US Mass Mobilizations: Wars and Financial Plunder By James Petras Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, December 3, 2018

Anti-Trump mass mobilization in 2017 faded away because of a lack of leadership

US Mass Mobilizations: Wars and Financial Plunder

Introduction

Over the past three decades, the US government has engaged in over a dozen
wars, none of which have evoked popular celebrations either before, during or after. Nor
did the government succeed in securing popular support in its efforts to confront the
economic crises of 2008 – 2009.

This paper will begin by discussing the major wars of our time, namely the two
US invasions of Iraq . We will proceed to analyze the nature of the popular response and
the political consequences.

In the second section we will discuss the economic crises of 2008 -2009, the
government bailout and popular response. We will conclude by focusing on the
potential powerful changes inherent in mass popular movements.

The Iraq War and the US Public

In the run-up to the two US wars against Iraq, (1990 – 01 and 2003 – 20011) there
was no mass war fever, nor did the public celebrate the outcome. On the contrary both
wars were preceded by massive protests in the US and among EU allies. The first Iraqi
invasion was opposed by the vast-majority of the US public despite a major mass media
and regime propaganda campaign backed by President George H. W. Bush.

Subsequently, President Clinton launched a bombing campaign against Iraq in December
1998 with virtually no public support or approval.

March 20, 2003, President George W. Bush launched the second major war
against Iraq despite massive protests in all major US cities. The war was officially
concluded by President Obama in December 2011. President Obama’s declaration of a
successful conclusion failed to elicit popular agreement.

Several questions arise: Why mass opposition at the start of the Iraq wars and
why did they fail to continue?

Why did the public refuse to celebrate President Obama’s ending of the war in
2011?

Why did mass protests of the Iraq wars fail to produce durable political vehicles
to secure the peace?

The Anti-Iraq War Syndrome

The massive popular movements which actively opposed the Iraq wars had their
roots in several historical sources. The success of the movements that ended the Viet
Nam war, the ideas that mass activity could resist and win was solidly embedded in large
segments of the progressive public. Moreover, they strongly held the idea that the mass
media and Congress could not be trusted; this reinforced the idea that mass direct action
was essential to reverse Presidential and Pentagon war policies.

The second factor encouraging US mass protest was the fact that the US was
internationally isolated. Presidents George H. W. and George W. Bush wars faced
hostile regime and mass opposition in Europe, the Middle East and in the UN General
Assembly. US activists felt that they were part of a global movement which could
succeed.

Thirdly the advent of Democratic President Clinton did not reverse the mass anti
war movements. The terror bombing of Iraq in December 1998 was destructive and
Clinton’s war against Serbia kept the movements alive and active To the extent that
Clinton avoided large scale long-term wars, he avoided provoking mass movements from
re-emerging during the latter part of the 1990’s.

The last big wave of mass anti-war protest occurred from 2003 to 2008. Mass
anti-war protest to war exploded soon after the World Trade Center bombings of 9/11.
White House exploited the events to proclaim a global ‘war on terror’, yet the mass
popular movements interpreted the same events as a call to oppose new wars in the
Middle East.

Anti-war leaders drew activists of the entire decade, envisioning a ‘build-up’
which could prevent the Bush regime from launching a series of wars without end.
Moreover, the vast-majority of the public was not convinced by officials’ claims that
Iraq, weakened and encircled, was stocking ‘weapons of mass destruction’ to attack the
US.

Large scale popular protests challenged the mass media, the so called respectable
press and ignored the Israeli lobby and other Pentagon warlords demanding an invasion
of Iraq. The vast-majority of American, did not believe they were threatened by Saddam
Hussain they felt a greater threat from the White House’s resort to severe repressive
legislation like the Patriot Act. Washington’s rapid military defeat of Iraqi forces and its
occupation of the Iraqi state led to a decline in the size and scope of the anti-war
movement but not to its potential mass base.

Two events led to the demise of the anti-war movements. The anti-war leaders
turned from independent direct action to electoral politics and secondly, they embraced
and channeled their followers to support Democratic presidential candidate Obama. In
large part the movement leaders and activists believed that direct action had failed to
prevent or end the previous two Iraq wars. Secondly, Obama made a direct demagogic
appeal to the peace movement – he promised to end wars and pursue social justice at
home.

With the advent of Obama, many peace leaders and followers joined the Obama
political machine .Those who were not coopted were quickly disillusioned on all counts.
Obama continued the ongoing wars and added new ones—Libya, Honduras, Syria. The
US occupation in Iraq led to new extremist militia armies which preceded to defeat US
trained vassal armies up to the gates of Baghdad. In short time Obama launched a flotilla
of warships and warplanes to the South China Sea and dispatched added troops to
Afghanistan.

The mass popular movements of the previous two decades were totally
disillusioned, betrayed and disoriented. While most opposed Obama’s ‘new’ and ‘old
wars’ they struggled to find new outlets for their anti-war beliefs. Lacking alternative
anti-war movements, they were vulnerable to the war propaganda of the media and the
new demagogue of the right. Donald Trump attracted many who opposed the war
monger Hilary Clinton.

The Bank Bailout: Mass Protest Denied

In 2008, at the end of his presidency, President George W. Bush signed off on a
massive federal bailout of the biggest Wall Street banks who faced bankruptcy from their
wild speculative profiteering.

In 2009 President Obama endorsed the bailout and urged rapid Congressional
approval. Congress complied to a $700-billion- dollar handout ,which according to
Forbes (July 14, 2015) rose to $7.77 trillion. Overnight hundreds of thousands of
American demanded Congress rescind the vote. Under immense popular protest,
Congress capitulated.However President Obama and the Democratic Party leadership
insisted: the bill was slightly modified and approved. The ‘popular will’ was denied.
The protests were neutralized and dissipated. The bailout of the banks proceeded, while
several million households watched while their homes were foreclosed ,despite some
local protests. Among the anti-bank movement, radical proposals flourished, ranging
from calls to nationalize them, to demands to let the big banks go bankrupt and provide
federal financing for co-operatives and community banks.

Clearly the vast-majority of the American people were aware and acted to resist
corporate-collusion to plunder taxpayers.

Conclusion: What is to be Done?

Mass popular mobilizations are a reality in the United States. The problem is that
they have not been sustained and the reasons are clear: they lacked political organization
which would go beyond protests and reject lesser evil policies.

The anti-war movement which started in opposition to the Iraq war was marginalized by
the two dominant parties. The result was the multiplication of new wars. By the second
year of Obama’s presidency the US was engaged in seven wars.

By the second year of Trump’s Presidency the US was threatening nuclear wars against
Russia, Iran and other ‘enemies’ of the empire. While public opinion was decidedly
opposed, the ‘opinion’ barely rippled in the mid-term elections.

Where have the anti-war and anti-bank masses gone? I would argue they are still
with us but they cannot turn their voices into action and organization if they remain in the
Democratic Party. Before the movements can turn direct action into effective political
and economic transformations, they need to build struggles at every level from the local
to the national.

The international conditions are ripening. Washington has alienated countries
around the world ;it is challenged by allies and faces formidable rivals. The domestic
economy is polarized and the elites are divided.

Mobilizations, as in France today, are self-organized through the internet; the
mass media are discredited. The time of liberal and rightwing demagogues is passing; the
bombast of Trump arouses the same disgust as ended the Obama regime.

Optimal conditions for a new comprehensive movement that goes beyond
piecemeal reforms is on the agenda. The question is whether it is now or in future years
or decades?

***

Share the link of this article with your facebook friends