The U.S.-Led Aggressors Will Not Go Unpunished!
For six weeks the world was witness to a brutal display of gangsterism
rarely seen in such a naked form. The U.S. imperialists, along with
the British and French, temporarily put aside the business suits
in which they usually appear before the people to don military khaki.
These gentlemen, who like to present themselves as the pinnacle
of human civilisation, carried out a gigantic human sacrifice to
their God of Profit.
The excitement of the imperialists over having succeeded in defeating
Iraq is truly stunning. After all, the strongest military and economic
power on earth, the U.S., was leading the charge, directly supported
by the military might of Britain and France and with varying degrees
of support from all of the other imperialist countries as well,
including the Soviet Union. Iraq, on the other hand, is a small
country of 18 million people which, in the final analysis, never
really fought. What glory can there possibly be in winning such
an unequal conquest?
In fact, the undisguised thrill of the imperialists at delivering
what most resembles a kick in the teeth to a person already on the
ground shows the desperation of the enemy for cheap and easy victories.
When one civilian in the West or Israel is injured or killed in
an attack headlines scream about "terrorism" for days.
But when an entire bomb shelter full of hundreds of non-combatants,
including many children, is deliberately destroyed it is a "legitimate
target", and the destruction of a crowded open-air market is
called "collateral damage" in the latest military doublespeak.
The intentions of the imperialists are multifold in this conflict.
But one of their important objectives is an effort to send a message
to the people all over the world that imperialism is all-powerful
and that anyone who dares to stand up to it will be crushed into
the dirt. The war does reveal much about the nature of the imperialist
enemy -- its vicious, ruthless character, its two-faced hypocritical
theatrics (UN resolutions and crocodile tears over the violation
of international law, for example) which accompany its crimes, the
fact that it is still a very strong enemy capable of lashing out
wildly at the people. It certainly shows that these monsters will
never lay down their butcher knives nor stop feeding off the flesh
of the people until forced to by the armed force of the masses.
But it most definitely does not prove that it is impossible
for the people to defeat the imperialists.
As the Gulf War reaches an end of at least one phase, the anger
of the masses of people throughout the world in the face of this
aggression has been coupled with an extreme disappointment and bitterness.
In its statement of 28 December 1990 the Committee of the RIM pointed
out that, "Throughout the Middle East and the Arab world millions
of people are hoping that the Iraqi regime will deal serious blows
to U.S. imperialism if it attacks, and the revolutionary communists
completely understand these sentiments. But the hopes of the people
are likely to be dashed once again." The fact that this defeat
was predictable, alas, does not make it any easier to suffer.
The repercussions of this war will be felt for many long years,
yet there is much reason to believe in -- and work towards -- the
possibility of transforming the situation in the Middle East from
the one-sided slaughter of today into a different kind of "killing
zone" where the imperialists and reactionaries will be bogged
down in a massive trap surrounded on all sides by revolutionary
peoples determined, guns in hand, to liberate their countries from
the clutches of imperialism.
For the people the world over it is necessary to begin to make some
summation of the events of the last seven months. What is the cause
of the war? What has the war shown about the way the imperialist
enemy fights? Why was the army of Saddam Hussein unable and,
in the end, unwilling to fight? How could the people of Iraq and
the region fight a different type of war which would lead
to victory and not humiliation?
***
What is the cause of the war? Any pretext that it had much to do
with the so-called "liberation of Kuwait" should have
been dispelled when the U.S. and its "coalition partners"
unceremoniously rejected the Soviet cease-fire proposal which met
essentially all of the original U.S. demands and in which Iraq explicitly
announced its intention to withdraw from Kuwait, all well before
the final U.S. ground assault. The U.S. made it clear that they
were not interested in a settlement and, unofficially, they spoke
of an Iraqi pullout of Kuwait as the "nightmare scenario"
because it would deprive them of unleashing their war of aggression.
Long before the outbreak of hostilities on January 17th there were
numerous opportunities to find a diplomatic solution involving the
retreat of Iraq from Kuwait. Press accounts indicate that the basic
military plans, including the date for the beginning of the air
war and another for the ground attack, had been set by George Bush
as early as October. Gorbachev's foreign policy advisor Primakov
reported that Western leaders were decidedly uninterested in Saddam
Hussein's "peace feelers" and that Margaret Thatcher,
then still Prime Minister of Britain, specifically advised Primakov
to do nothing to stop the march toward war which she considered
both inevitable and beneficial.
In any event, invasions of one state by another are fairly commonplace
in the Middle East as well as in other parts of the world. The U.S.
itself has carried out many invasions, including as recently as
one year previously when it invaded the small country of Panama,
kidnapped the head of state and imprisoned him in the United States.
Many other invasions have also taken place -- Israel's invasion
of Lebanon in 1982, the Turkish occupation and de facto annexation
of Cyprus in 1974, Senegal's conquest and annexation of Gambia in
1981, to name but a few examples. Israel's very existence is built
upon the theft of Palestinian land, and even the United Nations
has solemnly ordered it to withdraw from the territories occupied
in the 1967 war. Even after the Gulf crisis began in August
1990, the Syrian army conducted the latest in a long series of armed
interventions against Lebanon. So why did the Iraqi invasion of
Kuwait meet with such a massive military response from the great
powers, while the others have been the object of, at most, tongue
clucking and toothless resolutions by the United Nations?
It is well known that the Western imperialists are heavily dependent
upon Middle East oil which is also a giant source of profits for
them. But this war was not just about securing higher oil profits.
George Bush has been completely unabashed in proclaiming his desire
to build a "new world order" to last "for the next
one hundred years". For the people of the world it is all too
clear what this order is meant to be. As the Committee of the Revolutionary
Internationalist Movement said at the outbreak of the air war, "This
order is nothing other than the same old imperialist law of exploitation
and plunder of the poor by the rich; aggression, interference and
bullying of the weak by the strong; and domination of the whole
world by the West." It means that the prosperity of the imperialist
countries will continue to be assured by the exploitation of the
oppressed peoples -- their resources and, above all, their labour.
That the economic organisation of the earth will still be such that
whole regions and countries are organised for the benefit of the
advanced countries. And that the U.S. and its imperialist allies
hope to be even freer to use naked force to impose their diktat
all over the world.
In order to impose this "order" the U.S. imperialists
must attempt to terrorise the people of the world into accepting
it. The imperialists are particularly happy to have aligned all
of the imperialist countries on the same side of the conflict, enabling
them to bring together enormous military power against a far weaker
foe. The new "understanding" between the U.S. and the
Soviet Union has most definitely created new opportunities for imperialist
aggression.
The Soviet Union's support for the UN Gulf resolutions, including
the infamous authorisation of the use of force by "member states",
is proof of this. But it would be most wrong to draw the conclusion
from this that everything is easy sailing in the camp of the imperialists.
The arrogance of the U.S. is to be explained not so much by the
increased opportunities now that the Soviet Union is acquiescing
in U.S adventures, but more by the necessity felt by all of the
imperialists to reconsolidate and expand their "spheres of
influence". Clearly, the post-World War 2 order is coming to
an end. Already the collapse of the East bloc has sent the whole
imperialist world into disarray. All of the imperialist powers sense
that now is the time to grab, and if they fail to do so, their competitors
will grab first. Countries long under the domination of these imperialist
powers are experiencing increased hardship and unresolvable crisis
and are seething with unrest and popular discontent.
Indeed, there is an air of desperation in the feeding frenzy of
these sharks. The "New World Order" is not a luxury but
a necessity for the imperialist powers. The imperialist system can
only live by ever expanding its sphere of production and exploitation.
Each power is driven to seek new and even vaster markets for investments
and sources of raw materials and labour. They carry out this deadly
battle not only against their victims in the oppressed nations of
Asia, Africa and Latin America, but from time to time they turn
violently against each other -- like a pack of wolves fighting over
a limited piece of meat. Today they are joined together to butcher
Iraq, but even their much-heralded unity can quickly turn to renewed
conflict in their own ranks.
The rule of the imperialists has always been built upon blood and
bones and cannot be otherwise. For more than two years they yammered
about a "new era of peace" and "peace breaking out
all over" but the clearest indication of what this new era
will offer is the bloody rampage in the Gulf. Even before the blood
has dried in the Gulf, "peace talks" are beginning again.
The Marxist-Leninist-Maoist teaching that "imperialism means
war" has never been more true. Those who may have hoped that
it would be possible to come to some accommodation with the imperialists
or avoid having to fight them have been slammed in the head.
What the world has seen over the last number of months is not an
exception to the workings of the imperialist system -- it
is the inevitable consequence and concentrated expression
of this system. Imperialist war at least has the merit of lifting
the veil which usually covers its most hideous features. Imperialism,
the highest stage of capitalism, is the source of massive misery
and bloodshed throughout the world -- this is in its very soul.
But most of the time imperialism's robbery takes place in conditions
of world "peace", and even its constant bloody attacks
against the masses of the oppressed countries are usually carried
out indirectly by imperialism's neo-colonial regimes in Asia, Africa
and Latin America and presented as marginal to the workings of the
world imperialist political-economic order. Behind the daily but
hidden enforcement of imperialist order stand the deadly war machines
the imperialists keep ready to unleash at a moment's notice.
***
At least for a few months the volume was turned down on the deafening
and nauseating hymns to imperialist democracy that had been blaring
loudly ever since the collapse of the East bloc in winter '89-'90.
It is true that it is difficult to use the democratic paintbrush
to decorate the Emir of Kuwait, one of the last absolute monarchs
on Earth, or the Saudi royal family, who regularly execute women
for adultery and cut off the hands of petty thieves while they themselves
have huge harems and squander their country's wealth in the casinos
of Europe.
But in reality the Gulf War and the orgy of self-congratulation
about the so-called "victory of democracy" (by which they
mean the collapse of the East European revisionist regimes) are
part of the same package. Both represent the efforts of U.S. imperialism
and its Western allies to grab more and consolidate what they already
possess in the midst of a turbulent and rapidly changing world.
The war in the Gulf is proof of Mao Tsetung's statement that "political
power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Although Mao and his
followers have been roundly condemned as "warmongers"
for this declaration, the imperialists themselves have always understood
this truth and put it into practice. The U.S. sought to drive this
point home through the war -- not only to the oppressed peoples
of the region, but even to other imperialist countries as well,
such as Germany and Japan, who have great economic strength but
cannot match U.S. military power.
The imperialist drive to establish a "New World Order"
cannot help but put them ever more squarely in opposition to the
people. The struggles of the people are already intensifying and
will continue to do so. More and more people will be seeking the
ways to take on the military might of their enemies.
In order for the masses to make real headway in their struggle they
will have to reject the false path of revisionism and opportunism
which has had such a stranglehold on much of the struggle of the
peoples in the Middle East region. The most hallowed precepts of
the revisionists and opportunists have been proven to be utterly
bankrupt.
The Soviet Union, the self-described "natural ally" of
the oppressed peoples, has willingly sacrificed even its former
clients in the pursuit of the USSR's own imperialist interests.
Those forces who for decades have been trying to apologise for the
Soviet Union and portray it as a socialist and revolutionary force
are now worse than empty-handed.
The truth is that the Soviet betrayal of today is just the continuation
of their "kiss of death" of a few years ago. Their previous
"support" for liberation movements and today's support
for the "coalition" are both the pursuit of Soviet
imperialist interests in a changed international context. What links
the two policies together is that at no time has the Soviet Union
been in favour of a determined struggle against imperialism and
reaction. At no time did they cease preaching to the oppressed that
they would have to come to some kind of accommodation with the imperialist
order. At most, the oppressed were asked to trade one imperialist
overlord for another. This was their message to the Palestinians
where, despite their material "aid" and expressions of
sympathy, the Soviets have consistently supported an "international
settlement" whose central point would be the recognition of
Israel and its "right to exist". In return for giving
up their birthright, the Palestinians were to be given a small,
disarmed mini-state completely at the mercy of Israel and the great
powers. One would hope that those who demagogically justified this
betrayal as "a first step toward the complete liberation of
Palestine" would now see that the PLO's past opportunism was
but one step toward the complete disorganisation of the Palestinian
cause.
Nowhere on earth has cynical "realpolitik" been so loudly
vaunted as in the Middle East. Opportunist alliances are established
or broken on the basis of the most narrow expediency, political
positions are bought and sold at the auction block. The only consistent
principle among the myriad opportunists was that the progress of
the oppressed could only depend upon their enemies! Now the bankruptcy
of this endless search for illusory solutions should be apparent
to all. But opportunism and revisionism is not mainly a question
of ignorance.
No experience, even the most bitter, will bring the misleaders to
abandon their course. One of the main political and ideological
roots of the successive betrayals and capitulations in the region
has always been a distrust in the capacity of the masses to take
matters into their own hands and defeat the enemy -- a distrust
which stems from the goal of these opportunist leaders to themselves
become new exploiters (even if they perceive it as being the "saviours"
of the masses). Already one negative effect is that a section of
the masses, finding their "protectors" on earth to be
powerless, are turning more and more to supernatural protectors
in the sky.
The situation in the Middle East is, objectively, more favourable
than before for the propagation of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung
Thought. But this development can never come about spontaneously.
It will require consistent, vigorous and on-going work by the genuine
Maoist forces of the region.
***
With the imperialist juggernaut aimed directly at his throat, it
is not surprising that Saddam Hussein had become the object of widespread
support among the oppressed peoples throughout the world. In the
Middle East and Arab world certainly, but in a great many other
areas as well, there were few illusions that the Iraqi army would
defeat the "coalition", but people deeply hoped that Saddam
would stand firm and deal the imperialists some of the punishment
they so richly deserve. This is why the bitterness is so keen in
the face of the Iraqi army's collapse without a fight.
The Iraqi army, like all armies, is a reflection of the society
that produced it. It is a reactionary army built to use against
the masses of people, certainly not to fight in their interests.
The cause of Iraq against the U.S. was just, but the army's reactionary
and unjust nature, which permeates all aspects of the army -- doctrine,
training, relations between officers and the rank and file soldiers
-- could not help but stand in stark contradiction to the kind of
war it was objectively necessary to fight.
In a fundamental sense, Saddam Hussein could not stand up against
the imperialists because he opposed the people and could not rely
on them. Even though the people wanted to fight and indeed displayed
great heroism in the face of the unprecedented air attack, these
qualities could not be fully mobilised. Iraq's defeat does not show
that it is impossible to defeat imperialism, but it does show that,
as Mao Tsetung so brilliantly pointed out, "without a People's
Army the people have nothing."
The Saddam Hussein regime represents the comprador-bureaucrat bourgeoisie
in Iraq which has been directly fostered and nourished by various
imperialist powers. This can be seen by the actions of the regime
throughout the events in the Gulf and, most especially, by the army's
inability and unwillingness to fight.
The invasion of Kuwait and the Iraqi leadership's hope of gaining
control of at least some of Kuwait's oil wealth itself was an effort
to come to better terms with the imperialist powers, not an effort
to break free of them. Throughout the crisis, the regime sought
some sort of compromise with the imperialists which would avoid
a conflict and restore the good relationship they had previously
enjoyed with the West. But the enemy was not interested, and every
concession by Hussein just whetted the appetite of the U.S. and
its partners in crime for ever more humiliating conditions.
The soldiers who make up the Iraqi army no doubt sensed this themselves.
It seems many may have asked themselves, why die in a deadly game
of poker when, in the last analysis, everyone knows that Saddam
Hussein is bluffing?
Mao Tsetung made the extremely important observation to the Palestine
Liberation Organisation that they should follow the principle of
"You fight your way, I'll fight mine", by which he meant
that the forces of the people must fight a completely different
kind of war than that of the reactionaries. But such a policy could
never be implemented by the Iraqi regime. The army Saddam Hussein
trained and equipped and the kind of war he was prepared to fight
are almost useless in the face of imperialist aggression.
The Iraqi army was equipped with a great deal of the most modern
arms available. But these arms, purchased from the imperialists
(East and West) themselves, were never meant to be used against
their providers. (For example, neither the Soviet Union nor the
Western powers sold Saddam a single plane that could make the return
flight from Iraq to Israel.) More importantly, these modern high-tech
weapons only work when they form a link in a whole chain in modern
high-tech society. They must be maintained and operated by trained
technicians. They need sophisticated and difficult-to-produce spare
parts. Further, each high-tech weapon runs the risk of being countered
by an equally high-tech "counter-weapon", forcing those
who would rely on them into a never-ending spiral of newer and more
sophisticated weaponry.
In the hands of the dominated countries, these weapons are, above
all, a further means of control and interference which the imperialist
powers exercise. It is these latter powers who provide (or stop
providing, if that is in their interests!) the spare parts, technical
assistance, counter- measures and so forth. These weapons are useful
when they are aimed at another dominated country, or against the
masses themselves within a dominated state, but they have yet to
do real damage to the imperialists or their Zionist attack dog.
Yasser Arafat, the PLO Chairman, is quoted as saying, "By acquiring
technology, Iraq is the defender of the Arab nation, of Muslims
and all free men everywhere."(1) But the development of the
war has shown this to be wrong. Imperialist-provided technology
has proven to be the "secret weapon" of the U.S.-led forces,
who have been able to use their own super-sophisticated electronic
spy equipment to target Iraqi positions with their so-called smart
bombs.
For decades lack of modern arms has been used as the constant excuse
by a number of regimes in the region to back down in the face of
the Israeli arsenal. And different opportunist forces have echoed
this same line well. Now the illusion of somehow trying to rely
on the imperialists to achieve arms parity has gone up in the smoke
of Desert Storm.
Who can help but be gladdened by the news of Scud missiles slamming
into Israel? But the fact of the matter is that all of the Scuds
so far have been less damaging to the state of Israel than the rocks
and knives in the hands of the Palestinian youth. When it comes
to missile technology the imperialists win hands down. But technology
alone will not enable them to defeat the masses of people if they
rise in armed struggle, even using relatively unsophisticated weapons
at first, and follow a correct Maoist military approach which pits
the people's strong points against the enemy's weakness.
***
Military doctrine also reflects the nature of different types of
armies. There is a reason that the Iraqi regime felt required to
fight a fixed positional battle on its frontiers and could not follow
the policy Mao used of "luring the enemy in deep". Not
only was the regime incapable of relying on the masses and mobilising
them to fight behind enemy lines, they feared the masses,
and the army remained, even in the midst of a war against an external
enemy, a tool for controlling and suppressing the masses.
Saddam Hussein himself spoke, at least on some occasions, of the
possibility of the courage of the foot soldier compensating for
the enemy's technological strength. "Under all circumstances,
one who wants to evict a fighter from the land will eventually depend
on a soldier who walks on the ground and comes with a hand grenade,
rifle and bayonet to fight the soldier in the battle trench. All
this technological superiority, which is on paper, will eventually
be tested in the theatre of operations."(2) But the class nature
of the Iraqi Army would not allow it to pursue the kind of fighting
or apply the kind of military doctrine which would overcome the
technological superiority of the enemy.
Saddam Hussein no doubt would have preferred that his soldiers
fight, but because his regime is not a people's regime Hussein was
unable to very effectively mobilise the troops. Instead he relied
on a combination of lies (ridiculous battlefield claims bearing
no relation to reality), religious incantation, bribery (even offering
large cash awards to his own people for turning in enemy pilots!)
and threats -- all of which made his appeals to patriotism seem
hollow indeed.
Heroism also has a class content. Although even soldiers in an imperialist
army are capable, at times, of a sort of battlefield courage, it
is nonetheless true that men and women fighting for a just cause,
knowing that their sacrifices are in the interests of all humanity,
can withstand far greater hardship and fight far more courageously
than imperialist soldiers kept in ignorance and generally drawn
from classes with no interest in defending imperialism, and most
comfortable when bludgeoning someone who is defenceless. It is only
a revolutionary army, led by the proletariat, which can fully bring
out the heroic characteristics of the people.
Furthermore, for the courage of the combatants to play its full
role, it is necessary to apply a military doctrine which emphasises
mobility, daring and fighting at close quarters. It will not do
to rely on a military doctrine borrowed from the imperialists (Soviet,
Western or, as in Iraq's case, both), and then simply exhort the
soldiers to carry out their patriotic duties. There is no doubt
that the Iraqi soldiers have shown a certain degree of heroism in
standing up to one of the most brutal onslaughts in history -- certainly
the U.S. soldiers would not have held out as well for six days,
let alone six weeks, under such bombardment. But it is also true
that this heroism is stifled and squandered by the kind of leadership
they had and the type of war they were obliged to fight.
In fact, the imperialists themselves were more than a little worried
about engaging the Iraqi army at close quarters. They often spoke
of the great "unknown factor" being how well the Iraqi
troops would hold up in combat -- but the great "unspoken factor"
was how well American and other reactionary troops would hold up
once they were not able to rely entirely on their technological
advantage and once they started taking some serious casualties.
Further, the more the forces of the people are intermingled with
those of the enemy, the less capable the enemy is of unleashing
their air power without hitting their own forces.
***
It is Mao Tsetung who taught that the communist position was to
combine tactical respect for the enemy -- their ability to cause
a great deal of death and destruction -- with strategic contempt
-- that they represent a sick and dying system opposed by the masses
the world over. The Iraqi regime followed exactly the opposite policy
-- strategically they both feared and admired imperialism and never
gave up looking for some kind of solution that would preserve intact
the basic relation between Iraq and imperialism. Yet they did not
base their tactics on a realistic appraisal of the strength of the
imperialist enemy and its capacity to overrun Iraqi fixed positions.
And they underestimated its merciless character.
The people treasure human life, unlike the rabid imperialist dogs
whose very military doctrine is to destroy everything in their murderous
path. But the people have a tremendous capacity for sacrifice when
they understand that such sacrifice is necessary to achieve their
liberation.
The reactionary ruling classes are afraid and unable to arm the
masses with the truth and unleash them to fight on a scientific
basis. But the people can and must be given an accurate picture
of the strengths and weaknesses of the enemy and of their own forces
as well. They can grasp and apply a strategy of protracted people's
war which enables their armed forces to go from weak to strong over
time and defeat the enemy bit by bit.
The imperialists are currently crowing that with their high-tech
weapons they have rewritten the laws of warfare -- but nothing is
further from the truth. They made the same claims in Vietnam which
was, after all, the beginning of the so-called "electronic
battlefield". In that war they ended up in ignominious defeat.
Of course, weaponry has evolved in the two decades since the Vietnam
war, but the difference is that Saddam Hussein, to the extent that
he fought at all, tried to fight the imperialists "their way"
and was far less able to mobilise and rely on the people. Now the
imperialists hope to use the defeat of Iraq to try to wipe out the
memory of their debacle in Vietnam and, specifically, to vaunt the
so-called invincibility of their high-tech weaponry, but really
they have proven no such thing.
***
Part of Iraq's dilemma, and one of the strong suits of the imperialists,
has been that Iraq's rulers fear losing all that has been built
up, largely with oil money, over the last two decades. This has
meant that from the beginning the Iraqi regime sought some way out
of the conflict other than total war.
Even in the midst of the war itself Iraq has continued to function
along the pattern established by its condition as a country dominated
by imperialism. Baghdad, for example, continued to hold a widely
disproportionate part of the Iraqi population, even though what
little industrial base that existed had already been substantially
destroyed by the bombing. A revolutionary regime would, under the
circumstances, have evacuated Baghdad to the greatest degree possible.
and mobilise the people to fight in more favourable areas.
The countryside, by its very nature more suitable to fighting people's
war, remains relatively underpopulated, and the mountainous Kurdish
region, the most favourable terrain in the country for waging guerrilla
war, could not be fully utilised to resist aggression because of
the reactionary policy the regime has carried out in regard to the
Kurdish people.
Iraq was built up to play a role in imperialism's "international
division of labour". Despite the fact that the Tigres-Euphrates
river valley, one of the earliest centres of civilisation on Earth,
has been an extremely fertile agricultural area for thousands of
years, the country has been developed almost exclusively around
two poles -- the oil industry, whose production is controlled by
and serves the imperialist countries, and the armed forces, who
up to now have been used primarily in an imperialist-sponsored war
with Iran and on barbaric attacks on its own population, especially
the Kurdish nation.
Building up the country in such a way could not help but leave it
extremely vulnerable to imperialist attack. As long as imperialism
continues to dominate the world, it will always be able to hold
the urban centres hostage to its blackmail. The development of a
"modern Baghdad" was an illusory bubble, based on a coincidence
of high oil prices and the need of the imperialists to construct
a "counter-weight" to Iran. The war has shown that what
the imperialists give, they can take away.
Mao Tsetung was very clear that a correct policy of economic development
was very much linked to the problem of national defence. He argued
that in order to be prepared against imperialist invasion it was
necessary to build up industry in the rural areas and in the interior
of the country and not just the big cities along the coasts. Furthermore,
while carrying out socialist construction in both city and countryside,
Mao always realised that these accomplishments were provisional
as long as imperialism remained strong, and that they were likely
to come under attack. He was prepared, ideologically, politically
and practically, to abandon the cities of China and "return
to Yenan", as he was fond of saying, and carry out guerrilla
warfare against an invading enemy. The famous Chinese revolutionary
policy of "dig tunnels deep, store grain everywhere and do
everything for the people" was an expression of this line.
The ability of a proletarian revolutionary like Mao to carry out
this policy is linked to the communist goal of wiping out imperialism
throughout the world and bringing into being communist society.
He knew that with imperialism still strong in the world the socialist
development of one country could only go so far, that peace with
the imperialists would be at most a truce until the latter attacked
once again.
Although even a genuine socialist economic policy will include developing
urban centres, in the oppressed countries the centre of revolution
is the countryside -- and this must also be the centre of national
economic development and national defence. In light of the imperialists'
efforts to starve Iraq, the full importance of Mao's instruction
to "take grain as the key link" can be readily seen.
Even a correct military line will not be able to keep the imperialists
from exacting a terrible toll on the people -- on this point there
can be no illusions. But the country can be developed, and defended,
in such a way that the tremendous sacrifices of the people are not
in vain and that, through waging protracted people's war, they are
in the end victorious.
***
The imperialists have many other weaknesses as well that a genuine
people's war would be able to exploit. For example, U.S. imperialism
is hated all over the world, and this hatred is particularly strong
throughout the whole of the Middle East. In many countries of the
region and the world, spontaneous outbursts of opposition to imperialist
aggression and outpourings of revolutionary sentiment took place.
But why has it proven so difficult for Saddam Hussein to take advantage
of this?
First of all, Saddam Hussein's Baathist ideology, given a new Islamic
coat of paint for the circumstances, has real limitations in its
capacity to mobilise masses, especially the non-Arab peoples. The
scars of Iraq's brutal war against Iran are an important factor
working against the mobilisation of the people of Iran against the
U.S. aggression. In Kuwait itself Hussein was unable to mobilise
a very large section of the population who hate the reactionary
rule of the Kuwaiti elite. But this section, made up largely of
Filipinos, Pakistanis, Indians, Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, etc.,
cannot be expected to embrace a slightly different version of the
same Arab chauvinism which had been used to justify their servitude
in Kuwait under the rule of the royal family.
It is particularly clear how a correct revolutionary and internationalist
policy concerning the Kurdish nation would have led to entirely
different results than the reactionary policy followed by the Iraqi
regime. For the Baathists, the presence of millions of Kurds within
Iraq is a dangerous liability. Yet not only are they a vital force
to mobilise within Iraq itself but the Kurdish masses in Turkey,
with a long history of opposing imperialism, are seething with revolt,
and the potential for another front against the "coalition"
was evident. The Turkish regime and its U.S. masters were aware
of the danger of unleashing this torrent of rebellion (which is
one reason they turned down offers from opportunists in Iraqi Kurdistan
who wanted to enlist their guerrilla fighters in the ranks of the
"coalition"). But how will the Kurds of Turkey feel about
coming to the aid of a regime which has used chemical weapons against
their people in Iraq and which, like the Turkish regime, preaches
the inferiority of the Kurdish people?
Saddam Hussein also tried to break out of his isolation by reaching
out to other forces in the region -- but he did this on a reactionary
basis. He was able to come to a quick agreement over a territorial
dispute with the reactionary regime of Iran over which eight years
of bloody war were fought. But when it came to the rights of the
Kurdish people, the only "concession" of the regime was
to remind them of Halabja.(3)
Among the Arabs themselves, the reactionary past of the Baathist
regime could not help but stand in the way of the people's desire
to combat U.S. aggression. In Egypt, where up to two million workers
had been in Iraq, it is widely known that the Baathist "Arab
brothers" were brutal, chauvinistic and often deadly exploiters
of the Egyptian workers. Unleashing the impoverished Egyptian masses
against the Mubarak regime could have been one of the greatest possible
"secret weapons", but it is a weapon that the Iraqi regime
could not wield.
Even the Palestinian masses, who were solid as a rock in supporting
Iraq against the U.S., were left sitting on the sidelines and waiting
for Saddam Hussein to make good on his pledge to "burn half
of Israel". In the final analysis, Hussein's bombast was a
demobilising factor in Jordan and occupied Palestine and
joins a long series of empty talk by Arab misleaders who promised
to "liberate Palestine" but always restrained the people
from fighting. The masses were ready to fight, and with correct
leadership a second front in Jordan could have been opened up which
would have delivered blows to Israel, mobilised further support
throughout the region and diverted the "coalition" armed
forces.
Generally it can be said that the potential in the region and in
the world for opposition to the U.S.-led aggression has hardly been
tapped. Mass demonstrations in all of the belligerent countries
showed that the imperialist aggressors also faced opposition at
home. An unjust war will give rise to opposition -- this is a law
of history, confirmed again during the Gulf war. This worldwide
opposition to the war could have been a vital reserve of strength
for Iraq, but without a determined struggle on the part of Iraq
itself this could only be partially mobilised -- if you want others
to stand firm you must first stand firm yourself. But there is every
reason to believe that if Iraq's war against U.S.-led aggression
had gone on for a protracted period of time and begun to deliver
blows to the enemy, opposition to the imperialists would have grown
stronger. This is another important lesson of the Vietnam war, which
led to an unprecedented movement of opposition within the United
States itself, as well as other countries, which cannot be obliterated.
***
Often communists are told that our politics are "unrealistic".
Your ideas may be correct "in theory", but "in practice"
there is no choice but to bend your principles to meet the expediency
of the moment. This approach is just as wrong in war as it is in
politics. In fact, it is the same ideology and the same approach
that preaches a mini-state, recognition of Israel and talks with
the U.S. one day, and the next day stakes the fate of the Palestinian
people on Scud technology.
Fighting a people's war, which requires a genuine people's army,
uniting with and fighting together with the masses and for their
interests, is the only path to victory. Other paths are but
a dangerous mirage. And history has shown again and again that only
the proletariat, through its vanguard party, can forge and lead
such an army and wage such a war.
No, the politics of the revolutionary communists are not just a
"better line" in the abstract. The ideologies of the exploiting
classes, be it Baathism, imperialist-sponsored reformism, religious
fundamentalism or any of a host of others, are wrong. Only Marxism-Leninism-Mao
Tsetung Thought can explain the world correctly, can reveal the
targets of the revolution, and can unite all who can be united of
all nationalities. Only Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tsetung Thought can
show the people how to use their strong points to attack the enemy's
weaknesses, how to go from weak to strong. In short, how to win.
In this light it is important to note once again the example of
the Communist Party of Peru which has been waging genuine people's
war for ten years. There is the danger that the U.S. will now step
up its intervention against the Peruvian revolution and it is vital
that the slogan "Yankee Go Home!" resound all the louder
in the wake of U.S. imperialism's ugly performance in the Gulf.
In the final analysis, the people's war led by the PCP will prove
stronger than all the fire and steel of the imperialists.
The imperialists have won a victory, but it will be short-lived.
Even at the height of the war the imperialists were deathly afraid
that the suppressed rage of the masses in the region could blow
up in their face. And this is why even in the very days following
the cease-fire, the imperialists already began to speak of the need
not to totally crush the Iraqi army which, they said, might be needed
to "quell internal disturbances".
The U.S. imperialists will not be able to organise their "New
World Order" in the Middle East or elsewhere without further
attacks on the people and continually disturbing the existing reactionary
set-up, however much they strive to keep it intact. Furthermore,
the period ahead also will be marked by increased squabbling and
fighting among the imperialists themselves over the spoils of war.
This increasing instability in the world and the region opens new
doors for the revolutionary struggle.
The imperialists are already beginning to talk about a "lasting
solution" to the "Palestinian problem". For more
than forty years, the existence of the state of Israel in occupied
Palestine has been the lynchpin of the imperialist order in the
Middle East. On the other hand, the struggle of the Palestinian
people against the Zionist state has been an inexhaustible source
of the revolution in the region. In George Bush's dream of a "New
World Order", the Palestinian people would meekly submit to
Israel's reinforced role in the region.
But the Palestinian people have proven again and again that they
will not allow their homeland to be bargained away. After the bloody
spectacle in the Gulf the people are being told to put their confidence
in international conferences sponsored by the same predators whose
fangs are dripping with the blood of the Iraqi people. But it is
unlikely that the Palestinians or other peoples of the region will
soon forgive or forget.
The task still remains of "drowning the U.S.-led aggressors
in a sea of people's war".(4) Now, more than ever, there is
a need for the people to have their own revolutionary force in the
field. The first and immediate step is for the rapid creation of
genuine Maoist vanguard parties which can lead and wield such an
army and uphold the independent interests of the proletariat and
the oppressed. With these weapons it is possible indeed to turn
today's defeat into tomorrow's victory.
1. Palestinian
news agency WAFA, quoted in the International Herald Tribune,
26 January 1991.
2. Speech
at the Islamic conference in Baghdad on 11 January 1991, quoted
in the IHT 27 February 1991.
3. Before
the outbreak of hostilities, Izzat Ibrahim, Vice Chairman of the
Revolutionary Council of Iraq, made a speech to the people in Sulaymaniyah
in Iraqi Kurdestan in which he reminded them of Halabja. Halabja
is the town in Iraqi Kurdestan which was the victim of a chemical
gas attack in 1988 which killed thousands of people.
4. See the
Call to the Peoples of the Arab world and the Middle East by the
Committee of the RIM in this issue.
Mao
Tsetung on the War of the Chiang Kaishek Government Against the
Japanese Invasion of China
"...As for
the lessons, they are likewise great ones. Several months of fighting
have disclosed many of China's weaknesses. They are manifest above
all in the political sphere. Although geographically the war involves
the whole country, it is not being waged by the whole nation. As
in the past, the broad masses are restrained by the government from
taking part, and so the war is not yet of a mass character. Unless
it has a mass character, the war against Japanese imperialist aggression
cannot possibly succeed. Some say, "The war is already an all-embracing
war." But this is true only in the sense that vast parts of the
country are involved. As regards participation, it is still a partial
war because it is being waged only by the government and the army,
and not by the people. It is precisely here that the chief reason
for the great loss of territory and for the many military setbacks
during the last few months is to be found. Therefore, although the
present armed resistance is a revolutionary one, its revolutionary
character is incomplete because it is not yet a mass war. Here,
too, the problem of unity is involved. Although the political parties
and groups are relatively united as compared with the past, unity
still falls far short of what is needed. Most of the political prisoners
have not yet been released, and the ban on political parties has
not been completely lifted. Relations are still very bad between
the government and the people, between the army and the people,
and between officers and men, and here one observes estrangement
instead of unity. This is a fundamental problem. Unless it is solved,
victory is out of the question. In addition, military blunders are
another major reason for our losses in men and territory. The battles
fought have been mostly passive, or to put it in military terms,
have been battles of "pure defence". We can never win by fighting
this way. For the attainment of victory, policies radically different
from the present ones are necessary in both the political and the
military fields. These are the lessons we have learned..."
-- From Mao
Tsetung, Selected Works, Vol II, "Interview with James Bertram".
|