|
Labor
Should Oppose War With Iraq
By
Paul Felton
Editor, Labor Educator
Back
to Alternative Reader Index
This
is an article of conscience. It might not make me popular in some quarters; it
would be a lot safer to write an article about the Post Office. But I feel
compelled to say what needs to be said. This article expresses my own personal
views, not those of the Executive Board or the Local. Some will agree with the
views expressed here, some will disagree. Hopefully, this will change a few
people’s minds, and get a lively discussion going on the workroom floor about
the most important question facing all Americans today. Our country is preparing
for a war with Iraq - a war that will not benefit postal workers, or the vast
majority of the American people. It will not make us freer, it will not make us
safer, it will not make our lives any better. I believe the labor movement
should be speaking out, loudly and proudly, against George Bush’s plans to
invade Iraq.
George Bush wants to privatize the Post Office. He wants to bust unions
throughout this country. His plans for a Homeland Security Department include
depriving 170,000 workers of union rights. He wants the government to turn its
head while corrupt CEOs steal their employees’ pension money. He smiles when
corporations lay off workers in the U.S. to hire sweatshop labor overseas. His
economic stimulus package after 9/11 gave millions to wealthy corporate CEOs and
gave the shaft to working people (especially airline employees). In short,
George Bush is an enemy of working people and a friend to the super-rich. So why
should we trust his foreign policy?
Our
Young People Will Die
If
we go to war, many young working people will lose their lives. They will die on
the battlefield and they will continue to die after the fighting is over. Nearly
7,800 veterans have died since the Gulf War. Their mysterious illness may have
been caused by depleted uranium weapons employed by the U.S. It may have been
caused by untested vaccines administered by our military. It may have been
caused by the weapons used by Iraq. We don’t know for sure. But we do know
that the casualty rate will be much higher this time. And, although it is not
popular to worry about this, the death toll among Iraqi civilians will be
enormous. If these deaths - of our sons and daughters, perhaps even some of our
coworkers - were in the cause of defending freedom, fighting terrorism, or
preserving our security, then maybe it would be worthwhile. I don’t believe it
for a minute.
It’s
Not About Terrorism
We
are told this is part of a war against terrorism. But if we really wanted to go
after the country that helps al-Qaeda the most - the country that finances and
nurtures their growth - we would go after Saudi Arabia. But the oil companies
don’t want us to invade Saudi Arabia; that would interfere with their profits.
We are told we have the right to invade Iraq because they have chemical and
biological weapons. These weapons are immoral, and should be destroyed. First of
all, it is hard to point the finger of blame when the depleted uranium our
country left behind after the Gulf War continues to kill innocent Iraqi
children. Secondly, whether Iraq still has those weapons is an open question.
But we do know that these weapons were developed in the United States and given
to Iraq at a time when the two countries were allies. To invade Iraq because
“You still have those immoral weapons we gave you” would be the height of
hypocrisy.
We are being told that Saddam Hussein is a ruthless tyrant and an evil man. This
is absolutely true. But the United States supports regimes that are just as evil
when those governments are friendly to U.S, corporations. Our government even
has a center in Ft. Benning, GA to train terrorists who murder union organizers
(and political opponents) in Latin America.
In most of the world, it is known that U.S.-imposed sanctions have killed
half-a-million Iraqi children since the Gulf War. It is known that we have been
bombing that country constantly, even though we are at peace. It is painful to
say this, but America does not occupy the high moral ground when confronting
Iraq. Given these facts, we should ask what is the real reason behind Bush’s
plans for war.
Oil,
Power, and Greed
This
war is about crude self-interest, and crude oil. Numerous sources (e.g., The
Washington Post, The Nation) have reported that the people Bush wants to put in
power in Iraq will turn that country’s massive oil reserves over to American
oil companies. That, and a desire for military and political domination of the
region, are the real motives for Bush’s war. Let me ask you, when was the last
time the oil companies did you a favor? Aren’t these the same companies that
shamelessly doubled prices at the pump in the aftermath of 9/11? Should our
brothers, sisters, children, and coworkers die to boost their profits?
Jeremy Voas, editor of the Metro Times, mocked Bush’s evil axis rhetoric, that
he uses to justify war with Iraq, with the following words: “There is indeed
an 'evil axis’ afoot. It’s composed of ExxonMobil and Shell and British
Petroleum…”
In short, Bush’s foreign policy is nothing but an extension of his domestic
policy - attacking working people (whose sons and daughters would die) to
benefit corporations. The same was true under Clinton and other Presidents
(Democratic and Republican) going back decades. When they talked about
“American interests” at stake somewhere else in the world, they meant
corporate interests. And the same is true, despite the “good versus evil”
rhetoric, in Iraq.
True
Patriotism
George
Bush is counting on the outpouring of emotion that followed 9/11 to obtain
support for this invasion. He would like to manipulate the honest emotional
reaction of the American people: the anger, the coming together, the pride, and
the patriotism. He is counting on appealing to our emotions while concealing the
true purpose of this war.
But I believe that true patriotism demands that individuals speak out for the
interests of the American people as a whole, and not follow blindly when our
President wants to lead us into an ill-conceived war. In fact, I believe
President Bush has been cynically manipulating us ever since 9/11. A whole lot
of evil has been perpetrated under the disguise of “War on Terrorism,”
including the massive giveaway of money to corporations, the suppression of
civil liberties, and increased military spending that boosts profits of defense
contractors who donate to his party.
Meanwhile, the Social Security fund continues to be raided, and the needs of
working and poor people take a back seat. None of this is making the average
American any more secure.
But Bush expects us to buy whatever he packages as part of a “War on
Terrorism.” It makes me angry to see him try to manipulate my honest outrage
at what happened in New York (where I grew up) a year ago, to enlist my support
in an attack on the rights of working people. And it makes me angry to see him
try to manipulate the most noble sentiments among our young people to send them
off to kill and be killed in the belief they are defending freedom. I feel it is
my patriotic duty not just to speak out, but to join with others and organize
for a rational point of view.
Through
the Rhetoric
George
Bush would like us all to remain in a trance, and accept uncritically whatever
he says in the name of fighting terror. But once you emerge from the fog, it is
easy to see through the rhetoric, especially with regard to Iraq. First the
doctrine of the preemptive strike. The idea that we can invade another country,
because of something we expect them to do to us, is totally ridiculous. By that
logic, every country in the world today, except perhaps Switzerland, could find
a reason to attack their neighbor. To make this point, I’ll quote Dan Sullivan
of the Kalamazoo APWU Local, in an article entitled “War with Iraq won’t
make world more peaceful.” Dan is the person who introduced the resolution on
Postal Attendance Terrorism that passed at our National Convention, and, as one
of our Officers wrote last month, Dan Sullivan “doesn’t mince any words and
says it like it is.”
Dan wrote in The Union Flash: “The spin doctors of the Bush Administration
insist the United States has every right to make a regime change wherever a
nation poses a threat to us. Of course, if every nation in the world operated
under this Bush Doctrine, we’d have utter chaos in the world. After all,
nations always have disputes and often feel threatened. Under the Bush Doctrine,
Saddam Hussein would also have the right to attack us, as we now clearly
threaten him. The Bush Doctrine violates the most basic principles of
International Law and Christian morality…”
Second, the issue of national security. Even if the war goes well, we will be
less secure. Al-Qaeda, which is not based in Iraq, will be able to recruit with
new evidence of American arrogance (really George Bush’s arrogance, not the
American people, but Islamic radicals won’t make that distinction). And, as Al
Gore pointed out, an invasion of Iraq could squander the sympathy and good will
much of the world felt towards America after 9/11. Because most of the world
would understand that an invasion of Iraq was not a defensive measure against
terror, but an aggressive move for economic and political domination of the
region. So terrorists will recruit, and the rest of the world would be less
willing to help us, after an invasion of Iraq. In short, an invasion of Iraq
increases the likelihood of more terrorist acts against American civilians. And
that’s if the invasion goes well! There are worst-case scenarios involving
massive numbers of casualties, or an Arab oil embargo, or war spreading
throughout the Middle East, that would be absolutely disastrous.
Thirdly, I want to mention one extremely well informed person who sees through
the rhetoric. His name is Scott Ritter. He is a former U.S. Marine, and, like
Bush, he is a Republican. He has impeccable credentials: he was an arms
inspector in Iraq for 7 years, from 1991 through 1998. He is quoted in The Union
Flash article as follows: “This is not about the security of the United
States. This is about domestic American politics. The national security of the
United States of America has been hijacked by a handful of neo-conservatives who
are using their position of authority to pursue their own ideologically-driven
political ambitions. The day we go to war for that reason is the day we have
failed collectively as a nation.”
The
Labor Movement
With
a few exceptions, the labor movement has been strangely silent about the coming
invasion of Iraq. In fact, like much of America, the leadership of the labor
movement has been totally uncritical of George Bush’s War on Terrorism. And
the President has taken advantage of our trust. In a previous article (in the
July-August issue) I documented some of the ways that a war on unions has been
conducted under the disguise of a War on Terrorism. At that time, I wrote: “It
seems like many of our leaders have been sleepwalking since 9/11, as if the only
item on our national agenda is terrorism. Our enemies haven’t been sleeping.
They’ve been aggressively attacking worker rights and adding to their big bank
accounts.”
The coming war on Iraq is more of the same. It will endanger the security of
working people and all civilians in America. It will distort our economy - at a
minimum taking away resources from what working people need, and possibly
throwing the whole economy into turmoil. It will, as Bush intends, divert
attention from the corruption of CEOs who are robbing working people all over
this country. It will benefit the oil companies, but not the average American.
And, if the truth be known, it will not be a war that will make us proud to be
American citizens. For these reasons, the labor movement, from the President of
the AFL-CIO on down, should be speaking out to try to stop this coming war. As a
patriotic American, all I can do is my share. I thank the membership for taking
the time to read what I have to say on the subject, and, in the spirit of
democracy, I welcome differing opinions.
November
2002 Bulatlat.com
We
want to know what you think of this article.
|