding an unpopular war?
Congress has the power, under the U.S. Constitution, to both declare war and appropriate funds. And, taking a real stand against the war would be immensely popular.
So, why do they not do it?
One reason is that capitalist politicians for the most part, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans, are generally much less concerned about the opinions of the people than they are about those of the ruling elite. When it comes to funding demands from Pentagon generals, most congresspersons resemble spineless jellyfish—no offense to the jellyfish.
The Democratic leaders, positioning themselves for the 2008 elections, are diligently striving not to be branded in the corporate media as “soft” on national security. Equally important in their view is avoiding the accusation of having “lost Iraq.” Democrats and the Republicans are both readying for the 2008 national elections, when they will once again compete over who gets to administer the capitalist state with its multi-trillion dollar budget.
But electoral ambition is not the primary reason why the Democratic leaders—after another round of political gamesmanship—will almost certainly give Bush and the Pentagon everything they want. It is instead that they and the Republicans are equally dedicated to the U.S. imperialist ruling-class strategy of global domination. Control of Iraq and the entire oil-rich Middle East is a pillar of that strategy.
This is nothing new. Since World War II ended in 1945, there have been 11 U.S. presidents—six Republicans and five Democrats. Democrats have controlled Congress for the majority of those 62 years. Over that entire span of six decades, the drive to dominate the Middle East has been remarkably consistent.
The Democratic leadership joined with their Republican counterparts in supporting the U.S. wars against Iraq from 1990 to 1991 and in 2003. Clinton took over the blockade/bombing policy against Iraq from the first President Bush on the day he took office in 1993 and kept it going until the day he turned it over to Bush II in 2001.
Democratic support was key to the authorization of the 2003 invasion and colonial occupation of Iraq. And it was not because Hillary Clinton, Joseph Biden and the rest of those who voted to authorize the war received “bad intelligence.” They knew as well as Bush and Cheney that Iraq posed no threat.
These same politicians will despicably try to hide behind “supporting the troops” when they vote to authorize hundreds of billions more for death and destruction. “I cannot vote … to stop funding for our troops who are in harm’s way,” said Carl Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, when he voted in May. Employing similar hypocrisy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said in May: “The problem here is that we have troops in harm’s way who must have the necessary equipment and support.”
In this circular and cynical logic, as long the troops are in so-called harm’s way, the Democrats will continue to vote the funds to keep them there—in harm’s way, fighting, killing and dying. Some support.
What can stop the war?
The events of the past several months, not to mention decades, should shatter once and for all the idea that the Democrats or Congress can be a vehicle for today’s anti-war movement. During the Vietnam War, which was prosecuted primarily by Democratic presidents, Congress cut off funding in 1974, a year after the last U.S. combat troops were out of the country.
What finally ended the Vietnam War—and it took a decade-long struggle—was the resistance of the people, in Vietnam, around the world and inside the United States. A mass movement of millions of people repeatedly took to the streets of the cities of the world. The movement that arose and spread throughout the U.S. military was especially important. By 1971, more than 25 percent of the U.S. military was officially AWOL—absent without leave.
Real hope for ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and stopping future wars against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and other targets of imperialism, lies in building a powerful people’s movement that stands in solidarity with all those who are resisting.
That is the aim of the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), of which he Party for Socialism and Liberation is a part. Join us!
