Military defeat in Iraq, the revelations about torture and military brutality, mass opposition to the war and climate catastrophe is turning the war on terror' into a political disaster, says Phil Hearse. As everyone now knows, on the day after the 9/11 attacks
New York and Washington, Secretary Rumsfeld and then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice privately raised the idea of attacking
The neocons that surround Bush thought all the Christmases had come at once. Here was a chance to deal with the world differently - to maximise the political and economic advantage that total domination in the military sphere gives American capitalism. The 'war on terror' was born. After four years, does it rate as a success or failure?
A hint of where we are now is contained in Rice's September 30 2005 speech in which she argued against withdrawing US troops from Iraq and warned of the creation of 'an empire of
wnich would threaten the US mainland, if the troops were brought home. Three years ago that sort of ultra-detensive speech, with its resort to risible arguments, would have been unthinkable.
To give more exact answer to the success of otherwise of the 'war on terror, we have to ask what exactly American objectives were with this offensive. Part of this is helpfully explained in the 2002 White House document 'United States National Security Strategy'.
No one reading that document can be under any doubt about fundamentals; the strategy incorporates key military, political and economic objectives, which centre on assuring American dominance against all potential rivals.
More specifically, the strategy calls for open free market economies everywhere, the imposition of American-style democracy and the establishment of multiple political alliances between governments and the United States.
But these are just headline slogans. Behind them is an overarching strategy for a new stage of American hegemony.
In addition to ensuring the dominance of US banks and multinational corporations, this means using the war on LOTO militarily and politically dominate the Eurasian landmass; weld political elites and significant sections of the intelligentsia worldwide into a new acceptance of US political leadership and goal-setting, which would be the modern version of the old Cold War anti-communist ideology; militarily surround economically emerging China; and recast domestic American politics, using alleged external threat to secure indefinite domination of US politics by the neoconservative right.
'Hegemony' for the US does not just mean being the most powerful or dominant capitalist state. It means a capacity to ensure political compliance and support by huge sections of the population internationally, which is key to the success of the other goals.
Measured by this criterion, the war on terror is turning into a disaster. It is turning into a disaster because its central arms - militarism and the repression of civil liberties - are incapable of dealing with the new threats the US faces.
One straw in the wind. Robert Novack reported in the Guardian of September 28 that the recent 'Little Aspen Weekend', an annual conference for the superrich organised by investbakers Frostmann Little in the Colorado millionaires' playground, turned into two days of bashing Bush. His own attempts to defend the White House got a frosty reception.
On the field of battle, the results are well-known. The Iraq insurgency 1s undefeated and undefeatable.
Tens of thousands of Iraqis and more than 2000 US and allied troops have been killed in a war without end. In the US and Britain
commentators who supported the war initially now say that invasion has made life much worse for Iraqis, a dire result for the Bush administration.
This is compounded by the unending series of revelations about torture, which will grow as the clamour for the publication of hundreds of suppressed photos from Abu Ghraib grows.
The Guantanamo detention camp remains a ticking time bomb for the US, one which the White House doesn't know how to handle. If the current round of hunger strikes result in deaths it will be another public relations disaster for Bush.
If the failure to pacify Iraq is at the core of the crisis of the 'War on Terror' strategy, the New Orleans tragedy and the growing realisation of the effects of climate change are the new factor undermining the neocons.
For millions of Americans it was just as much the wake If the failure to the core of the crisis of the War on Terror' strategy, the New Orleans tragedy and the growing realisation of the effects of climate
change are the new factor undermining the
neocons.
call on poverty and racism as the wake up call on climate change which hit home as a result of New Orleans.
The US magazine Newsweek ran a full fivepage feature on Poverty USA', the first time for forty years it had run such an article. But for the US ruling class, who are not exactly ignorant of the facts about racism and poverty, it is the issue of climate change which is causing intense concern.
The possibility that hurricanes Katrina and Rita might be the omens of a prolonged epoch of climate catastrophe, links to concern over energy security. Ironically, the first major economic impact of Katrina was to rapidly push up world oil prices as the Mexican Gulf production and refining facilities went offline. As the gap between (declining) supply and (rocketing) demand for oil narrows, there is no slack in the system.
Minor turbulence can throw it off balance. And no one in big business or government know how energy supplies will be secured in the next few decades, as the oil and natural gas begin to TUN OUL
For US policy strategists all this is deeply worrying.
Splits among the US ruling class on this issue are shown by the August 2005 decision of nine states in the north eastern USA to implement their OWIl 'Kyoto' agreement, voluntarily cutwithout waiting for the White House. It is likely that dozens of other states will follow this initiative.
White House Dal lisalls point to one unassailable fact that mitigates against the idea of a crisis of the Bush presidency and the 'war on terror' - namely that Bush won the 2004 presidential election by some margin, and a staggering 62 million people voted for him.
However present figures show different story. Approval ratings for the president vary between about 40 and 45%, as against disapproval ratings of about 52%. The number who disapprove of the conduct of the war is around 57% and rising.
The anti-war movement has gained a new legitimacy by the courageous stand of Cindy Sheehan whose son was killed in Iraq and who staged a protest outside Bush's holiday ranch - with massive support and sympathy across America.
This, combined with events like George Galloway's appearance before the US Senate and the flak Bush got over Katrina have
remorse. and remobilised the US
movement. The 300,000 who demonstrated
Washington on November were joined by tens of thousands in other towns across the country.
The impact of the anti-war movement is shown by the viciousness of the attacks agallisl Sheehan and Galloway, and the increasing use of right-wing media hoodlums like Christopher Hitchens to engage in character assassination against
Reactionary radio 'shockjocks' and other pundits whip up the right-wing