The
Democrats Are Not an Alternative to the Bush Regime
In the November
7 U.S.
mid-term elections the Democrats took enough seats from the Republicans to gain
majority control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. These
results are widely viewed as a rejection of the Bush regime’s policies,
particularly the continuing war in Iraq. However, it is highly
unlikely that this latest setback for the Bush Republicans will result in a
significant withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
During the election campaign various prominent
Democrats, including Hilary Clinton, made it clear that the Democratic Party is
not opposed to the war in Iraq
but to how it is being conducted and the fact that the U.S. is losing.
While some Democratic candidates called for an immediate withdrawal of troops,
the party establishment pledged to increase the effectiveness of the U.S.
occupation, including increasing the number of troops, if necessary. Statements
made by a number of leading Democrats since the election indicate that the main
strategy of the Democrats with regard to Iraq will be to uncover and publicize
acts of incompetence and misconduct by the Bush regime. This will then be used
to ensure a Democratic victory in the 2008 presidential elections.
The fact of the
matter is thateven though the Democrats and Republicans may have
differences over tactics they are united around a strategy of establishing a uni-polar world order under the dictate of U.S.
imperialism. While the Democrats may rely more than the Bush Republicans on
diplomacy rather than blatant bullying to achieve these results, their goals
are the same. It would be naïve to think otherwise.
With the
collapse of the bi-polar division of the world in the period from 1989 to 1991,
the U.S.
lost one of its main levers of control over its imperialist rivals. At the same
time, during the 1990s the U.S.
economy was steadily declining relative to the European Union (EU) and Japan. The
emergence of China and India as major
and rapidly growing capitalist economies during the late 1990s gave further
impetus to the development of a multi-polar world and the exacerbation of
inter-imperialist rivalries. During the 1990s the Clinton Democrats tried to
reassert U.S.
imperialist hegemony through a combination of diplomacy, economic bullying and
military aggression. However, their attempts proved ineffective in reversing
the steady decline of U.S.
power and influence. As a result the Bush Republicans were forced to largely
dispense with diplomacy and adopt a foreign policy of naked imperialist
aggression and war beginning with the invasion of Afghanistan
in 2001 and of Iraq
in 2003. They even adopted a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war against any
country which tries to challenge U.S. military supremacy.
This policy has
now run into difficulties, not, as alleged by the Democrats, because of the
incompetence of the Bush regime but because of resistance by the Afghan and
Iraqi people. As a result, what were supposed to be rapid American military
victoriesfollowed by the establishment of puppet governments and the
withdrawal of most U.S. troops have developed instead into the current quagmire
in which the U.S. finds itself. Tied down in Iraq
and Afghanistan, the U.S.
has been unable to respond militarily to what it considers to be other threats.
Its imperialist rivals have been quick to take advantage of this situation to
expand their own influence and control at the expense of the Americans. Various
popular movements in Latin America have also made headway in asserting their
national sovereignty and opposing the neo-liberal policies imposed on their
countries by the U.S.
and its international agencies such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
and the World Bank.
The U.S.
faces a difficult dilemma. If it stays in Iraq
and Afghanistan
it risks losing even more of its empire either to its rivals or through popular
uprisings. However, if it “cuts and runs” the myth of U.S. invincibility will be smashed,
which will further encourage its imperialist rivals and various popular
movements. In addition, it will be forced to withdraw its military forces from
much of the Middle East and that region will
quickly become an area of fierce contention between various powers for control
of its energy riches. China
and Russia,
in particular, would be immediate beneficiaries and the American strategy of
encircling those countries with military bases would be seriously compromised.
The Americans,
therefore, have only one option regardless of which party is in control – to
stay the course. It is absolutely essential to the strategic interests of U.S. imperialism to defeat the Iraqi and Afghan
resistance as well as to bring Iran
back under American control. In other words, regardless of whether or not these
goals can be realized, whether Republicans or Democrats are at the helm, the
Americans will be forced to pursue them. They simply have no alternative.