Subject: REDEFINING  WAR
To: communism communism@lists.econ.utah.edu
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 18:03:38 +0000 (GMT)


George W. Bush has said that the best way to keep "peace" is
to redefine war on his own terms. Our own war against Bush
and his ilk, the class war, needs no redefining.

Whatever the post-Taliban set-up in Afghanistan one thing is
a forgone conclusion. Any new government will have to be
ready to bow with suppliant's knee before the interests of
US and in particular its oil hounds, paying back the support
their military wing the US air force and US army afforded
them. But by all accounts Afghanistan looks to be years away
from any semblance of peace and order – which of course
gives the US an ideal excuse to maintain a military presence
in an oil rich region.

Whilst Tony Blair has been globetrotting, drumming up
support for the US cause like some keen-to-impress US
foreign secretary, there has been every sign that George W
is attempting to fulfil his father's prophecy, mouthed
during his presidential inaugural address all those years
ago, that the 21st Century would be "another American
century".

For anyone interested in US domestic politics, aware that
George W could never sway an electorate by the power of his
words, it perhaps came as no surprise to learn that he could
so blatantly repay his corporate backers and grassroots
supporters so early into his administration. Within months
of coming to office the gun lobbyists, oil companies, and
defence contractors had their services recognised for the
world to see. The 1997 Kyoto protocol on emission reductions
is now history. The 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty –
the cornerstone of all arms-control negotiations during and
since the cold war is now only fit to wipe the presidential
arse with, and down the proverbial toilet went the
comprehensive test-ban treaty and the UN treaty on the
control of small arms. Bush even denounced the recent UN
convention on slavery.

On 25 July, the US scuppered a decade of international
negotiations by announcing in Geneva its intention not to
back a draft protocol to reinforce the biological weapons
and toxin convention, which was initially signed in
1972. Its reason? Such a move threatened US commercial
interests. The protocol would have included verification
measures that would have given international inspectors
access to laboratories in the signatory countries. Perhaps
the US has some stronger reason for denying inspections at
thousands of its defence plants and biotechnology sites.

What on earth are its commercial interests that it can
nonchalantly destroy a treaty signed in the interest of
humanity? What is the US developing? And wasn't it the US
that was so insistent that an international scientific
inspectorate search behind every Iraqi door capable of being
locked?

In effect, President Bush has told the world: "Fuck off,
it's US first.  The world will be ruled by force and on
behalf of US corporate interests".

The evidence has been ever present since 11 September. Colin
Powell, when asked to publicly provide evidence of bin
Laden's links to the attack on New York and Washington,
avoided the issue by claiming such a disclosure would be a
breach of national security. When the Taliban wished to
negotiate, offering to hand bin Laden to a third party, Bush
replied: "I said no negotiations and I mean no
negotiations." And while the US is keen to point out it has
a "coalition" of support against the Taliban it has bombed
Afghanistan virtually unilaterally, except for a few token
cruise missiles fired from a British submarine (a
doggie-snack for the ever-loyal poodle) on the first day of
the attack upon Afghanistan.

It is now not only full steam ahead with the prized National
Missile Defence (NMD) system with a target date for the
deployment of the system set for 2005 (See March Socialist
Standard), but plans are now afoot in the US to develop a
space bomber that could destroy targets on the other side of
the globe within 30 minutes; the bomber travelling 15 times
faster than conventional bombers, able to hit a target from
60 miles up and paving the way for a new era of
stratospheric warfare. And research is ongoing into direct
energy weaponry, to be precise, the future use of air-based
lasers and space-based lasers, able to hit even moving
targets from 400 miles away at the sped of light

NMD, however is clearly a sign that the US is moving towards
becoming a more aggressive and threatening military
power. Experts now maintain that the issue is not so much
whether an anti-missile system is feasible or desirable, but
what kind of diplomatic and military policies the world's
only superpower would pursue from beneath the relative
safety of a nuclear umbrella. It seems less the case that
NMD is about protecting the USA from 'rogue states', and
more the likelihood that such a sophisticated system of
defence will ensure the profits flow in the right direction
and that the global schoolyard bully can streamline its
protection racket, safe in the knowledge it will meet little
resistance.

Back in 1992, Paul Walfowitz (now Deputy Secretary of
Defence) and Lew Libby (Bush's National Security Adviser)
formulated ideas which were presented as a confidential
Pentagon document by none other than vice-president Dick
Cheney:

"The US must hold global power and a monopoly of force. It
will then protect the new order while allowing others to
pursue their legitimate interests as Washington defines
them. The US must account sufficiently for the interests of
the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from
challenging our leadership, or seeking to overturn the
established political order, or aspiring to a larger
regional or global role…we will retain the pre-eminent
responsibility for addressing those wrongs which threaten
not only our interests but also those of our allies and
friends.  The US alone will determine what are those wrongs
and where they are to be selectively righted." (quoted by
Noam Chomsky in Year 501).

This is an extremely revealing document—a document that
is also very worrying. And it's not a one-off. There are
others, take for instance the US Space Command's document
"Vision 2020" which, now five years old, well telegraphs US
designs for the 21st Century, suggesting that globalisation
will lead to greater misery, to a lot more "have-nots" with
an axe to grind and who will have to kept in line:

"Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer
competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged
regionally. The globalisation of the world economy will also
continue, with a widening between the haves and
have-nots. Accelerating rates of technological development
will be increasingly driven by commercial interests not the
military. Increased weapons lethality and precision will
lead to new operational doctrines . .  . only military
dominance will protect US interests and investments."

In 1998, the US government report "The Long-Term Plan"
reiterated this notion of there being trouble ahead from the
dispossessed:

"The US will remain global power and exert global
leadership. Widespread communications will highlight
disparities in resources and quality of life, contributing
to unrest in developing countries…The gap between the
'haves and the 'have–nots' will widen, creating regional
unrest. The US will remain the only nation able to project
power globally."

It is a fair bet that such sentiments have been prominent
components of the US worldview for some years – at least
since 1945 and definitely since 1989 and the collapse of
Russian-style state capitalism. Moreover, it's no bold
assertion to suggest that China is chief the enemy in
waiting – not the allegedly "rogue states" such as Iraq
and North Korea, nor the threat of international terrorism
which has really been a US favourite since the days of
Reagan – for the simple reason that China is an economic
and military power on a collision course with the US over
domination of the Pacific. And if the US learns anything
from its military history it is to get in first – hence
the dire necessity of a fully functioning NMD.

At the beginning of July this year, only days before the New
York Times announced Bush's plans to ditch the comprehensive
test ban treaty, his administration enquired of nuclear
laboratories just how soon they could begin testing again
– clearly intent on breaching agreements made 16 months
earlier by 187 countries who had negotiated steps to
strengthen the non-proliferation treaty.

On the 14 July, the US launched a missile from the Marshall
Islands.  Twenty-nine minutes later a second missile,
launched from Vanderburg, California, intercepted it at an
altitude of 144 miles. The success not only strengthened
Republican arguments for a competent star wars system, but
was the order for similar multi-million dollar tests to be
carried out every month and helped justify the mobilisation
of contractors into Fort Greeley, Alaska, to begin
foundation work on a new missile silo.

Just over two years ago George W Bush, gave a speech at
Charleston, South Carolina. He spoke of the "contagious
spread of missile technology and weapons of mass
destruction" and hence the necessity of strengthening the
unrivalled military power of the US. He then boldly
announced that "the best way to keep peace is to redefine
war on our terms." Which just about says it all – "to
redefine war on our terms." Forget all the crap that George
W's father mouthed when he became president. The "peace
dividend" that was supposed to replace cold war hostilities
and benefit all after the collapse of "communism" was as
fictitious as fairies. The agenda now is as it was then and
50 years previous – US global domination in the military
and economic fields and woe betide anyone foolish enough to
think otherwise.

As socialists we certainly do not need to redefine our
war. The war we must fight to end the insanity and horror
Bush and Co would hurl us headlong into is the Class
War. And this can not be fought with missiles, but something
more powerful – our minds, our imagination, our
solidarity and preparedness to unite as the majority
exploited class and to wrest control of the planet from the
madmen before it is to late.

Are you with us? Don't take too long to think of a reply
– the doomsday clock really is ticking.

jt

www.worldsocialism.org