A war to promote Anglo-American imperialism

Hartford Web Publishing is not the author of the documents in World History Archives and does not presume to validate their accuracy or authenticity nor to release their copyright.

Appointment with war: Iraq; the imperial precedent: By Charles Tripp, Le Monde diplomatique, January 2003. Over 80 years ago Great Britain conquered the three Ottoman provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul and welded them into the new state of Iraq. The echoes of the present and of possible future scenarios in Iraq has less to do with some irreducible essence of Iraqi history than with the logic of imperial power.
War and the military-industrial complex: By Henry C K Liu, Asia Times, 31 January 2003. The geopolitical and economic impact of the key official pretext for the pending invasion, which is to facilitate disarmament of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) on a defenseless sovereign nation by the world’s sole superpower. The real issue on whether a nation faces attack rests on whether it possesses a creditable counterstrike force as a deterrence to preemptive attack from a nation which itself has steadfastly refused to adopt a no-first-use doctrine on WMD.
Imperialism’s preparation for war—stepping up its moves toward an invasion of Iraq: By Diana Howell, The Militant, 1 February 2003. The Democrats in Congress have fallen in line behind the White House to carry out the course of imperialist war supported by the U.S. ruling class. The moves toward war have little to do with the current occupant of the White House. Much less are they the brainchild of a supposedly rightist administration, as some apologists for the liberal wing of imperialism argue.
Underlying the US drive to war is a thirst to open up new opportunities for surplus capital: By George Monbiot, The Guardian (London), 18 February 2003. Professor David Harvey, one of the world’s most distinguished geographers, has provided what may be the first comprehensive explanation of the US government’s determination to go to war. It has little to do with Iraq, less to do with weapons of mass destruction and nothing to do with helping the oppressed. The underlying problem the US confronts is the over-accumulation of capital.
Materialist Analysis and the War Against Iraq: 23 February 2003. The of political leaders are always told in the service of what they consider overriding truths, and, that the latter just happen to be understandings vital to defending their own social existence and that of the elite’s they so efficiently represent. When force becomes the easiest way for people to maintain their social existence, they have had no difficulty whatsoever justifying a wanton pillage and plunder.
Imperialism drives to war—again: By Zita Kitchen, 4 March 2003. The arms inspectors are not preventing a war, but giving political cover to Washington to unleash an assault on the people of Iraq. This is not Bush’s war—it’s U.S. imperialism’s war. The debates between Democrats and Republicans reveal no fundamental difference over this course, only tactical disputes over how to conduct imperialist war policy and convince working people to accept it.