Oslo & the empire

It was an historic moment: a Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech that was an apology for an imperialist war of occupation. More than that, it preemptively laid out the justification for U.S. imperialist wars.

Even without hearing the speech, you could measure it by the reactions it evoked. Reactionaries Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin, who have otherwise attacked everything President Barack Obama does and says, applauded and praised the speech, as did much of the U.S.-based corporate media. Others more skeptical of U.S. military adventures were either surprised or appalled. One common commentary in the media was that “Obama sounded like Bush,” or at least “like a better educated Bush.”

The Oslo speech provides an opportunity to step back from individuals and look at the forces that drive U.S. imperialism. The same political and repressive mechanisms remain in play whatever party has its hands on the reins and whatever president is in the White House.

The George W. Bush years tended to obscure this reality. Bush himself was always so arrogant, always so obviously a product of a lifetime of unearned privilege and always so crass and enthusiastic in his promotion of Washington’s narrow interests that anyone not looking closely might miss the fact that he and his policies had the full support of the great majority of the U.S. ruling class — until his wars started to crumble.

Vice President Dick Cheney so epitomized the evil figure behind the throne that you might ignore his central role in the capitalist establishment. The rest of the Bush gang, what were called the “neo-cons,” used whatever managerial or intellectual talents they had to plan aggressive wars and transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. They always made sure to put some in their own pockets — with an obvious attitude that they were entitled to their privileges.

Many saw the problem with the U.S. role as rooted in Bush and Company, or the Republican right, or the Republican Party, and missed the central role of the imperialist system that engendered this particular set of war criminals.

But now there is a Democratic Party administration, and a large Democratic Party majority in Congress. The president is a much more sympathetic figure. He makes intelligent speeches that show a broader world perspective. Yet the Oslo speech dissolves the differences.

U.S. foreign policy, U.S. aggressive war policy, as explained in Oslo, remains the same: the U.S. will invade where it wants to. To Washington, the opponents of the U.S. are “evil,” while U.S. interests are “good.” In Washington’s ideological model, the Taliban and whatever al-Qaida forces remain in Afghanistan — 100 according to U.S. intelligence — take the place of Saddam Hussein and “weapons of mass destruction.” A slightly new set of lies will be used to justify war in Afghanistan, war on Pakistan, and whatever other war is seen as useful to U.S. banks and industry or strategic position.

Behind this policy is the crisis of capitalism worldwide, the U.S. drive to continually expand its access to raw materials, especially energy resources, its access to markets and new areas of investment, the competition with imperialist rivals in Europe and Japan, the growing contradictions and anticipated conflicts with Russia and China. These make U.S. military aggression almost inevitable.

The Pentagon designed Washington’s policy for Iraq and now for Afghanistan. Driven by that same impulse to expand — while the capitalist economy is contracting — the ruling class here has reached a consensus behind that aggressive strategy. Regarding the Afghanistan escalation and the Oslo speech, this is apparent from the broad support from the corporate media, including not only the militarist hacks at Fox News but the capitalist mainstream semi-official media like the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal.

The Democratic Party goes along with this — whatever the tactical misgivings of Vice President Joe Biden or the opposition of a senator or two. And whether the president is enthusiastic, neutral or reluctant hardly seems to matter. The Oslo speech shows that he accepts the role of the U.S. president — chief executive for U.S. imperialism — and will argue its case.

No matter how dangerous the war, how high the suffering of the occupied population or the sacrifices of U.S. workers and youth, neither the generals, the class they serve nor the two capitalist political parties will accept defeat and withdrawal. That is, unless there is a resistance army fighting them blow for blow in the occupied country and a powerful workers’ movement challenging them at home.