Egemonia

Lev Trotsky

In Defense of Marxism

Pubblichiamo quest'articolo apparso per la prima volta nel numero di novembre del 1911 del "Der Kampf", il mensile teorico della socialdemocrazia austriaca, con il titolo "Sul Terrorismo". Trotskij scrisse tale articolo su richiesta di Friedrich Adler, il direttore del "Der Kampf", come risposta alle tendenze terroristiche che stavano prendendo piede all'interno della classe operaia austriaca.

Le classi nostre nemiche sono abituate a lamentarsi del nostro terrorismo. Cosa esse intendono con ciò è piuttosto oscuro. A loro piacerebbe etichettare tutte le attività del proletariato dirette contro gli interessi del nemico di classe come terrorismo. Lo sciopero, ai loro occhi, è il principale metodo del terrorismo. La minaccia di uno sciopero, l'organizzazione di picchetti, il boicottaggio economico di un boss schiavista, il boicottaggio morale di un traditore dalle nostre stesse file - tutto questo e molto più è ciò che essi chiamano terrorismo. Se il terrorismo è inteso in questo modo, come ogni azione che ispiri paura o arrechi danno al nemico, allora certamente l'intera lotta di classe non è nient'altro che terrorismo. E l'unico interrogativo che resta da porsi è se i politici borghesi abbiano o meno il diritto di versare la loro piena indignazione morale sul terrorismo proletario quando il loro intero apparato statale, con le sue leggi, polizia ed esercito, non è nient'altro che l'apparato del terrore capitalistico!

Occorre però dire che, quando ci rimproverano di terrorismo, essi stanno tentando - per quanto non sempre in modo conscio - di dare a questo termine un significato più stretto. Il danneggiamento di macchinari da parte dei lavoratori, per esempio, è terrorismo in senso stretto. L'uccisione di un padrone, la minaccia di incendiare una fabbrica o una minaccia di morte al suo proprietario, il tentato omicidio, con revolver in pugno, contro un ministro - tutti questi sono atti terroristici nel pieno ed autentico senso della parola. Però, chiunque abbia un'idea della vera natura della Socialdemocrazia internazionale, dovrebbe sapere che essa si è sempre opposta a questo tipo di terrorismo e lo fa nel modo più irreconciliabile.

Perché?

"Terrorizzare" con la minaccia di uno sciopero, o condurre realmente uno sciopero, è qualcosa che solo gli operai industriali possono fare. L'importanza sociale di uno sciopero dipende direttamente da: primo, la dimensione dell'impresa o della branca di industria che esso colpisce e, secondo, il grado nel quale gli operai che vi prendono parte sono organizzati, disciplinati e pronti all'azione. Questo è vero tanto per uno sciopero politico quanto per uno economico. Esso continua ad esser un metodo di lotta che scaturisce direttamente dal ruolo produttivo del proletariato nella società moderna.

Sminuisce il ruolo delle masse

Per potersi sviluppare, il sistema capitalistico ha bisogno di una sovrastruttura parlamentare. Ma poiché esso non può confinare il moderno proletariato in un ghetto politico, deve presto o tardi permettere agli operai di partecipare in parlamento. Durante le elezioni, il carattere di massa del proletariato ed il suo livello di sviluppo politico - quantità che, ancora una volta, sono determinate dal suo ruolo sociale, ovvero, soprattutto, dal suo ruolo nella produzione - trovano la loro espressione.

Come negli scioperi, così anche nelle elezioni il metodo, lo scopo ed il risultato della battaglia dipendono sempre dal ruolo sociale e dalla forza del proletariato come classe. Solo gli operai possono condurre scioperi. Artigiani rovinati dalle fabbriche, coltivatori le cui acque sono avvelenate dalle fabbriche, o proletari rovinati in cerca di bottino, possono solo distruggere macchinari, incendiare fabbriche o uccidere i loro proprietari.

Solo la cosciente e organizzata classe operaia che manda una forte rappresentanza nelle aule del parlamento può vigilare sugli interessi proletari. Invece, per poter assassinare un eminente ufficiale non si ha bisogno d'aver dietro di sé masse organizzate. La ricetta per gli esplosivi è accessibile a tutti e una Browning la si può trovare ovunque. Nel primo caso c'è lotta sociale, i cui metodi e mezzi scaturiscono necessariamente dalla natura dell'ordine sociale prevalente, e nel secondo, una reazione puramente meccanica identica ovunque - in Cina come in Francia - assai vistosa nella sua forma esteriore (uccisione, esplosione e via dicendo) ma assolutamente innocua fintanto che il sistema sociale funziona.

Uno sciopero, anche di dimensione modesta, ha conseguenze sociali: rafforza l'auto-fiducia operaia, fa crescere i sindacati, e non raramente migliora anche la tecnologia produttiva. L'assassinio del proprietario di una fabbrica produce effetti di natura semplicemente poliziesca, o un cambiamento nella proprietà privo di ogni valore sociale. Se un attentato terroristico, persino uno "riuscito", getta o meno la classe dominante nella confusione, dipende dalle concrete circostanze politiche. In ogni caso la confusione può essere solo di vita breve, lo stato capitalista non si basa sui ministri e non può essere eliminato con essi. Le classi che esso serve troveranno sempre nuove persone; il meccanismo resta intatto e continua a funzionare.

Ma lo scompiglio introdotto nelle file delle masse operaie stesse da un attentato terroristico è assai più profondo. Se è sufficiente armare se stessi di pistola in modo da raggiungere il proprio obiettivo, a che serve lo sforzo della lotta di classe? Se un goccino di polvere da sparo ed un po' di iniziativa individuale sono sufficienti a sparare il nemico nella nuca, che bisogno c'è dell'organizzazione di classe? Se ha senso terrorizzare personaggi altolocati col boato di un'esplosione, dov'è il bisogno di un partito? Perché assemblee, agitazioni di massa ed elezioni se uno può così facilmente mirare al banco ministeriale dalla galleria del parlamento?

Ai nostri occhi il terrore individuale è inammissibile precisamente perché esso sminuisce il ruolo delle masse nella loro stessa coscienza, le riconcilia all'impotenza, e piega i loro sguardi e le loro speranze verso la ricerca di un grande vendicatore e liberatore che un giorno arriverà per compiere la sua missione. I profeti anarchici della 'propaganda dei fatti' possono discutere quanto vogliono a proposito dell'influenza elevatrice e stimolatrice degli atti terroristici sulle masse. Considerazioni teoriche ed esperienza politica dimostrano diversamente. Più 'efficace' l'atto terroristico, maggiore il suo impatto, maggiore è la riduzione d'interesse delle masse nella propria auto-organizzazione ed auto-educazione. Ma il fumo della confusione si dirada, il successore del ministro ucciso fa la sua apparizione, la vita si risistema nuovamente sulla sua vecchia carreggiata, le ruote dello sfruttamento capitalistico girano come prima; solo la repressione poliziesca cresce più selvaggia e sfrontata. E come risultato, in luogo delle ardenti speranze e dell'eccitazione artificialmente stimolata, arrivano la disillusione e l'apatia.

Gli sforzi della reazione per porre fine agli scioperi e ai movimenti operai di massa in generale sono sempre, ovunque, finiti per fallire. La società capitalistica ha bisogno di un proletariato attivo, mobile e intelligente; essa non può, quindi, legare le mani e i piedi del proletariato molto a lungo. D'altra parte, l'anarchica 'propaganda dei fatti' ha mostrato ogni volta che lo Stato è più ricco di mezzi di distruzione fisica e di repressione meccanica di quello che sono i gruppi terroristici.

Se è così, dove se ne va la rivoluzione? È essa resa impossibile da questo stato delle cose? Per niente, perché la rivoluzione non è un semplice aggregato di mezzi meccanici. La rivoluzione può levarsi solo dall'aggravarsi della lotta di classe, e può trovare una garanzia di vittoria solo nelle funzioni sociali del proletariato. Lo sciopero politico di massa, l'insurrezione armata, la conquista del potere statale - tutto ciò è determinato dal grado in cui la produzione si è sviluppata, dall'allineamento delle classi, dal peso sociale del proletariato ed, infine, dalla composizione sociale dell'esercito, poiché le forze armate sono un fattore che in tempo di rivoluzione determina il destino del potere statale.

La socialdemocrazia è abbastanza realistica da non tentare di evitare la rivoluzione che si sta sviluppando dalle esistenti condizioni storiche; al contrario, essa si sta muovendo incontro alla rivoluzione con occhi ben aperti. Ma - al contrario degli anarchici ed in diretto contrasto contro di essi - la socialdemocrazia rigetta tutti i metodi ed i mezzi che hanno come loro obiettivo quello di forzare artificialmente lo sviluppo della società e di sostituire preparati chimici all'insufficiente forza rivoluzionaria del proletariato.

Prima di elevarsi al livello di metodo di battaglia politica, il terrorismo fa la sua apparizione nella forma di atto di rivincita individuale. Così è stato in Russia, patria classica del terrorismo. La flagellazione di prigionieri politici costrinse Vera Zasulich a dar espressione al sentimento di indignazione generale per mezzo di un tentato omicidio nei confronti del generale Trepov. Il suo esempio è stato imitato dai circoli dell'intellighenzia rivoluzionaria, che mancava di qualsiasi supporto popolare. Ciò che cominciò come atto di sconsiderata vendetta, venne sviluppato in un intero sistema negli anni 1879-81. L'esplosione di assassini anarchici nell'Europa occidentale e nel Nord America è sempre scaturita da qualche atrocità commessa dal governo - spari sugli scioperanti o esecuzione di oppositori politici. La più importante fonte psicologica del terrorismo è sempre un sentimento di vendetta in cerca di sfogo.

Non c'è bisogno di battere ancora sul fatto che la socialdemocrazia non ha niente in comune con quei comprati-e-pagati-per-moralisti che, in risposta a qualsiasi atto terroristico, fanno solenni dichiarazioni riguardo "l'assoluto valore" della vita umana. Queste sono le stesse persone che, in altre occasioni, nel nome di altri assoluti valori - per esempio l'onore della nazione o il prestigio del monarca - sono pronti a spingere milioni di persone dentro l'inferno della guerra. Oggi il loro eroe nazionale è il ministro che concede il sacro diritto della proprietà privata; e domani, quando la mano disperata dell'operaio disoccupato sarà serrata in un pugno o raccoglie un'arma, essi diranno ogni sorta di insensatezza riguardo l'inammissibilità della violenza in ogni forma.

Qualsiasi cosa possano dire gli eunuchi e i farisei della moralità, il sentimento di vendetta ha i suoi diritti. Dà alla classe operaia il più grande credito morale il fatto che essa non guarda con ebete indifferenza a ciò che sta accadendo in questo migliore dei mondi possibili. Non estinguere l'insaziato sentimento di vendetta del proletariato, ma al contrario stimolarlo ancora di più, e dirigerlo contro le reali cause di tutte le ingiustizie e della bassezza umana - questo è il compito della socialdemocrazia.

Se noi ci opponiamo agli atti terroristici è solo perché la vendetta individuale non ci soddisfa. Il conto che noi dobbiamo sistemare con il sistema capitalista è troppo grande per poter essere presentato a qualche funzionario chiamato ministro. Imparare a vedere tutti i crimini contro l'umanità, tutte le umiliazioni alle quali il corpo e lo spirito umano sono soggetti, come gli sviluppi contorti e le espressioni del sistema sociale esistente, così da dirigere tutte le nostre energie in una battaglia collettiva contro questo sistema - questa è la direzione nella quale il bruciante desiderio di vendetta può trovare la sua più alta soddisfazione morale.

Novembre 1911

By Alan Woods

In Defence of Marxism

"Come il cane torna al suo vomito, così lo stolto ripete le sue stoltezze." (Proverbi, 26:11)

Dopo la pubblicazione del mio articolo sull'Iraq, Tamburi di guerra a Washington ovvero l'ultima battaglia di Bush, ho ricevuto una lettera dal Dr. Carlos Alzugaray Treto (Capo e Coordinatore del Dipartimento di Studi Internazionali e Strategici presso l'Istituto Superiore di Relazioni Internazionali del Ministero degli Affari Esteri) a L'Avana, il quale mi ha rivolto le seguenti osservazioni:



"Mi sembra tutto molto corretto. Sono d'accordo al 99%. Soltanto un chiarimento circa le ragioni che stanno dietro la guerra in Iraq: sono giunto alla conclusione che la classe dominante statunitense, nel suo complesso, ritiene che l'uso dimostrativo di una forza militare invincibile sia uno strumento altamente efficace in funzione del suo predominio mondiale. Per cercare di dimostrare a tutti i suoi nemici che, come dicono, "ogni resistenza è inutile".

Benché in ciascun caso siano esistite anche altre ragioni, di volta in volta (Granata 1983, Panama 1989, la Guerra del Golfo del 1991, Somalia e Kosovo 1999, Afghanistan 2001, Iraq 2003) Gli Usa hanno sempre colpito nemici deboli e facili da sconfiggere, così da poter dire a questi stessi avversari, e agli altri e a tutto il mondo: "gli Stati Uniti sono invincibili" (un po' come in Rambo e in altri film di Hollywood). Questo è il motivo per cui l'emorragia delle forze armate nordamericane in Iraq, che tu descrivi molto bene, è un problema così serio per l'intero sistema di predominio mondiale: mina la credibilità dell'effetto dimostrativo di una schiacciante vittoria militare, l'elemento chiave, secondo la classe dominante statunitense nel suo complesso.

Saluti da Cuba,

Carlos"

I commenti del Dr. Carlos Alzugaray Treto sono assolutamente benvenuti e possono aiutarci ad approfondire la nostra analisi sulla situazione mondiale in generale e sul ruolo degli USA.

È assolutamente corretto dire che l'imperialismo statunitense, specialmente dopo il crollo dell'URSS, si è posto come obiettivo quello di dominare il mondo intero e schiacciare ogni Paese che cerca di resistere. Il motto di Washington è "Fate come diciamo noi, o vi bombarderemo". "Fate come diciamo noi, o vi invaderemo". È vero anche che la questione del petrolio (che ovviamente è molto importante) non fu il fattore più importante dietro la decisione di Washington di invadere l'Iraq, piuttosto furono decisive considerazioni strategiche ben più ampie circa il Medio Oriente.

In ogni caso, lo scopo del mio articolo era precisamente dimostrare che gli USA si sono scottati le dita in Iraq. Lungi dal realizzare i propri obiettivi strategici, politici ed economici, sono incappati in un grave passo falso, come rileva il Dr. Carlos Alzugaray Treto. Lungi dal dimostrare il loro potere, hanno dimostrato i limiti del loro potere. I risultati di questo fallimento avranno enormi conseguenze.

Ad ogni modo, il punto principale del mio articolo era sottolineare come, dal punto di vista dell'imperialismo statunitense, è evidente che l'invasione dell'Iraq è stata un grave errore. L'idea (con cui mi sono trovato a confrontare qualche volta) che tutte le azioni degli imperialisti sono attentamente calcolate e seguono un piano intelligente, è scorretta. In ogni guerra l'importanza della leadership è un fattore cruciale. In politica come in guerra, le qualità personali dei leader possono giocare un ruolo considerevole.

Naturalmente, simili fattori rientrano nella categoria della casualità storica. Non possono certo influire sul risultato finale di ampi processi storici. Ma possono sicuramente influenzare determinati fenomeni, producendo complessi elementi di contro-tendenza, e ritardando o accelerando una certa linea di sviluppo. Se così non fosse, la storia sarebbe un affare estremamente semplice, e su cui sarebbe molto facile fare previsioni.

Il marxismo non nega quindi il ruolo dell'individuo nella storia, ma spiega che le azioni di singoli uomini e donne non sono semplicemente il risultato della loro libera volontà ma sono determinate dalle condizioni materiali esistenti che si sono formate indipendentemente dalla loro volontà e consapevolezza. Le azioni di un leader sono necessariamente limitate dal contesto dato. In una situazione oggettiva favorevole, gli errori di un leader possono non avere effetti seri e duraturi. In una fase simile, anche un leader mediocre può ottenere risultati brillanti a dispetto dei suoi limiti individuali. Ma in una congiuntura storica sfavorevole, anche un leader capace non ha molte scelte di fronte a lui, e le probabilità di un suo fallimento aumentano conseguentemente.

Il periodo storico attuale è quello della decadenza senile del capitalismo. L'imperialismo statunitense, il gendarme del capitalismo mondiale, si trova sotto assedio da ogni parte. Continuamente esplodono nuove guerre e il terrorismo si diffonde come un'epidemia incontrollabile. Gli USA, è vero, hanno enormi risorse economiche e militari. Ma anche queste risorse non sono infinite. Le guerre continue, e le enormi spese che queste implicano, stanno esaurendo il benessere e la forza degli Stati Uniti. In simili circostanze, un leader intelligente userebbe la minaccia di un intervento militare per imporre la volontà degli USA sugli altri Paesi. Ma è un principio elementare della diplomazia che l'effettivo utilizzo della forza militare deve sempre essere l'extrema ratio, non la prima scelta. Lo slogan del Corpo dei Marine esprime molto bene questo concetto: "Parla con gentilezza e porta con te un grosso bastone".

Il comportamento di Bush e della cricca neo-conservatrice capeggiata da Dick Cheney non è quella di un saggio statista, bensì tipica dei gangster, di bulli di periferia e volgari avventurieri. Questi soggetti immaginano che il potere degli USA li autorizzi a ficcare il naso ovunque e intervenire negli affari degli altri Paesi come un bulletto nel cortile di una scuola. Ma il potere dell'imperialismo statunitense ha un limite. Prendendo di mira l'Iraq e iniziando una guerra fondata sulla base di pretesti inventati, hanno messo in moto una catena di eventi che non avevano minimamente previsto, e sulla quale non hanno alcun controllo.

Allo stesso modo in cui un movimento rivoluzionario dipende, nei momenti cruciali, dalle qualità della sua leadership, così il risultato di una guerra, come quella in Iraq, può essere influenzato in modo decisivo dalla direzione politica e militare della borghesia. Bush ha gettato gli Stati Uniti in un'avventura militare in Iraq. Adesso la questione non è se, ma piuttosto quando saranno costretti ad andarsene. È vero che anche un leader previdente ed intelligente sarebbe in difficoltà nelle medesime condizioni. Ma l'attuale amministrazione di Washington è la più stupida, ignorante e miope da molti decenni a questa parte. Simili personaggi non capiscono niente, non prevedono niente e, di conseguenza, sono finiti nella confusione più totale. Gli imperialisti pagheranno un prezzo assai salato per la pochezza dei loro leader!

La coperta troppo corta degli USA su scala mondiale

Gli USA sono indubbiamente la maggiore superpotenza della storia, ma il ruolo che oggi occupano a livello mondiale li sta esponendo troppo. Come sottolineavo nel mio articolo precedente, gli Stati Uniti hanno ereditato il ruolo di gendarme mondiale dalla Gran Bretagna. Nel XIX secolo la Gran Bretagna ottenne un sacco di denaro dal saccheggio delle sue colonie, si era però in una fase storica diversa - quella dell'ascesa del capitalismo, quando la borghesia, nonostante la sua mostruosa natura sfruttatrice ed oppressiva, era ancora in grado di giocare un ruolo relativamente progressivo nello sviluppo delle forze produttive.

Il periodo in cui viviamo ora è invece completamente differente. È la fase della decadenza dell'imperialismo. L'incapacità del capitalismo di sviluppare le forze produttive come ha fatto in passato è il risultato della contraddizione centrale tra il colossale potenziale dell'industria, della scienza e della tecnologia, e gli angusti limiti imposti a questo potenziale dalla proprietà privata e dagli stati nazionali. Tutto questo si esprime nel fenomeno della globalizzazione, che non è che il tentativo di sfruttare al massimo il mercato mondiale, come previsto già da Marx ed Engels nelle pagine del Manifesto Comunista.

In ogni caso, l'avvento della globalizzazione non significa l'eliminazione delle contraddizioni del capitalismo, ma solo la loro riproduzione in scala assai maggiore che in passato. Lenin spiegò che il capitalismo significa guerra, ed il suo libro L'imperialismo, fase suprema del capitalismo è ancora il testo più moderno che si possa leggere riguardo la situazione mondiale attuale.

Nonostante la globalizzazione - o piuttosto a causa di essa - le tensioni tra le nazioni non sono diminuite bensì aumentate a livelli senza precedenti. Ovunque si guarda si vedono nuovi conflitti e guerre. Questa situazione impone una situazione di stress enorme per gli Stati Uniti, a dispetto delle loro grandi risorse. Esaminiamo per un attimo lo schieramento delle truppe statunitensi nel mondo. La suddivisione è grosso modo come segue:

almeno 150.000 soldati in Iraq (ed altri in arrivo)
18.000 in Afghanistan (e non sono sufficienti a controllare la situazione)
20.000 in Giappone
19.000 in Corea del Sud
53.000 in Europa (i Russi si chiedono a fare che)
2.000 in Bosnia e Kosovo (dove nulla è stato risolto)
1.800 nel Corno d'Africa.

E non dimentichiamoci dei circa 700 marines che ancora occupano una fetta del territorio cubano a Guantanamo.

La guerra in Afghanistan è ancora più impossibile da vincere di quella in Iraq. Diversi anni dopo aver proclamato la vittoria, gli Stati Uniti esercitano un precario controllo sulla sola città di Kabul, dove il loro burattino Karzai è tenuto in vita soltanto dalle sue guardie del corpo americane. Le truppe statunitensi e britanniche sono impantanate nella guerra nel Sud del Paese, dove Talebani ed altri conducono una lotta implacabile contro le forze d'occupazione.

Americani e britannici non sono stati in grado di pacificare l'Afghanistan. Il parlamento (loya jirga) è formato da signori della guerra, baroni della droga, gangster assortiti e simpatizzanti dei Talebani. Gli imperialisti scuotono la testa e si lamentano che non si aspettavano che i Talebani organizzassero una resistenza così determinata. Noi proprio non riusciamo a capire perché non se lo aspettassero, dal momento che l'intera storia di questo Paese mostra che la popolazione dell'Afghanistan non prende con filosofia le invasioni straniere. Sconfissero l'esercito britannico nel XIX secolo, ed anche l'Unione Sovietica, nonostante tutta la sua potenza militare, fu alla fine costretta a ritirarsi. In preda alla disperazione, gli USA invitano i loro "alleati" della NATO ad impegnarsi nella guerra nel Sud. Ma questi rispondono educatamente: "dopo di voi, signori!". Come risultato dell'intervento in Afghanistan, l'intera Asia centrale è stata destabilizzata ed anche il regime di Musharraf in Pakistan è appeso ad un filo.

In aggiunta agli impegni militari pubblicamente dichiarati, gli USA sono coinvolti anche in altre attività militari non dichiarate ufficialmente. È stato rivelato recentemente che gli USA impiegano circa 1.800 soldati nel Corno d'Africa, dove si può presumere che non siano andati solo per ammirare il paesaggio. I ribelli islamici in Somalia stavano vincendo una guerra civile contro un regime reazionario e corrotto di signori della guerra, spalleggiati da Washington. Gli USA sono chiaramente dietro l'intervento dell'esercito etiope, che è riuscito temporaneamente a sconfiggere i ribelli e ad imporre nuovamente a Mogadiscio il governo dei signori della guerra, favorevoli agli Stati Uniti. Ma dal momento che i somali non tollereranno a lungo la presenza dei soldati etiopi sulla loro terra, gli USA saranno costretti ad aumentare il loro coinvolgimento militare per evitare la vittoria dei ribelli. Chiunque controlli il Corno d'Africa, infatti, controlla l'ingresso nel Golfo Persico. Gli USA hanno costruito una grande base militare a Gibuti, ed è molto probabile che Washington si troverà risucchiata nel vortice di un nuovo conflitto nel Corno d'Africa.

Sconfitta in Iraq

Quattro anni dopo l'invasione dell'Iraq, tutti i piani di Bush sono andati in malora; con quasi 150.000 truppe, non riesce a sconfiggere gli insorti. Lo stato d'animo della popolazione è di schiacciante ostilità alle forze occupanti. Ciò è stato confermato recentemente da un sondaggio condotto dalla BBC e dall'ABC, dove viene evidenziato un crollo della fiducia nel futuro, un odio acceso verso le forze della coalizione e una completa mancanza di credito del governo Maliki. Nel quarto anniversario dell'invasione, sono notizie fosche per la Casa Bianca. Secondo lo stesso sondaggio d'opinione, la maggior parte degli iracheni adesso dice che stava meglio sotto Saddam Hussein. Addirittura l'uomo che era apparso in televisione mentre abbatteva la statua di Saddam ora dice che è pentito e che vorrebbe che la statua - e Saddam - tornassero!

Gli USA stanno cercando disperatamente di creare un esercito iracheno. Vogliono gettare delle fondamenta abbastanza solide che permettano all'esercito statunitense di ritirarsi, lasciando dietro di sé un governo-fantoccio ed un esercito ed una forza di polizia capaci di tenere la situazione sotto controllo. Ma come possono riuscirci? Hanno spaccato la società irachena lungo linee religiose e confessionali. Inizialmente hanno fatto concessioni agli sciiti, facendo infuriare i sunniti. Ora, sotto la pressione dei sauditi e spaventati dalla crescente influenza dell'Iran, stanno provando a spostare le loro simpatie verso i sunniti, corrompendo alcuni capi tribali. Questo a sua volta ha urtato gli sciiti.

Prima dell'invasione dell'Iraq, nel 2003, Bush, seguendo i consigli della banda neoconservatrice, partorì un'idea brillante secondo cui, siccome la maggioranza sciita dell'Iraq era stata oppressa sotto Saddam Hussein, gli sciiti avrebbero fornito una solida base d'appoggio per gli americani. Elementi più pensanti nei circoli dell'intelligence avvertirono dei legami tra i leader sciiti iracheni e l'Iran. Questi avvertimenti, tuttavia, rimasero inascoltati. Ora, improvvisamente, la Casa Bianca ha aperto gli occhi sul fatto che è l'Iran, e non gli USA, ad aver creato una solida base dentro l'Iraq ed a godere di un'influenza crescente sulla popolazione sciita.

L'amministrazione Bush sta esercitando una forte pressione sul Primo Ministro Maliki per obbligarlo a cooperare con l'esercito degli Stati Uniti nella soppressione delle milizie sciite, come l'Esercito del Mahdi di Moqtada Al-Sadr. Però, se Maliki soddisfacesse queste richieste, riuscirebbe soltanto a firmare la propria condanna a morte - politicamente e forse fisicamente. Visto l'attuale sanguinoso caos in cui versa l'Iraq, che è interamente responsabilità degli americani, la massa degli iracheni, sunniti o sciiti, non vedono alternativa al sostenere le milizie che perlomeno forniscono loro una qualche forma di protezione e spesso sono l'unica fonte di sostentamento per le necessità elementari di sopravvivenza. Gli americani sono odiati; il governo è sempre più impopolare e visto come collaborazionista: attaccando le milizie perderebbe rapidamente anche la sottile base d'appoggio di cui ancora gode.

L'Iraq non è sull'orlo di una guerra civile. C'è già una guerra civile in Iraq. Come altro si possono descrivere i massacri quotidiani, la costante pulizia etnico-confessionale? Il dislocamento di grandi numeri di persone che ha luogo in Iraq può condurre alla secessione. Si potrebbe finire con la divisione del Paese in tre parti, con aree sunnite, aree sciite e aree curde. La stessa Baghdad potrebbe essere divisa in aree sunnite e sciite. Questo sarebbe uno scenario da incubo, come quello della divisione dell'India nel 1947 e ci si arriverebbe attraverso massacri e bagni di sangue terribili.

Con le loro azioni gli imperialisti Usa hanno destabilizzato l'intero Medio Oriente. Una volta la Giordania era relativamente stabile, ora non lo è più. Se Bush avrà via libera, lo stesso caos e gli stessi conflitti interni che vediamo oggi in Iraq si estenderanno al Libano e alla Siria, con conflitti tra sunniti, alauiti, cristiani maroniti, drusi e sciiti. Una simile follia settaria, una volta scatenata, sarebbe difficile da fermare. Può diffondersi non solo alla Giordania ma anche all'Egitto, all'Arabia Saudita e ai Paesi del Nord Africa. Significherebbe nuova instabilità e nuove guerre.

Bush prende un'altra cantonata

Una certa dose di flessibilità è necessaria in tutte le guerre. La tattica deve cambiare col cambiare delle circostanze. Un generale che sia inflessibile, che elabori un piano di battaglia e lo segua pedissequamente porterà il suo esercito ad una sicura sconfitta. Bush si è comportato proprio così in Iraq. C'è un vecchio adagio secondo cui un popolo ottiene i capi che si merita: posta in questi ternini, questa affermazione non è corretta, ma è giusto dire che la classe dominante USA ha certamente avuto i capi che si merita. La borghesia americana era inizialmente entusiasta di Bush, ma ora tutto è cambiato: hanno perso ogni fiducia nell'inquilino della Sala Ovale. Soprattutto, hanno perso ogni fiducia nella sua capacità di vincere la guerra in Iraq. È perciò che hanno messo in piedi l'Iraq Study Group, in un tentativo disperato di spingere il presidente in un'altra direzione. Invano! Se n'è semplicemente infischiato.

Bush ha deciso di inviare altri 21.000 soldati. Questa però non è una "irresistibile forza militare" ma una barzelletta, pure di cattivo gusto. Non servirà a niente per cambiare la situazione militare, in compenso porterà a nuove perdite statunitensi. Qualunque cosa facciano adesso, sarà sbagliata.

The Economist (13 marzo 2007) ha commentato acidamente:

«La nuova politica estera di Bush può essere probabilmente spiegata meglio come una reazione agli eventi. Quello che ha provato a fare prima in Iraq non ha funzionato, così ora prova qualcosa di nuovo. Deve anche gestire un Congresso democratico che, se ignorato, potrebbe legargli le mani. Alcuni democratici vogliono tagliare i finanziamenti alla guerra. Altri preferiscono stare in disparte e lasciare che Mr Bush si prenda tutta la colpa. John Murtha, uno stretto alleato del presidente della Camera Nancy Pelosi, ha rivelato in maniera poco accorta un progetto per porre gradualmente così tante restrizioni sull'invio delle truppe da rendere la guerra impossibile da vincere. Il suo partito ha preso le distanze da una tattica simile, che avrebbe fomentato la rabbia dell'elettorato patriottico, ma allo stesso tempo deve ancora stabilire quale sia l'alternativa. Nel frattempo, la (sottilissima) maggioranza democratica al Senato sta ancora pensando se revocare l'autorizzazione alla guerra all'Iraq che votò nel 2002. Dialogare con gli iraniani potrebbe essere inteso come un modo indolore per rendere più malleabile il Congresso - ma non scommettete che funzioni.»

E prosegue:

«Michael Rubin, un analista all'American Enterprise Institute, un "pensatoio" dei falchi, pensa che il cambiamento sia piccolo nella sostanza ma simbolicamente importante. Vede due pericoli. Primo, i diplomatici iraniani potrebbero fare una promessa che un'altra parte del regime iraniano potrebbe rompere, rendendo impossibili ulteriori incontri diplomatici bilaterali. Secondo, pensa che l'Iran abbia un "pericoloso eccesso di fiducia". I leader a Teheran, pochi dei quali hanno il polso della politica americana, potrebbero fraintendere l'attuale retorica anti-guerra nel Congresso come un segno che l'America sia ora troppo debole politicamente per frustrare le ambizioni regionali dell'Iran. Questo potrebbe indurli ad errori di calcolo e a provocare uno scontro militare. "Il rischio di un conflitto con l'Iran non è mai stato così alto", sostiene.»

Spaccature nella classe dominante

L'amministrazione Bush è impegnata fervidamente ad intensificare la sua avventura militare in Iraq e a diffondere il caos e l'instabilità in tutto il Medio Oriente. Secondo notizie recenti, è coinvolta in operazioni clandestine, insieme all'Arabia Saudita e ad Israele, per minare la stabilità dell'Iran e della Siria. Queste attività sono condotte in segreto e non vengono riportate al Congresso.

Le azioni di Bush e di Cheney ricordano quelle di un altro avventuriero, Richard Nixon, che portò avanti una guerra segreta in Cambogia all'insaputa del Congresso e del popolo americano. I loro accordi con dubbi mediatori - inclusi estremisti sunniti in Libano con collegamenti con Al-Qaeda - rammentano anche uno scandalo più recente. Vent'anni fa l'amministrazione Reagan vendette armi all'Iran allo scopo di finanziare illegalmente i Contras nicaraguensi in quello che divenne noto come lo scandalo Iran-Contra. Sebbene quel piano venne alla fine svelato, fu condotto piuttosto efficacemente dietro le spalle del Congresso. Denaro saudita giocava un ruolo in quello scandalo ed è del tutto possibile che la storia oggi si stia ripetendo. Secondo alcune fonti, Negroponte si è dimesso dal posto di direttore della CIA in parte perché non voleva ripetere l'esperienza avuta con l'amministrazione Reagan.

Un recente articolo su The New Yorker (5 marzo) cita un consulente del Pentagono che dice che c'è stata qualche difficoltà nel rendicontare i fondi segreti: "Ci sono molti, molti depositi di denaro sporco, sparpagliati in vari luoghi e usati in tutto il mondo per finanziare una varietà di missioni", ha detto. Secondo queste fonti, il caos finanziario in Iraq, dove non vengono messi a bilancio miliardi di dollari, l'ha reso un veicolo per transazioni di questo genere.

La CIA è impegnata in attività segrete in tutto il mondo, non solo in Medio Oriente. Lavorano sistematicamente alla destabilizzazione e al rovesciamento di governi che considerano avversi agli interessi degli Stati Uniti - cioè, all'imperialismo USA e ai grandi monopoli che gli stanno dietro. Ciò include operazioni segrete per assassinare Hugo Chávez, il presidente democraticamente eletto del Venezuela, e per rovesciare la rivoluzione cubana sotto la falsa bandiera della "democrazia".

Normalmente la classe dominante americana è piuttosto disponibile a chiudere un occhio di fronte a queste faccende. Occasionalmente, però, quando una particolare amministrazione va troppo in là e mette gli interessi dell'imperialismo USA in pericolo attraverso avventure all'estero, l'establishment statunitense interviene a tarparle le ali, o, come con Nixon, la rimuove dal potere. Ci sono alcuni segnali che mostrano come l'establishment stia diventando sempre più preoccupato a proposito dell'amministrazione Bush e si stia muovendo per limitare i danni che crea.

Oltre all'effetto che ha sulla psicologia delle truppe in Iraq e della gente negli USA, la guerra sta anche ponendo seriamente sotto sforzo le risorse economiche dell'America, che sono enormi ma non illimitate. Inizialmente si supponeva che il costo della guerra all'Iraq sarebbe stato di 60 miliardi di dollari. Tuttavia, finora il conto ammonta a 350 miliardi di dollari. La guerra sta costando all'America 2 miliardi di dollari alla settimana e nessuno sa quale sarà il costo finale. Una stima lo pone all'altezza di 2mila miliardi di dollari. Ciò avra serie conseguenze per l'economia statunitense, che sta già rallentando ed è minacciata da una recessione. Mentre spende quantità di denaro sempre maggiori in armi e per la sicurezza interna, il Presidente sta pretendendo profondi tagli nella spesa sociale per l'assistenza sanitaria e le pensioni. Questa variante della politica di Göring dei "cannoni invece del burro" mette i repubblicani a rischio di annichilimento alle prossime elezioni.

Le cose quindi stanno cominciando a muoversi nel Campidoglio. La Commissione Senatoriale sui servizi segreti, guidato dal senatore Jay Rockefeller, ha organizzato di recente un'audizione sulle attività di spionaggio del Dipartimento della Difesa. Il senatore Ron Wyden, dell'Oregon, un democratico che è membro della Commissione sull'Intelligence, ha detto al giornalista Hersh: "L'amministrazione Bush ha mancato spesso di rispettare l'obbligo legale a tenere pienamente e costantemente informata la Commissione sull'Intelligence. Più e più volte, la risposta è stata «Fidatevi di noi»". Wyden ha detto: "Mi è difficile fidarmi del governo".

Queste parole riflettono fedelmente l'atteggiamento di un settore crescente della classe dominante statunitense. Ora si sta aprendo una chiara divisione all'interno della classe dominante, ma Lenin ha spiegato molto tempo fa che le spaccature ai vertici sono i sintomi dello sviluppo di una crisi rivoluzionaria. È vero che gli USA sono ancora ben lontani da tale situazione, ma, seppur nei loro tratti generali possiamo già riconoscere alcuni i che vanno nella direzione di una profonda crisi sociale e politica. La classe dominante è già divisa e in crisi sulla guerra in Iraq e questo sta influenzando l'ambiente generale esistente nella società.

La guerra, lo scoppio della bolla nei prezzi immobiliari, la prospettiva di una recessione, L'attacco al sistema pensionistico e all'assistenza sanitaria per gli anziani, tutto questo sta creando un clima di incertezza sul futuro, nel ceto medio così come nella classe lavoratrice, che davvero non ha precedenti nella storia degli Stati Uniti dalla Seconda Guerra Mondiale. Il prossimo sarà un periodo tempestoso e pieno di tensione su scala mondiale, che scuoterà gli USA dalle fondamenta. Assisteremo ad uno shock dietro l'altro. In questo processo la psicologia delle masse verrà trasformata ed avvenimenti esplosivi saranno all'ordine del giorno.

21 marzo 2007

By Heather Boushey, The American Prospect
Posted on March 21, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/49540/

This article is reprinted from the American Prospect (http://prospect.org/).

Family is the center of everyday American life. Our parents are our first protectors, first teachers, first role models, and first friends. Parents know that America's great reward is the quiet but incomparable satisfaction that comes from building their families a better life. Strong families, blessed with opportunity, guided by faith, and filled with dreams are the heart of a strong America. -- 2004 Democratic platform

Americans are said to be deeply concerned about family values. One of those values, surely, is the need to reconcile the ability to be a responsible parent, a loving partner in a relationship, and a successful worker. What is the economy for, if not to enable families to live and thrive? We work to live, not live to work.

Yet, despite the symbolic genuflecting to values, these issues have been appallingly absent from the political conversation. While the right has won the rhetoric wars by emphasizing the traditional values, liberals in electoral politics have not seriously address paid leave, or child care, or the other policy challenges that might make it less arduous to reconcile work and family. The Democrats' 2004 presidential platform vacuously talked about "valuing parenting," but nowhere did it say that parents have the right to time off when their children are ill, a right guaranteed by every nearly every other democracy.

Compared to a generation ago, families have lost 539 hours per year to the U.S. economy -- 13.5 weeks of full-time work. Where did the hours go? Intuitively, we all know the answer: Mom got a job (see figure on next page). But while families put in more hours at work than their parents did, their inflation-adjusted incomes are only a tad higher (see figure on next page). And, when you adjust for the additional hours worked, median living standards are actually lower. Because Mom works, families have been able to keep their incomes from falling -- but, this doesn't mean that the economy is working for families.

Families are angry, frustrated, and confused about this time grab. According to the Families and Work Institute in New York, two-thirds of parents say that they don't have enough time with their children and nearly two-thirds of married workers say that they don't have enough time with their spouse. Nearly half of all employees with families report conflicts between their job and their family lives, more so than a generation ago.

With some political leadership, this anger could translate into profound policy changes.

Where's Mom?

When we measure the economy by how well it works for families, we see that the most important trend affecting family well-being has been the movement of mothers out of the home and into the workplace. With each uptick of women's labor force participation, families lost another unpaid domestic worker who cooked, cleaned, and cared for her family. Back in the Ozzie and Harriet days, Mom was at home (where she worked for free). She made a home-cooked dinner most every night. She helped Uncle Joe when he came home from the hospital. She kept an eye on the children -- hers and the neighbors' -- and she felt that her neighborhood was safe since every other mother on the block was doing the same thing.

What's remarkable, however, is that even though mothers work more today, they also spend more time parenting. Time diaries show that over the past decade and a half, mothers spent an average of four more hours per week at a paid job and five more hours parenting. Mothers now spend less time on housework, yet they have less time for themselves. This underscores how important family is to us. It also underscores that mothers may feel guilt about being at work rather than at home and that they are doing all they can to make up for the stolen time.

Fathers also are spending more time with their children. By 2000, fathers spent two more hours per week at their job and four more hours parenting than they did in 1985. [See Scott Coltrane, "What About Fathers?"] But, fathers are not doing more chores around the house. At first, when mothers moved into employment, men did more household chores, but during the 1990s, men stopped helping around the house as much. By the end of the 1990s, men's hours of housework had fallen below their 1970 level.

For today's families, it is a luxury to cook a meal together or stay home with the children, rather than work. Nearly one-third of all U.S. children are being raised by a single parent, who most likely works. Even in married-couple families with children, two-thirds have both the husband and wife working. In more than half, the wife works full time.

The new family economics requires that families pay for care, rather than have Mom do it for free. Today, if Harriet were from a low-to-moderate income family and went to work, she would pay upwards of a fifth of her total family income on child care. (And, more than likely, that care is not excellent or even good.) Now, when Uncle Joe needs help getting dressed and going shopping, Ozzie and Harriet have to kick in for a home-health aide.

"Caring services" are expensive because they are fairly immune to cost-cutting strategies. Unless technology can put eyes on the back of the head of the day-care worker, she can't watch more than a few children at a time. Yet only the very richest families can afford to pay a living wage for caring services. We must look to alternative financing. Government funds our public schools and subsidizes public colleges and universities, yet we spend less than one-half of 1 percent of our federal budget on child care.

Why Does Mom Work?

Mothers work because they can and also because they have to. The feminist revolution opened up job opportunities and the Pill allowed women to choose when to have a family. But, for most families, if Mom's at work, it's because she has to be. Who can raise a family on just one income? How can a single mother even contemplate not working now that we've closed the welfare offices?

When they grow up, most girls expect to hold a job and most boys expect their wives will work. As a result, girls are increasingly investing in their own "human capital." Women now outnumber men on college campuses. And women must expect to make use of those college degrees by getting a job after graduation or they wouldn't be taking out so many loans.

Once a girl grows up and gets a job, her earnings will play a critical role in her family's well-being. Married Moms generally still do not earn as much as Dad (although one-third of wives do earn more than their husbands), but they bring home, on average, more than a third of the family's income. Because Mom works, the family is most likely in (or at least close to) the middle class. And the higher the family income, the more likely it is that Mom has a job and works full time. In recent decades, the families that were upwardly mobile were those who had a working wife.

Low-income, single mothers have no choice but to work, if they want to feed their families. A decade ago, welfare reform challenged low-income single mothers to find jobs. Over the next few years, the employment rate of single mothers rose from 71 percent in 1991 to 82 percent in 2000. Now, not only are single mothers as likely to work as married mothers, but they also usually work more hours. Even so, the typical, unmarried mother teeters on the edge of poverty.

Working is not just about the present, but about securing an economic future. Dropping out of employment -- even for just a year or two -- has a long-term effect on women's wages. For every two years out of the labor force, a woman's earnings fall by about 10 percent and this "mommy penalty" does not go away once the kids are grown. Earnings are lower for the rest of a woman's working life. Most mothers also know that taking time off now may make it impossible for them to support themselves in the future if they get divorced or their husband loses his job.

Work/Life Imbalances

Even though most workers have someone in their life who needs care, very few jobs make it easy to balance work with family needs. Most likely, Mom works in an office, or a store, school, or hospital. If she's a professional, she probably has access to some family-friendly perks, like health insurance, paid leave, and some flexibility. However, she still faces a labor market where she'll earn less than her male colleagues and have less upward mobility.

Most mothers, however, are not professionals. Regular working mothers typically have little or no control over their weekly schedules. In many service-sector jobs, schedules are posted only a few days in advance, and mandatory overtime is common, as are hours outside the typical 9-to-5. These scheduling issues can make finding -- and keeping -- quality child care nearly impossible.

Many families, especially lower-income families, resort to "tag-team" parenting, where one spouse watches the children while the other one works. This can save on child-care costs, but it's hard on marriages. This is where economic reality meets family values. Progressives could take back the "family values" mantel if they focused on fixing the ways that jobs make it difficult (or impossible) for people to be members of families.

Recent news stories have claimed that the battle for work/life balance is over, and that life won. They say women are opting out of employment, and the evidence they point to is that the share of women working fell after 2000. But this drop in employment was actually caused by a recession. Now that employment rates are rising again (the 2001 recession having been harder on women than other recent recessions), women -- and mothers -- are returning to work. Opt out over.

In reality, work, not life, has been winning the work/life battle.

For life to win, we need policies that directly challenge employers to work with their employees to provide them with usable flexibility. This doesn't have to be costly, but it does require that employers give up some control over the workday. But, life also requires work and we need government programs that provide safe, affordable, and high-quality care for children, the ill, and the elderly while we're all toiling away. The truth is that Harriet and her ilk spoiled us terribly. They gave us something nearly priceless for free. Now that most women work, we need to pay for care and it is expensive. However, the costs of not paying for it are certainly far higher. [See Janet Gornick's "Atlantic Passages" for more how other countries do this.]

It's the Family Economy, Stupid

The 2006 elections showed that voters are concerned about economic security. But economic security doesn't just mean that voters want to see strong job growth and reliable health insurance; it also means that your own economic situation is secure and is not tearing your family apart.

To take back the values issue, we need to begin at home. See who's minding the children, caring for the family. See that most parents work. See that most working parents don't have the right to take a sick day when children get the flu. See that most working parents don't have the right to alter their schedule to pick up the children on time after school, or even attend a soccer game.

Americans are waiting for economic policies that recognize that workers have families -- policies that require employers to work with their employees to let life win. Candidates in 2008 take note: All voters -- regardless of how industrialized or de-industrialized their precinct -- are a part of some form of family. Get a few more of these "family values" voters to turnout, and you're well on your way to durable legislative majorities. Tell them how you will pay attention to work/life issues and tame our economy to make it work for us, so life wins.

This article is available on The American Prospect website. © 2007 by The American Prospect, Inc.

Heather Boushey is a senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and coauthor of The State of Working America 2002-2003 and Hardships in America: The Real Story of Working Families. © 2007 by The American Prospect, Inc.

© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/49540/

By , Democracy Now!
Posted on March 21, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/49550/

Professor, culture critic, and social justice advocate Cornel West addressed a panel at the 2007 Left Forum in New York last weekend. West is a professor of religion and African-American studies at Princeton University and has been described as one of America's most vital and eloquent public intellectuals. He has written and co-authored numerous books on philosophy, race and sociology. His most recent book is "Democracy Matters: Winning the Fight Against Imperialism."

Below is a transcript of his speech. The video is HERE: http://alternet.org/blogs/peek/49563/.

CORNEL WEST: What does it really mean to be a leftist in the early part of the 21st century? What are we really talking about? And I can just be very candid with you. It means to have a certain kind of temperament, to make certain kinds of political and ethical choices, and to exercise certain analytical focuses in targeting on the catastrophic and the monstrous, the scandalous, the traumatic, that are often hidden and concealed in the deodorized and manicured discourses of the mainstream. That's what it means to be a leftist. So let's just be clear about it.

So that if you are concerned about structural violence, if you're concerned about exploitation at the workplace, if you're concerned about institutionalized contempt against gay brothers and lesbian sisters, if you're concerned about organized hatred against peoples of color, if you're concerned about a subordination of women, that's not cheap PC chitchat; that is a calling that you're willing to fight against and try to understand the sources of that social misery at the structural and institutional level and at the existential and the personal level. That's what it means, in part, to be a leftist.

That's why we choose to be certain kinds of human beings. That's why it's a calling, not a career. It's a vocation, not a profession. That's why you see these veterans still here year after year after year, because they are convinced they don't want to live in a world and they don't want to be human in such a way that they don't exercise their intellectual and political and social and cultural resources in some way to leave the world just a little better than it was when they entered. That's, in part, what it means to be a leftist.

Now, what does that mean for me? It means for me in the United States -- and I go back now the 400 years to Jamestown. You all know this is the 400th anniversary of the first enduring English settlement in the new world. It was Roanoke before, but it didn't last. Jamestown last, right? And what do you have at Jamestown? The Virginia Club of London, an extension of the British Empire, makes its way over, the three boats whose names we need not go into at the moment. And what did they do? They interact with another empire, the Powhatan Empire, that's already in place, of indigenous peoples. You actually get the clash of empire. This is the age of empire.

But what are they here for? Looking for gold and silver and, secondarily, to civilize the natives. So already you get America as a corporation, before it's a country. Corporate greed is already sitting at the center in terms of what is pushing it. And corporate greed, as Marx understood it, capital as a social relation, an asymmetrical relation of power, with bosses and workers, with those at the top who will be able to live lives of luxury and those whose labor will be both indispensable, necessary, but also exploited in order to produce that wealth.

Then there's religion, to "civilize" the indigenous people. Now, you can't talk about the US experience -- and I think in many ways this is true for the new world experience -- without talking about the dominant role of religion as an ideology. And we also know one of the reasons why vast numbers of our fellow citizens today in the United States, one of the reasons why they're not leftists, is precisely because they have not been awakened from their sleepwalking. They have not been convinced that they ought to choose to live a life the way we have chosen, in part because we've been cast with the mark of the anti-religious or the naively secular, or what have you.

And that's 98 percent of fellow citizens. So no matter what kind of political organization Brother Stanley is talking about, he's going to get Gramscian about it. He's got to dip into the popular culture of the everyday people, and 98 percent them are talking about God. That's 97.5 percent of fellow Americans believe in God. Seventy-five percent believe Jesus Christ is the son of God. Sixty-two percent believe they speak on intimate terms with God at least twice a day. That's who we're dealing with in terms of our fellow citizens. You can't talk about organization that's sustained over time, unless you're talking in Gramscian terms of how do you tease out leftist sentiment, vision, analysis, in light of the legacy of these dominant ideologies -- Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, and so forth and so on.

But then, what else happens? In 1619, you've got white slaves and you've got black slaves. You have the first representative assembly that takes place as modeled on the corporation, but it is attempt at democratic elections, the first representative assembly. They gathered July 30, 1619. They cancelled August 4, because it got too hot. And thirteen days later, here comes the boat with the first Africans. And at that time, slavery was not racialized. You had white slaves and you had black slaves.

But the white slaves, you look on the register, 1621, they had names like James Stewart and Charles McGregor. But you look on the right side and you see negro, negro, negro, negro. So even before slavery became a perpetual and inheritable structure of domination that would exploit the labor of Africans and devalue their sense of who they were and view their bodies as an abomination, you already had the black problematic of namelessness. White supremacy was already setting in as another dominant ideology to ensure that these working people do not come together.

And corporate greed would run amok in the midst of that kind of deep and profound division, which is not just a political division. It's a creation of different worlds, so that the de facto white supremacist segregation that would be part and parcel of the formation of the American Empire would constitute very different worlds and constitute a major challenge to what it means to be a leftist in America from 1776 up until 1963, given the overthrow of American apartheid, which took place in the '60s. And then, we now wrestle with the legacy, with the triumph of the Black Freedom Movement and all of the white and black -- I mean, the white and brown and yellow and Asian comrades who were part and parcel of that Black Freedom Movement that broke the back of American apartheid in the '60s.

What am I saying? I'm saying, in part, that at least for me to be a leftist these days, in the way in which -- and I take very seriously Antonio Gramsci's concern about the historical specificity of the emergeous sustenance and development and subsequent define of the American Empire. And when you actually look closely at that empire, it seems to me what we have to come to terms with is the fundamental role of corporate greed, religious ideologies, white supremacy, the fundamental rule of the popular culture, youth, and acknowledge that anytime you're talking about white supremacy, you're always already in some ways talking about the treatment of black women. And if you're concerned about the treatment of black women, you ought to be concerned about the treatment of women across the board. So the vicious ideologies, the patriarchy, come in. And the same thing would be true for the James Baldwins and the Audre Lordes, the gay brothers and the lesbian sisters.

Now, where does that leave us? Well, for me -- and you all know about the Covenant movement of Tavis Smiley, the book that was launched last year, went number one in the New York Times. We sold 400,000 copies within nine months, not reviewed by the New York Times, not touched by the Today Show. Even Oprah wouldn't breathe on it. And she can breathe on books and sell half a million these days, you know that? We just ask Sidney Poitier and Brother Elie Wiesel for that. But this book went underground.

Why? Because Tavis Smiley knows that in an American culture that is so thoroughly commodified, driven by corporate greed, thoroughly commercialized, driven by corporate greed, thoroughly marketized, driven by corporate greed, you have to be able to communicate in such a way that you might be able then to shake people from their sleepwalking, which he's done every year now on C-SPAN, and uses his position in order to raise issues of right to health care, community-based policing so you can deal with some of this police brutality, especially in black and brown communities of proletarian and lumpen-proletarian character, and so forth.

You look in the New York Times last Sunday: volume two was number seven. One hundred fifty thousand copies sold in three weeks. Three weeks. We just got off a 21-city tour. We did a 22-city tour last year. The book, not reviewed at all. Mainstream television won't touch it.

What is going on? Is the Ice Age beginning to melt? Is it the case that the thirty-five years that Brother Stanley talked about, the Ice Age, the historical period where it's fashionable to be indifferent to other people's suffering -- indifference is the very trait that makes the very angels weep, to be callus toward catastrophe. And it's true, New Orleans was catastrophic before Katrina hit. Flint, New Orleans without Katrina. We can look at places in Brooklyn, Harlem, South Side of Chicago, barrios in East Los Angeles, white brothers and sisters in Kentucky, Appalachia, wrestling with catastrophic situations. Catastrophic situations.

Meaning what? Meaning that maybe we're at a moment now where there's going to be multiple strategies going on. It's clear that the Democratic Party remains clueless, visionless and spineless for the most part. Does that mean you give up on them? No, doesn't mean you give up on them, but you have to be honest with them. But it does allow one to, in some way -- and this is what I think Brother Rick Wolff was talking about in terms of the desegregation of the right wing consensus, the unbelievable ways in which now rightwing fellow citizens are at each other's throats. The evangelical right wing can't stand the free marketeers, can't stand the balanced-budgeters. That's fine. Let them fight. Let them fight. Let them go at each other. They're weakened in that way.

But what kind of alternative do have we? I don't have an answer to that. I don't think that the left has enough resources, has enough people to constitute a strong political organization, Stanley. We can argue over that. We just had drinks for two hours, so we've already had some discussion. I think that by raising the issue, it forces us to come to terms with who we really are. That's what I like. That's Socratic. That's provocative.

Now, what we do with it, I don't know. I really don't. And the reason why I say that is because historically for me, you know, most of the kind of leftist movements tended to actually respond to reformist activity in which the struggle against white supremacy was a major catalyst. And so, when I think of all the work that I'm doing right now, especially in black America, but always, of course, tied to an instant coalition, leftist identity is not going to be the major means by which you get at people to wake up and come to terms with their social misery, be willing to stand up courageously, articulate vision, and most importantly, have a slice of people who are willing to live and die for a cause, you see, because they have other stories and other narratives that they use to do that.

So I would even argue, in some way, that Martin King and Fannie Lou Hamer were much more important than the Black Panther Party. They were actually building on what Martin and the others built, as much as I love Huey and Bobby Seale. They took it further. But the door was opened by these reformist activities. And what I would love to see is the radical reformism once more become fashionable among young people, and then allow the leftists to come in and do our thing. That's what I'm looking for. I'd better stop now. Thank you for having me.


© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/49550/

By Barbara Ehrenreich, AlterNet. Posted March 12, 2007.

George Orwell's "1984" is already here and it's called the American workplace, but finally there's a law in the works that might make jobs livable.


With the Employee Free Choice Act heading toward a Senate vote, conservative columnist George F. Will has suddenly developed a tender concern for workers' rights. The act "strips all workers of privacy," he fumed in the Washington Post last week, and will repeal "a right -to secret ballots -- long considered fundamental to a democratic culture ..." As Will sees it, the unions are backing the act out of sheer desperation: Since they can't seem to win a fair fight for workers' allegiance, they want government to take away the workers' rights and help herd them into union membership.

OK, now let's leave Will-land and enter an actual American workplace. Are you punched in? Good. The first thing to notice is that you've checked your basic civil rights at the door. Freedom of speech? Forget about it: Some employers bar speech of any kind with your fellow employees. I saw this firsthand at a chain restaurant and a Wal-Mart store. Wanna work? Zip your lips.

How about those privacy rights that Will so concerned about? Nada -- they don't exist outside of Will-land either. You probably had to pee in a cup to get your job in the first place, which constitutes a very intimate chemical invasion of privacy. In most states, your purse or backpack can be searched by the employer at any time; your emails and web activity can be monitored.

Right of assembly? Sorry, you don't have that either. In my experience, most managers see a group of three or more employees talking together as an insurrection in the making. Shut up and get back to work!

The Employee Free Choice Act would require employers to recognize a union whenever a majority of workers sign union cards - thus bypassing the often prolonged and creaky process of an NLRB-supervised secret ballot election. The longer the delay before the election, the more time management has to intimidate, isolate, and harass the union's supporters.

Here's how they do it: Workers are called away from their jobs and required to attend management-run meetings where they are subjected to anti-union harangues and videos. Note: Not only do workers lack freedom of assembly, they lack the freedom to not assemble. If management announces a 2 PM meeting, you better be there. These are called "captive audience meetings" for a reason.

At the meetings, which may take place daily in the weeks leading up to an NLRB election, management lays out a dire picture of what will happen if the union comes in: Workers will lose the right to talk to managers individually (not true); they will see their wages and benefits decline (emphatically not true); they will be stuck paying exorbitant dues (hardly); the company may have to move to Mexico ... Sorry, no questions or comments from the audience.

Most pro-union workers can withstand the company's mass captive audiences. Harder to resist are the one-on-one and small group meetings, where individual workers are grilled about their union allegiance for as many hours as it takes. During one union drive among truck drivers, management confronted workers one by one about personal issues like their credit ratings and family responsibilities. A lot of them finally broke down, and the union drive was defeated.

There's nothing wrong with management voicing its view on unions -- say, in a flyer to workers -- and certainly nothing wrong with secret ballots. The problem lies in the abuse of management power in the period between the initial union card signing and the NLRB-sponsored secret ballot election. If workers are willing to sign a union card-- which is a courageous step all by itself -- that should be enough to signify their choice.

Will calls the Employee Free Choice Act "Orwellian." But Orwell's fascist "1984" is already here and it's called the American workplace. What really scares employers about the Employee Free Choice Act is that it will begin to change that -- and bring the first stirrings of democracy to work.


Barbara Ehrenreich is the author of 13 books, most recently "Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream."

By Amy Goodman, Democracy Now!. AlterNet. Posted March 12, 2007.


In this interview, the author of a devastating biography of Donald Rumsfeld covers how the former defense secretary was loathed by the first Bush president and how Rummy layed the groundwork for torture in Gitmo and Iraq.


The public scrutiny of Rumsfeld culminated in his resignation last year after the Republicans lost control of Congress. Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy, a new book by investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn goes behind the scenes to reveal never-before told stories about Donald Rumsfeld. Relying on sources that include high-ranking officials in the Pentagon and the White House, it chronicles Rumsfeld's early career as an Illinois congressman to his rise in the Nixon White House. From his tenure as CEO of pharmaceutical company G. D. Searle to his decisions as Defense Secretary in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Amy Goodman: We turn now to a new book by investigative journalist Andrew Cockburn, which goes behind the scenes to reveal never-before-told stories about Donald Rumsfeld, relying on sources that include high-ranking officials in the Pentagon and White House. It chronicles Rumsfeld's early career as an Illinois Congress member to his rise in the Nixon White House. From his tenure as CEO of pharmaceutical company G.D. Searle to his decisions as Defense Secretary in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Author Andrew Cockburn, joins from us Washington, D.C., writer and lecturer on defense and national security affairs and author of five nonfiction books. ... As we talk about Scooter Libby and whether he was the fall guy for a higher-up, namely Vice President Dick Cheney, why don't we start off by talking about Rumsfeld's relationship with Dick Cheney?

Cockburn: Well, it's a very -- you know, it's a key relationship in the history of our times. It goes back to the Nixon White House, when Cheney went to work for Rumsfeld, when Rumsfeld first moved over there from the Congress. And he was regarded in those days by anyone who encountered them as very much Rumsfeld's flunky. And he rose with Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld put him out to pasture when he went off for a job in Europe for a couple years, but then brought him back as his deputy in the Ford White House.

But then, actually, interestingly, I discovered, to my surprise, that during the years in the relative wilderness for Rumsfeld, when he was out of office and decided to run for president, which he always thought he was the person most fitted for that job, in 1988, he called on Cheney and said, you know, "Report for duty, Cheney." And Cheney, by this time, had his own political career and refused. And Rumsfeld took tremendous umbrage at this and went into a deep sulk and actually wouldn't speak to Cheney for some years. And then, of course, the partnership was reforged with disastrous effect this time around.

Goodman: And what about Rumsfeld's relationship with George Bush, Sr.? Why did the President, the former president, dislike Rumsfeld so intensely?

Cockburn: Because it goes back to -- they were basically rivals, first of all, at the court of Richard Nixon, because they were each sort of proteges of Nixon, and each found ways to court Nixon's favor. But then, in the Ford administration, they were rivals for the slot. They both wanted to be picked by Ford to run with him in 1976. And Bush suspected, entirely correctly, that Rumsfeld had sabotaged his chances by getting him made head of the CIA, which was thought -- I mean, wrongly, as it turned out -- but was thought to have politically neutralized Bush for the rest of his career.

And the loathing continued. I mean, Rumsfeld used to give very sort of cruel imitations of Bush. He would entertain dinner parties with his renditions of Bush's style of speaking. And then, when Bush was elected president, Rumsfeld applied for a job as ambassador to Japan. And Bush wrote across the letter, "No. This will never happen. G.B." So, it's -- you know, it's endured.

Goodman: So what does it say about George W. Bush, that one of the few men who were in that circle that, as you put it, the former president and George W. Bush's father, of course, despised, that he made one of his top key people in his own administration, George W. Bush?

Cockburn: Well, isn't that very interesting? I mean, it tells us a lot about the relationship between the two Bushes. You know, we've heard this before, that there was an antipathy certainly on the younger Bush's side towards his father. I mean, who knows? Unless we get him on the couch one day, we'll not really find out where this came from. But it's certainly there. I mean, you know, there's so much anecdotal evidence of him expressing resentment -- I mean, his famous remark that he didn't pay attention to his own father, but he answered to a higher father, as he told Bob Woodward. So it's there. And how can one not assume that the appointment selection of Don Rumsfeld to be his Defense Secretary was, in a way, one more jab by the son toward the father?

Goodman: I wanted to go back, before we go forward and talk, for example, about Rumsfeld and the torture memo, to something that most people may not be aware of and that's a very significant part of Rumsfeld's life, which is being the CEO of the pharmaceutical company Searle and his links to as aspartame. Tell that story, Andrew Cockburn.

Cockburn: OK. Well, when Rumsfeld left office with the Ford administration in January 1977, he signed on first as a consultant and then as CEO with G.D. Searle, which was then -- it's since disappeared -- but it was then a very major pharmaceutical company and was owned and run by people he had been to school with, the Searle family. And the company, at that time, was in desperate trouble. I mean, the belief on Wall Street was that it was going under, because they had been rather badly managed and they were facing a major grand jury investigation for what -- I mean, just to put it in kind terms -- was misleadingly reported drug tests on new products. So the grand jury was about to open fire on them.

So they appointed Rumsfeld. And the only ray of light for the company was this artificial sweetener called aspartame, which they discovered actually by accident, but seemed to have great potential. But there was, again, a problem, which was that the FDA was responding to the views of certain -- of a lot of scientists who thought that it gave people brain cancer. So it was not releasing it. So Rumsfeld's major mission while he was in that job was to get this stuff released -- approved for release for sale to the public, which he finally managed to do, but only after the Reagan administration came in, whereupon the FDA commissioner was promptly fired, and someone more obedient was put in, who, of course, approved release. So that's how Rumsfeld made his money and earned his reputation, you know, as a capable businessman, which a lot of people dispute.

Goodman: Let's turn now to the key issue of torture. Talk about how Donald Rumsfeld got involved with condoning, laying the groundwork for the memos around torture, Andrew Cockburn.

Cockburn: Well, I mean, if you really want to go back to the beginning, I think it's that he's a rather harsh individual. But you have to remember, in that job he was in alliance with the neoconservatives, who had been saying for years that we must take the gloves off with terrorism, not let the rule of law interfere -- I mean, Doug Feith had been saying that for years -- so that right from the beginning, once -- you know, after the September 11th attacks, there was a predisposition to go down this route.

And we can see it very early on in Afghanistan, when, for example, when they captured the unfortunate John Walker Lindh, the American youth who had joined the Taliban. Instructions arrived from Washington immediately from the Office of the General Counsel at the Pentagon, who was Rumsfeld's lawyer, essentially, saying take the gloves off in interrogating this young man, which they certainly did.

Then on, you see there's a paper trail, most significantly or most vividly, perhaps, a December 2, 2002 memo signed by Rumsfeld that approved a whole bunch of -- well, I mean, torture techniques is exactly what they are. They call them, you know, counter-resistance techniques, and there's all sorts of euphemisms for them, which -- you know, stress positions, sleep depravation, harsh noises, all the sort of dreary or the repellent sort of litany of things they've used that have become famous since, particularly at Abu Ghraib. He approved them.

We know that, actually, this was specifically intended for the use against one particular prisoner, Qahtani, who was in Guantanamo, who they thought was the twentieth hijacker. And we know from, you know, an internal investigation later that Rumsfeld was personally involved in monitoring the torture -- I mean, the interrogation, which was a torture interrogation, of this one particular prisoner.

So then, of course, when Abu Ghraib -- when Iraq -- after the invasion and occupation of Iraq, these same techniques were then transposed there on Rumsfeld's direct order. Not only that, we know from court testimony -- or as I describe, court testimony in the case of the lower-ranking people, who are the only ones who have been tried on this matter, that Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, who's done his best to tiptoe away from all this but was very much involved, were actually in regular contact with Abu Ghraib, with the prison, to see how the interrogations were coming on. So, you know, his footprints -- and I chart this -- or fingerprints, I should say, are all over this repellent practice.

Goodman: I wanted to go back to an excerpt of an interview we did last November. We talked to Mohammed al-Qahtani's lawyer Gita Gutierrez. She's one of the attorneys with the Center for Constitutional Rights that filed a war crimes lawsuit in Germany against Rumsfeld and other high-ranking US officials for their role in the torture of prisoners in Iraq and Guantanamo. She described what Mohammed al-Qahtani said happened to him at Guantanamo.

Gita Gutierrez: Specifically, he was subjected to approximately 160 days of isolation, forty-eight days of sleep depravation, which was accompanied by twenty hour-long interrogations, consecutively. He would be permitted to sleep for four hours, between 7:00 a.m. and 11:00, in order to disrupt his sleep patterns and wear him down psychologically.
During that period of time, he was also subjected to sexual humiliation, euphemistically called "invasion of space by a female," at times when MPs would hold him down on the floor and female interrogators would straddle him and molest him.
He was subjected to religious humiliation and was forcibly had his beard and hair shaved, which, of course, is a violation of his faith.
He was physically abused, had medical professionals in the room during his interrogations monitoring him and at times doing medical procedures on him in conjunction with the interrogation.
So, he was put through quite a number of tactics, in and of themselves which would constitute torture, but certainly in combination had a tremendous and severe psychological and physical effect on him.
Goodman: Gita Gutierrez, speaking to us from Germany, where the Center for Constitutional Rights had gone to file suit against Donald Rumsfeld, other high-ranking officials, including Alberto Gonzales, General Sanchez and General Miller, as well, who headed Guantanamo, then went to Abu Ghraib to, as they say, "Gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib. The significance of this, how Rumsfeld responded to this, how he dealt with questions from President Bush over this?

Cockburn: Well, of course, he denied it. I mean, he's always tried to deflect, you know, blame for any of this often on the ranks of subordinates, which is what he tends to do. And when there was an investigation in response to complaints from FBI men at Guantanamo at the treatment of many including Qahtani, Air Force Lieutenant General Schmidt, who actually interviewed Rumsfeld on this specific issue of Qahtani, Rumsfeld actually sort of joked about it. I mean, it's absolutely disgusting. He said, "Oh, did I really give orders to put a bra on this man's head and make him dance with another man?" to which Schmidt replied, "Yes, you did, sir." You know, it's Rumsfeld all over. He will, time and time again, I found that he will order something, he will call something to happen, and then when he's questioned on it, he will seek to blame others.

Goodman: Can you talk about Rumsfeld after the attacks of September 11th?

Cockburn: Well, he sort of became famous. He was in decline at that point. He was doing very badly at the Pentagon. Then, on September 11th, he was, you know, famously advertised as having gone out, rushed out to help the wounded. Well, what actually happened was that the plane hit the building -- the planes that hit in the -- you know, there had been the attacks in New York, Rumsfeld actually had gone on, rather like Bush listening to My Pet Goat, he had gone on with his normal day. His bodyguard had realized that something actually was up and was waiting outside his door to take him somewhere, to some bunker somewhere.

When the plane hit the Pentagon, Rumsfeld emerges from his office and sets off, without a word to anyone, without telling any of his command staff where he was going, to have a look. They wander through the building, and eventually they find the place, you know, the crash site. He does help push one gurney, one stretcher, across the grass for a minute or so. And then it dawns on him that, you know, maybe he's in the wrong place. Meanwhile, the radio, the guard's radio, is erupting with messages saying, "Where's the secretary? Where's Mr. Rumsfeld?" because, you know, he was the Secretary of Defense. The country was under attack. He actually had a job to do. But, of course, they couldn't go back, get back, because those frequencies were jammed, to say, well, he's here. So during these -- for twenty minutes, he was completely out of touch.

Meanwhile, Cheney, in his bunker under the White House, was busily ordering passenger planes to be shot down all over the place. So, I mean, he contributed materially to the whole dysfunctional reaction to the attacks, and then finally wandered back, got to his command post, actually only fifty minutes after the plane had had hit the Pentagon, and finally began issuing what turned out to be totally irrelevant orders. So really, I'd say, it was rather a typical day for Rumsfeld. He was in the wrong place. You know, he didn't do his duty and concerned himself with irrelevant matters.

Goodman: Why did you choose to write this book? And, as you did it, what surprised you most?

Cockburn: Well, I did it because, I mean, it was clear to me that this man, even beyond what we generally thought, was -- you know, had this immense power. I mean, for years, there he had been. He had been one of the most powerful people in the world. And really, beyond a few sort of impressions and some myths peddled by himself, like helping the wounded on 9/11, we really didn't know that much about him. I mean, one senior White House person I talked to about him, I said, "Well, is he really that powerful?" He said, "Are you kidding? He gets to spend half the discretionary budget of the United States government, and he has a total veto on foreign policy. How powerful is that?"

What surprised me most -- I really wasn't thinking -- was how incompetent he was. I mean, what a poor manager. You know, among the myths peddled about him was he was this, you know, no-nonsense efficient CEO, an American business hero, basically on the basis of peddling this -- of, you know, his time with the drug company, where he had functioned more as a lobbyist than anything else. So what I found time and time again was how sort of useless he was, that he couldn't -- you know, he sprayed memos everywhere -- he called them snowflakes -- ordering people to do this, that and the other thing. But, actually, after a while, the bureaucracy realized that if you paid no attention, nothing much happened to you, because there was never any follow-through. And he used to send out a hundred a day, so, of course, he had no time to find out if anyone had paid attention.

Goodman: In 2006, you write that George W. Bush said to his father, "What's a neocon?"

Cockburn: That's right. One of the rare moments of sort of communication between the two. Bush said to -- they were out at Kennebunkport, and Bush Jr. says, "Can I ask you a question? What's a neocon?" And the father says, "Do you want names or a description?" The President says, "I'll take a description." He says, "I'll give it to you in one word: Israel," which is interesting on all sorts of levels, including the confirmation that our president doesn't really read the newspapers.

Goodman: Explain what you mean when you say that. And how do you know that this conversation took place at their vacation home?

Cockburn: Well, I can't really say who told me, but it's someone who was -- I have absolute confidence in both in their -- that they're telling the truth and also in their position to be aware of this conversation.

Goodman: You had Rumsfeld playing a war game after George H.W. Bush became president, playing the President. End there.

Cockburn: He played numerous war games. When he couldn't become president himself, he decided to act the part, so he took part in secret high-level Pentagon war games, where they rehearsed what happens when there's a nuclear attack. And other parties, other players noticed that Rumsfeld, instead of getting on with what he was meant to be doing in this game, which was reconstructing the country, reconstituting the government, he was all for blowing up the world. I mean, he was all for instant massive retaliation to incinerate the eastern hemisphere, is what he really liked doing.

Goodman: I want to thank you very much for being with us. His book is Rumsfeld: His Rise, Fall, and Catastrophic Legacy.


Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

Instead of ending the war, Democratic leaders may prefer to claim they tried but failed.

By David Swanson, Tomdispatch.com. Posted March 7, 2007.


The shortest route to ending the Iraq war (and preventing additional wars) is almost certainly through Congress. Influencing the White House directly is unimaginable, and stopping the war through the courts unlikely. Clearly, Congress is the way to go. But what specifically can Congress do?

How We Got Here

The peace movement lobbied a Republican Congress without success for four years. Then, on November 7, 2006, the American public elected a Democratic Congress in a clear mandate delivered at the polls. Not a single new Republican was elected, and 30 new Democrats were ushered in, with voters overwhelmingly telling pollsters that they were voting against the war; and by "against the war," they meant "against the war," not "against the escalation." Remember, the President's "surge" into Baghdad had not yet been announced.

Voters also appeared to be voting for accountability and possibly for the launching of impeachment hearings as well. Polls prior to the election found that a majority of Americans believed a Democratic Congress would impeach. Candidates who campaigned on the theme of accountability, including Keith Ellison (Dem., Minnesota) who promised impeachment, did well. Polls show that of Americans favor impeachment or wish Bush's presidency were over. Voters in November even booted out a couple of Republicans who had turned against the war, saying that they were voting for a Democratic majority so that the Democrats could investigate the war as well as end it -- something a majority of Americans continue to say they want.

Prior to the election, Speaker-to-be Nancy Pelosi had already ordered the Democrats in the House to oppose impeachment, but she had not ordered them to support the war. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), chaired by Congressman Rahm Emanuel, however, directed most of its financial support to candidates who did not call for ending the war. Of the 22 candidates funded by the DCCC, only 8 won. The rest of the victorious Democratic challengers, many of them strongly opposed to the war, got themselves elected without Emanuel's help.

Halfway Steps in the House

Of course, now that the election is over and the Democratic leadership has heard the people speak so clearly, now that, on January 27th, half a million Americans encircled the Capitol in opposition to the war, now that the new Congress has in its hands the power that the Republicans had a year ago, surely ending the war is at the top of its agenda.

Well, not according to Emanuel's way of thinking, as reported in the Washington Post:

"For the rest of the year, Emanuel says, the leadership hopes to stress energy independence (with fuel-saving efficiency standards for appliances and cars) and a move toward better health care for children. And here's what Emanuel doesn't want to do: fall into the political trap of chasing overambitious or potentially unpopular measures. Ask about universal health care, and he shakes his head... Reform of Social Security and other entitlements? Too big, too woolly, too risky... The country is angry, and it will only get more so as the problems in Iraq deepen. Don't look to Emanuel's Democrats for solutions on Iraq. It's Bush's war, and as it splinters the structure of GOP power, the Democrats are waiting to pick up the pieces."

So, clearly the question before us is not just what Congress can do to end the war, but also how the American public can persuade a Democratic Congress to want to end the war. Most Republican members of Congress still follow White House orders like sheep, and leading House Democrat Emanuel is openly telling the media that he'd just as soon have the war still going on in 2008. The war has cost an estimated 655,000 Iraqi lives and over 3,000 American ones in its first 4 years, with the death rate increasing over time, so by a safe estimate Emanuel has just written off perhaps another few hundred thousand lives for the sake of an electoral strategy.

Prior to the recent Congressional recess, Congressman Jack Murtha proposed that he draft a new bill, agreeing to throw $93 billion or so at the war in the form of another "emergency supplemental" outside the regular federal budget. That may not sound like an anti-war proposal, but it certainly passed for one in Washington, D.C. In fact, Murtha was pilloried by Republicans and much of the media because he proposed including requirements that troops be properly rested, trained, and equipped before being sent to Iraq. Murtha argued that these requirements would force Bush to end his "surge."

In a climate in which opposition to the "surge" had become confused with opposition to the war, Murtha's plan was, amazingly enough, treated as the near equivalent of pacifism. And no strong defense of it emerged from the Democratic leadership. Instead the plan evolved into a proposal to require the President to inform Congress when he was deploying troops lacking adequate rest, training, or equipment. But it is unclear how this would even curtail the present escalation, much less end the war, and there has been no indication of what Congress would do if Bush failed to obey this reporting requirement.

Bizarrely, this whole discussion has taken place without any reference to the fact that, in November 2003, Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, which placed limits on the number of days that a member of the Armed Forces could be deployed. Bush signed that bill into law, but added a signing statement announcing his intention to disregard that section. The U.S. Constitution gives the President the power to sign bills into law and enforce them, or to veto them. There is no constitutional middle course. Yet Bush has routinely used signing statements to announce his plans to disregard portions of bills he signs into law. This abuse might be addressed by impeachment proceedings, something the Democrats are not currently considering. But short of addressing this abuse, Congress Members could at least behave as though they were aware of it.

Wholehearted House Actions

Numerous peace and justice organizations seeking to end the war are urging Congress Members to vote "no" on the $93 billion supplemental bill. At the same time, they are watching closely for possible amendments to the bill that could require the money be spent on a rapid withdrawal. Such amendments might be introduced and voted on in the House Appropriations Committee, on which Congresswoman Barbara Lee (Dem., California) serves, along with Murtha, or they might be introduced and voted on in the full House.

If a bill provided billions of dollars for the war but required that it all be spent on the withdrawal of troops, and if such a bill passed both houses of Congress, the President would be unable to veto it without denying himself a source of funding he badly wants. And there is at least a chance that Congress would take umbrage and pay attention if he cancelled the end of the war with another of his signing statements.

Other possibilities for ending the war in the House include not passing a supplemental bill at all, or passing one of the four bills that have been introduced (by Representatives Lynn Woolsey, Jim McGovern, Jerrold Nadler, and Dennis Kucinich) that would use the power of the purse to try to bring the war to an end. There are also several bills that would instruct the President to end the war while continuing to fund it, an approach that seems more likely to pass both houses of Congress, but far less likely to achieve anything close to their stated goal.

Senator Russ Feingold held hearings in January on the constitutional power of the Congress to end a war. One point on which there seems to be consensus: Congress has the Constitutional power to control what money is spent on (even if that power has hardly been touched in any meaningful way in recent years). If Congress says no more money can be spent on the war, then that is the law of the land -- although the history of the Iran-Contra scandal, the secret beginning of the current Iraq War, and operations now underway in Iran remind us that the law of the land and the acts of the White House can sometimes be two separate matters.

Congressman Kucinich's bill is brand new. The other three House bills have been in play for some weeks. While Congressman Nadler's bill does not have the support among his colleagues that Woolsey's and McGovern's do (thanks to both friendships and political alliances), Nadler has perhaps done the best job of crafting a bill in which Congress could make use of its undisputed power to end the war. While the other two bills first instruct Bush to end the war in a specific period of time, and only afterward forbid the use of additional funds for the war that is now theoretically over, Nadler's bill immediately restricts the use of any money appropriated by Congress to withdrawing the troops from Iraq.

Actually, Nadler's bill restricts the use of funds to protecting the troops and withdrawing them. He admits that the "protecting the troops" part is a bit of nonsense, since the only way to protect them is to withdraw them. But all of these bills have been written with a keen eye to repelling the commonplace criticism that bringing our troops safely home somehow constitutes a failure to "support the troops."

Senate Shortcomings and Opportunities

A new sideways approach to ending the war without saying you're ending it is only now emerging in the Senate. This one involves "reauthorizing" the war. This war was, of course, never declared but pre-authorized to be launched at the President's discretion for the purpose of eliminating Iraq's mythical weapons of mass destruction and combating those falsely alleged to have been behind the attacks of 9-11. The facts have already repealed that authorization, but it would be useful for Congress to do so as well.

Actually reauthorizing the war, on the other hand, would undoubtedly be less useful, as it might appear to the public to be support for the war; while any aspects of the reauthorization aimed at slowly ending the war will surely be viciously attacked by the administration and its supporters. In fact, that's already begun. The White House is denouncing any attempts to restrict the war as "micromanagement" and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced that Bush will probably disregard restrictions placed on the war by Congress. Rice was asked in a broadcast interview whether the President would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days. "The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done," she replied. This brazenly unconstitutional stance is another one of those "details" -- like Bush's past signing statements -- that Congress might do well to bear in mind and cease trying to ignore.

There are a couple of possible ways the Senate might get around this. One would simply be not to pass the Pentagon's supplemental spending bill -- something that 41 Senators could accomplish through a filibuster. The other would be to pass Senator Russ Feingold's bill to stop funding the war, which would obviously require a far higher voting hurdle than that filibuster. Passing a bill would involve gathering a majority -- and overriding a veto to maintain it, a two-thirds vote in both houses. The filibuster, however, presents another kind of hurdle in that it requires some Senator or group of Senators to find the decency and courage to begin it, uncertain of success.

Legislating a Unitary Executive

What is lost in all of these strategy discussions, of course, is the question of whether any sort of Congressional cut-off of funds would actually truncate either the surge or the war. Remember, the President and Vice President began the preparations for the invasion of Iraq secretly with at least $2.5 billion illegally taken from other areas. They have promised never to end the war. They have asserted the power of a "unitary executive." They have launched pre-war operations in Iran without any authorization or funding from Congress. They have built permanent bases in Iraq without any approval from Congress, and continued that construction work in violation of a bill passed by Congress forbidding the use of any funding for it.

So, the question is not just whether Congress can cut off the money, but whether the Bush administration can find enough money in other places illegally to continue a war that has never in any sense been legal. The amount of money we're talking about is enormous, but it is a fraction of the Pentagon's budget, and it seems clear that -- given the kinds of "black budget" moneys floating around in that world -- the war could be continued for some time (long enough at least to gin up a new enemy to scare Congress with); that is, unless the military sides with Congress in this dispute and refuses to pursue the war with misappropriated funds.

If any of these strategies to end the war come to fruition in Congress, a more likely outcome than an actual end to the war would be a full-scale confrontation with the "commander-in-chief" presidency of George Bush (and the vice-presidency of Dick Cheney), leading to possible impeachment proceedings.

Here's the reality, however: None of these strategies are likely to advance very far very soon. A movement for impeachment now might strengthen the hand of those in Congress who want to move on ending the war. During the Vietnam War, the peace and impeachment efforts aided each other. And the Democrats then won the next elections, something they failed to do after choosing not to pursue impeachment proceedings against Ronald Reagan for the Iran-Contra scandal.

What Could Change

Two events on the horizon might change this outlook. One is an attack on Iran. Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers have said they favor launching the impeachment process if the Bush administration attacks Iran. Needless to say, it would be better to begin proceedings to impeach in order to prevent an attack on Iran, but that is unlikely in the present political atmosphere.

The other event that could take us all surprising places is the completion of the trial of I. Lewis Scooter Libby. The evidence made public by that trial points to an urgent need for impeachment proceedings against Vice President Cheney. The evidence suggests that Cheney was the driving force behind the campaign of retribution against ex-ambassador Joseph Wilson, including the outing of his wife, CIA agent Valerie Plame. Journalist Murray Waas has indicated some of the points that cry out for investigation. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has urged Cheney to "come clean," offer an explanation for his actions, or resign. A blogger with the handle emptywheel has drafted a mock indictment of Cheney, and Wil S. Hylton has recently published possible articles of impeachment against the Vice President in the men's fashion magazine GQ.

It seems everyone's getting into the act, except Congress. But Congress could do so. The evidence uncovered by the Libby trial did not exist when Pelosi ordered impeachment "off the table" a year ago. Among the public, there is a lot of fear that impeaching Bush (and removing him from office) would give us a President Cheney. By impeaching the incredibly unpopular Cheney first, Congress would allay these fears. Impeaching Cheney might actually unite the mood of the public with that of Congress more easily than the impeachment of George W. Bush -- under the motto: Business Before Pleasure -- Impeach Cheney First!

In the meantime, the Democrats' strategy of letting the war continue, not thoroughly investigating the fraud that launched it, and not holding the war-makers accountable may prove not to be the electoral winner that Party figures like Emanuel expect. It might even prove a political equalizer and so a loser in 2008 or beyond. Every day that the Democrats don't move to end the war in Iraq is another day in which that war, stretching ever on, can become the Democrats' war. Only if they come to believe that the war's unpopularity will work against them in the voting booths in 2008 or thereafter will they be strongly motivated to take the sorts of actions that might actually bring it to an end.



David Swanson is the Washington Director of Democrats.com and co-founder of the AfterDowningStreet.org coalition, a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and of the Backbone Campaign. He serves on a working group of United for Peace and Justice. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign. His website is davidswanson.org.