``...On the other hand we have the leftists who want to do the impossible: they apparently want to build a broad based coalition against war with people who are Democrats, etc. (why not Republicans I ask?) and want to do it ALSO on the basis of a critique of American imperialism. So in their leftist groupings they are a certain 'we' (leninists of some kind or other) who also want to be a part of a larger 'we' (peaceniks or whatever). This is simply nonsense. The only coherent critique of the American response is on the basis of a critique of imperialism, which is itself an inherent part of what we call capitalism. If you ditch that critique you are left with an impossible task of explaining to people why they should not make war against other people who have attacked their country. Anyone with any brains can tell that such a peace movement cannot succeed in preventing war. So what is it for then? To make 'us' feel that at least we are doing something? Doing what?..'' Tahir Wood
-----------------
I think there is a position that can manage to be anti-war, a critique of US imperialism, and still manage to share something of a national or US public interest. But the price is probably complete alienation on all fronts. Whatever.
It goes like this. The interest of the people in the US is not with the unlimited expansion of US power that absolutely privileges and harnesses US corporate capitalism and is therefore imperialism. This direction is leading into an era of endless wars of defense of Empire and now terrorist reactions against it. Instead that public interest is in building a better standard of living in the US, better communities in the US, and a more focused national policy toward the rest of the world that reflects the public interest of the people rather than privilaging a ruling elite and the imperial aspirations of neoliberal capitalism.
The basis for that position lays in an open-end critique and explanation of US foreign and domestic policy and how those have systematically generated through their mega-corporate neoliberal (imperialist) actions and dogma, the very conditions of political and socio-economic de-stabilization that have encouraged to the point of creating the horrible nemesis of both religious fundamentalisms and quasi-fascist nationalisms as reactions both at home and abroad. In other words, raise consciousness.
In a less rightwing dominated climate in the US, this position might at one time have been simply a liberal and progressive point of view. During the Vietnam era, such positions were still maintained by a few elected Democrats---not very many, but a few. It now appears to be some kind of extreme hate-america-first radicalism. It isn't. It is still basically a progressive and liberal point of view with an sympathetic and internationalist eye toward other people's (nations) struggles. On a good day, you might even get my representative, Barbara Lee to say the same things.
If you want more harsh sounding slogans, then how about, To Die for Enron, Kill for Halliburton, Save the World for Chevron... Although Kill a Commie for Christ, still has a certain ring to it.
These slogans are not exactly irrelevant. Consider this from Ahmed Rashid, (Taliban, 163p, circa 1995-6 where I am reading at the moment):
``Thus there were the makings of two coalitions emerging in the region. The US lining up alongside Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan and encouraging its allies---Israel, Turkey and Pakistan---to invest there, while Russia retained its grip on Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The USA was now prepared to confront Russia as the battle for the Caspian's resources escalated. `While US policy-makers certainly do not want to see a hegemonic Russia, the potential coasts of such hegemony became far greater if Russia is able to dictate the terms and limit Western access to the world's last know oil and gas reserves. Even minimum US involvement here provides for maximum Russian suspicion,' said Dr Martha Brill Olcott, a leading US academic on Central Asia.
I did not begin to investigate this unfolding story until the summer of 1996. The sudden capture of Kabul by the Taliban in September of 1996 prompted me to try and unravel two unanswered questions which many Western journalists were grappling with, but failed to answer. Were the Americans supporting the Taliban either directly or indirectly through Unocal or their allies Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? And what was prompting this massive regional polarization between the USA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the Taliban on one side and Iran, Russia, the Central Asian states and the anti-Taliban alliance on the other? While some focused on whether there was a revival of the old CIA-ISI connection from the Afghan jihad era, it became apparent to me that the strategy over pipelines had become the driving force behind Washington's interest in the Taliban, which in turn was prompting a counter-reaction from Russia and Iran.
But exploring this was like entering a labyrinth, where nobody spoke the truth or divulged their real motives or interests. It was the job of a detective rather than a journalist because there were few clues. Even gaining access to the real players in the game was difficult, because policy was not being driven by politicians and diplomats, but by the secretive oil companies and intelligence services of the regional states. The oil companies were the most secretive of all---a legacy of the fierce competition they indulged in around the world. To spell out where they would drill next or which pipeline route they favoured, or even whom they had lunch with an hour earlier, was giving the came away to the enemy---rival oil companies...''
Since that was written, of course we now have the entire petro-chemical and energy consortium of the US running the US government, its intelligence and security agencies, the military-industrial complex and formulating foreign and domestic policies with those interests as paramount. The Taliban are now the enemy and we have bridged or are attempting to re-align the coalitions noted in the above quote. Same game of Empire, with a few new turns.
This entire War on Terror is both a cover for and an extension of those interests while manipulating US reactionary nationalism over 9/11 as the popular support motivation. That has to be the explanation for US policy, since the more rational and more realistic construction that was truly devoted to rooting out Islamic fundamentalist terrorist groups would lead straight to our allies: Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
So bomb Afghanistan for Halliburton, Avenge Enron and start a war with Iraq to make the world safe for Chevron. Well, so much for my mealy-mouthed answer.
Chuck Grimes