Midterm elections typically fail to excite much interest or enthusiasm but November 2006 is shaping up to be a major contest. Commentators are openly speculating about voter anger at the war, corruption, and economic pains fueling an all-out Republican collapse.

Against this background a section of the Democratic Party has begun to more sharply criticize the Bush administration, particularly its Iraq policy. In recent months a number of prominent Democrats (and Republicans) have moved to support rapid or phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

This shift from the staunchly pro-war stance of the party leadership in the 2004 elections has given rise to new hopes among antiwar activists that the Democrats could, after all, become a vehicle to end the war. Many antiwar leaders are now urging us to focus the movement on winning Democratic control of Congress next November.

In our view, this is a completely bankrupt political strategy. There is a world of difference between the goals of the “antiwar” Democrats and the goals of genuine activists of the antiwar movement.

The Democratic politicians calling for a withdrawal of U.S. troops are not doing so for progressive reasons, i.e. out of concern for the Iraqi people or the burden the war is placing on ordinary working people here at home. In reality, they are driven by electoral opportunism – the desire to cash in on growing antiwar sentiment to make gains in the 2006 elections – and ruling class calculations to mitigate the disaster U.S. imperialism faces in Iraq.

Facing Defeat in Iraq
Behind the “stay the course” rhetoric still pouring from the White House, there is a growing consensus among the serious strategists of U.S. capitalism that they face a catastrophic defeat in Iraq. The strength of the insurgency, fears of military over-stretch, and growing domestic opposition have opened up a fierce debate within the establishment over how to proceed.

William Odom, the former head of the National Security Council and a retired General, said “The invasion of Iraq… will turn out to be the greatest strategic disaster in U.S. history” (democracynow.org, 10/4/05).

To minimize their losses and prevent the kind of military collapse that characterized the end of the Vietnam War, a growing number of political and military tops now believe that the interests of U.S. imperialism will be best served by organizing an orderly retreat from Iraq sooner rather than later. From the baseline of 136,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, Pentagon officials express hope they can reduce the number to 100,000 by the end of 2006.

A new study commissioned by the Pentagon warns that forced redeployments and a crisis in recruitment has left the Army a “thin green line” that could soon snap. The study, authored by Andrew Krepinevich, executive director of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, found that the Army is “in a race against time” to win the war or “or risk `breaking’ the force in the form of a catastrophic decline” in recruitment and re-enlistment.

The military will not be able to sustain deployments long enough to crush the insurgency, predicts Krepinevich, who also concluded that Pentagon plans for lowering troop levels in 2006 was driven by the realization that they were overextended (AP, 1/24/06).

On the other hand, if U.S. imperialism “cuts and runs” from Iraq, its control of some of the most important oil reserves on the planet, in Iraq and throughout the Middle East, will be severely undermined. American imperialism is clearly looking for a way out, but vital oil interests and defense of power and prestige could continue to bog the U.S. down for several years to come.

Democratic Congressman John Murtha, the ex-Marine from Pennsylvania, broke the political ice on November 17th with his teary-eyed appeal for the “immediate redeployment” of US troops from Iraq, warning the Army was “broken, worn out.”

The leaders of many antiwar groups, including United for Peace and Justice, have since been singing Murtha’s praises. But in reality Murtha remains completely antagonistic to the entire spirit of UFPJ’s stated mission to “oppose our government’s policy of permanent warfare and empire-building.”

Murtha’s call for “immediate redeployment” was notable only because he is a known hawk, with extremely close ties to the Pentagon establishment, and is the senior Democrat on the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. In reality, his “redeployment” plan means keeping troops and bases in the region ready to intervene against future threats to U.S. oil interests, and continuing the air war against insurgents.

Murtha and the military brass he speaks for are looking to prevent a breakdown of the U.S. military machine, so that it will be intact to violently pursue U.S. corporate interests in the future.

A Party of the Ruling Class
House minority leader Nancy Pelosi endorsed Murtha’s plan for “immediate redeployment” for similar reasons. But Pelosi is also motivated by the electoral potential of appealing to antiwar sentiment.

Pelosi and Murtha still represent a minority of Democrats, but there is growing alarm within party leadership circles over their inability to make electoral gains given the Republicans crisis. As Bush and his Party sink deeper into the political quicksand of Iraq and their deceit and corruption at home, the Democrats have also watched their poll numbers decline almost as much!

Complaining to the New York Times about his party, Democratic Gov. Phil Bredesen of Tennessee said, “We’ve got to stand for more than just blasting the other side… the country is wide open to hear some alternatives…” (2/8/06).

The problem, of course, is that the Democratic leadership has been completely complicit in all the key crimes of the Bush administration. As Bush loves pointing out, the Democrats voted for the Iraq war and the war on Afghanistan. They supported the Patriot Act, which was itself an extension of the curtailments on civil liberties and anti-immigrant legislation passed by Clinton in the 1990s. Every time Bush asks Congress for more money to rape and pillage Iraq, most Democrats, including Pelosi, quietly raise their hands in support.

Now after three years of complicity in the brutal devastation of Iraq they are looking to chase after public opinion, which, no thanks to the Democrats, has turned decisively against the war.

Instead of praising Pelosi and Murtha, the antiwar movement should be pointing out how, even now, the majority of Democrats refuse to stand against Bush and the war! Despite the fact that most Americans want to see a rapid end to the war, with the full extent of the disaster in Iraq now clear, Hillary Clinton and the rest still refuse to take a clear “out now” stand!

In December Pelosi admitted, “there is no one Democratic position” on Iraq. The chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), quipped, “As for Iraq policy, at the right time, we’ll have a position” (Washington Post, 12/16/05). We are left to wonder how many more innocents will die before the Democrats unveil their secret plan.

A recent report commissioned by Pelosi and the Democrats’ Senate leader Harry Reid, titled “The U.S. Military: Under Strain and at Risk,” exposed the limits of their liberalism. The study was headed by Madeline Albright and William Perry, Secretaries of State and Defense under Clinton, and included a host of other Democratic luminaries.

Among its recommendations, highlighted in a press release (1/25/06), was to “Increase the deployable Army forces by at least 30,000 personnel” and to “Rebalance the U.S. military capabilities” for “combating terrorism and insurgency and conducting reconstruction operations.” In other words, for ongoing and future military occupations of other countries! As a final slap in the face to the antiwar movement, they urged “Increas[ing] support for recruiting and retention efforts.”

This is in line with the entire history of the Democratic Party. From JFK and LBJ’s prosecution of the Vietnam war, Jimmy Carter’s backing of the Shah’s brutal dictatorship in Iran (until the 1979 Iranian Revolution overthrew the Shah), numerous US interventions in Latin America, to Bill Clinton’s military enforcement of economic sanctions on Iraq, which caused around a million deaths by U.N. estimates, the Democrats have unflinchingly proven themselves as loyal servants of corporate Americas’ imperial ambitions.

An Anti-War Alternative
This is why it is a big mistake for the antiwar movement to align itself with the Democratic Party, or back Democratic “antiwar” candidates. Instead, antiwar activists should use the increased political debate around the 2006 elections to step up our campaign to organize the opposition to the war. Unlike in 2004, when the movement went into hibernation to campaign for Kerry, we need to put the maximum pressure on both parties of the ruling class through mass protests demanding an immediate end to the war.

Strengthening the power of the antiwar movement means building up our organization and support in our workplaces, communities, and schools. The antiwar movement needs to explain the human and financial costs of the war.

We must link our struggle to the fight against budget cuts, layoffs, poverty, and the healthcare crisis here at home. We need to show how the war on terrorism is used to whip up racism, dividing and weakening working people in the face of corporate attacks on our living standards.

Rather than facing towards the Democrats, the antiwar movement needs to strive to link up with workers struggles, like the recent Transit Workers strike in New York or the developing battle in the auto industry against massive layoffs and wage cuts.

Will the candidates of the Democratic Party, financed by corporate interests, make such a principled, working class case against the war and Bush? There is no evidence to suggest they are capable of anything more than mealy-mouthed criticisms of Bush and half-hearted proposals. The Democrats have absolutely no credibility with ordinary people who are disgusted with their hypocrisy, dishonesty and corporate policies.

Where we have the strength, the antiwar movement should run independent candidates for local and national office, challenging the corporate candidate of both parties.

Successful independent antiwar candidates, if they combined the antiwar message with a bold appeal on working class demands like opposing cuts in social programs, national healthcare, jobs programs and living wages, would go much further in pressuring the whole establishment for an end to the war than any “reform from within” strategy ever could.