Paul Roberts writes in The End of Oil that the reasons for the 2003 Iraq War were that:
...this war obviously had at least something to do with oil. Nonetheless, though the war was "about oil", that was true in a way that most of Bush's critics failed to grasp. It wasn't simply that an Iraq without Saddam would enrich Bush's energy allies (although it would). Nor was the connection merely that war in Iraq would bolster America's military and economic presence in the region - or keep Iraqi oil from falling into the hands of Chinese, Russian, and French oil companies - although this was the intended effect. Rather, it was that liberating Iraq, and its oil, was the key to the neoconservatives' vision for the future of American power - and for the new geopolitics of oil.
It is a radical vision. At a stroke, the administration hopes to depoliticize what has for nearly a century been the quintessential political commodity and, in the process, remove the last real obstacle to American power. As Michael Klare, professor of world security studies at Hampshire College, told the Toronto Star last year [2003], in the eyes of the Bush administration, unlocking OPEC oil, "combined with being a decade ahead of everybody else in military technology, will guarantee American supremacy for the next fifty to one hundred years." Cheney and Rumsfield "see control of oil as merely part of a much bigger geostrategic vision," argues Chris Toensing, an analyst who works on the Middle East Research and Information Project. "By controlling the Gulf and the Middle East, the United States gains leverage over countries that are more dependent on the Gulf for oil, like China and Europe."
Emphasis Mine, but italics in original
Roberts, Paul (2004), The End of Oil, Bloomsbury:UK, p.112
This creates a quandary for the US Anti-War Movement: for to oppose Bush's war in Iraq is to oppose the continued hegemony of US power that supports their standard of living. Idealism can only go so far before the associated costs start to affect one's lifestyle. This is why Bush, Howard, and Blair can ignore the bleatings of the Anti-War crowd because the majority are not prepared to make the sacrifices that a retreat from Iraq would entail. They would like to be 'nice' in a painless sort of way.
Oh how Capitalism blinds one to the nasty brutality of the system: one can ignore the exploitation, sexism, militarism, racism, etc. as long as one benefits. These people are like the Pridurki in Washington Post columnist Anne Applebaum's study of co-operation and collaboration of people with the Gulag:
Although the brutality that reigned in the Gulag was different, in its organisation and effects, Nazi and Soviet camps were similar in this respect: the Soviet regime made such use of prisoners, tempting some into collaboration with the repressive system, raising them above the others, and granting them privileges which allowed them, in turn, to help the authorities exert their power. It is no accident that Filshtinky concentrated, in his story, on the ever-improving wardrobe of his female acquaintance: in the camps, where everything was in chronic shortage, tiny improvements in clothing or food or living conditions were enough to persuade prisoners to co-operate, to strive for advancement. Those prisoners who succeeded were the pridurki, or 'trusties'. And once they attained that status, their lives in the camps improved in a myriad small ways.
Emphasis Mine, but italics in original
Applebaum, Anne (2004), Gulag: A History of the Soviet Camps, Penguin Books:Australia, p.331.
In Marxist terms, these people are class collaborators. They co-operate with the ruling class: prison authorities, capitalists, etc. Instead of standing with others in their struggle (prisoners, workers, etc.), these class collaborators enforce the rule of the oppressors in exchange for better material conditions.
The crisis in the Anti-War movement reflects the crisis in the class collaborators' caste: there is a conflict between their conscience and their material conditions. One or the other has to prevail. In the past, the material conditions (aka lifestyle) prevailed.
This why the leadership of the Anti-War movement has to be prised away from the dead hands of these class collaborators. Let them have their 4WD, plasma TVs, skiing holidays, etc. The rest of us will have to content ourselves with a world of peace and justice!
Read more!
