As these ground forces begin to gather in the Middle East, U.S. and British warplanes have sharply stepped up their attacks on Iraqi antiaircraft defense in the UN-imposed "no-fly zones" in the north and south of the country. Large-scale attacks that have often received little media coverage have included 19 sorties on October 1 and 61 sorties two days later. The latter raids, which overflew some 22 Iraqi towns, were backed by an AWACS spy plane in Saudi airspace.

Through such major commitments of their armed forces, the British rulers, while collaborating as a junior partner of Washington, are promoting their own imperialist interests in the oil-rich Middle East.

"British and U.S. forces are already on the ground in the region," reported the Daily Telegraph in mid-September. Commanders have ordered every army unit to provide a full accounting of its readiness for deployment. According to media reports, the army forces in the Gulf will include two armored brigades, an armored division, and their logistical backup--forces that by themselves would total 20,000 troops, or about one-fifth of the total regular army.

These forces would be equipped with Challenger tanks, Warrior armored vehicles, and self-propelled artillery and multiple rocket launch systems suitable for a push into Iraq from Kuwait.

A marine commando brigade has been prepared for an amphibious assault on the south. One blueprint that has received a public airing says that a British air assault brigade will back up an occupation of northern Iraq by U.S. airborne troops.

Current plans would supplement these troop deployments with 4,000 Navy personnel on 20 warships, including the aircraft carrier Ark Royal and the amphibious assault carrier Ocean. Five thousand Royal Air Force (RAF) troops assigned to 110 combat aircraft would also be deployed. The British planes are currently being upgraded with new long-range missiles. U.S. Air Force engineers have relaid three large air bases to be used by U.S. and British combat planes. Meanwhile, leave for RAF pilots and other personnel has been canceled.

The government’s decision to send troops has received strong backing from Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith.

As the military preparations march forward, London and Washington on October 3 acted to suspend 1,936 contracts worth $7.8 billion that Iraq had concluded with foreign companies as part of the UN-sanctioned "oil-for-food" program.

According to Iraqi trade minister Muhammad Salih, 182 contracts for food supplies, 189 for medicine and medical supplies, 167 for water and sewerage, and 245 for agriculture and irrigation were affected.

The government of Prime Minister Anthony Blair has played a leading part in campaigning to build domestic and international support for the imperialist military action. In late September British diplomats traveled to Beijing, Moscow, and Paris. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw visited Paris, Cairo, Kuwait City, and Tehran, and Blair himself went to Moscow. The immediate goal of the trips is to win the backing of members states of the UN Security Council for resolutions setting up "coercive" inspections of alleged Iraqi weapons sites.

This diplomatic activity notwithstanding, Blair told delegates at the annual conference of the governing Labour Party that unilateral action by London and Washington may be necessary.

In his televised speech, Blair said that the Security Council should "lay down [an] ultimatum" to Baghdad; if the council fails to act, he said, "we will destroy not the authority of America or Britain but of the United Nations itself.

"The U.S. is the only superpower," Blair said. "It’s easy to be anti-American," he added in reply to Labour figures who have criticized his open alliance with Washington.

Special guest William Clinton urged the conference to back Blair and U.S. president George Bush on Iraq. While speaking in favor of Blair’s diplomatic efforts, the former U.S. president reminded the delegates that London and Washington had gone to war against Serbia without UN backing. Both politicians received standing ovations.

Government minister Clare Short, who had been critical of Blair’s stance, said she "completely" agreed with the prime minister’s speech.

Senior trade union officials have also declared their support for Blair’s war moves. Speaking at a conference of the Trade Union Congress (TUC), General Secretary John Monks said that while the union leadership opposed unilateral action "by the United States or any other country...this Congress has an honorable record in promoting peace but it has never been pacifist in the face of dictators."

Catherine Sutherland of the General, Municipal and Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union told the TUC delegates, "We are entitled to defend our civilized societies. We want to maintain law and order in world affairs as well as at home. We have shown in Kuwait and Iraq in 1991, in Yugoslavia and Kosovo in 1999, and in Afghanistan in 2002, that ultimately we are prepared to defend human rights by meeting force with force."  
 
Anti-American nationalism
Robert Crow, general secretary of the rail workers union, spoke against this position. He backed a resolution that opposed Washington’s proposed national missile defense in the name of "British security," and called for support for a motion against "the proposed military attack by the USA on Iraq."

Prominent speakers at the large antiwar demonstration held September 28 in London voiced similar nationalist and anti-American sentiments.

One speaker, Labour member of Parliament (MP) George Galloway declared that "Britons do not want war." Former MP Anthony Benn, a prominent voice of Labour’s left wing, said, "Nothing can take the British people into a war that they do not accept and do not want."

Police estimated that more than 150,000 people attended the action, while organizers put the turnout much higher. Participants carried placards saying "Don’t attack Iraq" and "Not in my name." Many who turned out were young.

London’s current march toward war in the Middle East stands in continuity with its history of military intervention in pursuance of its imperial objectives.

The region’s economic and strategic value have been of prime importance to the capitalists in Britain, both when it was the dominant imperialist power, and since Washington asserted its supremacy in the course of two world wars.

The British army sent troops to Iraq in the 19th century: to crush an insurgency against British rule in 1920; and to put down Iraqi government opposition to Britain’s domination of the country’s oil in 1941.

British imperialism continues to have substantial interests in the region. London played a prominent role in the last imperialist assault on Iraq in 1990–1991 and in the brutal economic sanctions and air attacks that have marked the following decade.  
 
Military strikebreakers
Meanwhile, as the British armed forces gear up for an air assault and ground invasion of Iraq, 15,000 to 20,000 troops from the army, navy, and air force are being trained as potential strikebreakers in a looming national confrontation with the Fire Brigades Union.

Firefighters have been taking part in ballots for industrial action to back their fight for a pay raise. In June 12,000 unionists rallied in London to press their claim, while a further 5,000 rallied a month later in Glasgow.

A three-star general will command the military units being prepared to step into the firefighters’ place in the event of a strike. The forces include a paratroop regiment earmarked for Essex--known as one of the more militant sectors of the union. Military chiefs have told Defense Secretary Geoffrey Hoon that this deployment will affect commitments to the war against Iraq.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home