Bush’s ‘war on terror’ is in focus. Humiliating defeat of Bush’s Republican Party in US elections on November 7 leading to loss of control of both houses of US Parliament has come in the wake of looming defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, humiliating defeat of Israeli aggressors in Lebanon, rising sentiments of the people against US imperialism in Middle-east, Latin America and other parts of world. “Staying the course” is no longer a viable proposition, US Defence Secretary Rumsfield has been fired and the neo-cons are in disarray with their pet project “Occupation of Iraq” going haywire and Israel licking its wounds after war against Lebanon. “Other ways for stabilizing US hegemony” are being sought, US imperialist chieftains looking for alternate strategies. A new situation obtains, changes brought about by the tremendous sacrifices by the people of Iraq and Afghanistan in their national wars, by the people of third world countries in their struggles against imperialism and domestic reactionaries and by the differences among imperialist powers in their struggle over share in the loot and plunder of third world countries. People’s struggles have played the major role in bringing about the changes asserting once again that they and not the reactionaries, are the decisive force.

In the US elections, Bush called for “staying the course” till the victory in Iraq. This made Bush so unpopular in US that candidates of his own party shunned him. To shore up his Party’s fortunes Bush Admn. instructed their cronies in Baghdad to sentence Saddam Hussein to death just two days before the election. Yet his Party failed, with two thirds of voters admitting that Iraq war influenced their vote.

While these elections demonstrated the disillusionment of US voters against Iraq war, while it is a clear message against Bush’s handling of war, it would be futile to expect that the Democratic Party which has gained control over the two houses of US parliament, would force the Bush Admn. to withdraw troops from Iraq. What bothers Democratic leadership is not the war, but the looming defeat. According to a report “nearly 8 out of every 10 Democrats (78%) want an immediate or partial withdrawal of troops from Iraq.” But it is significant that “64% of the Democratic candidates in the 45 closely contested House Congressional races OPPOSE a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Note carefully: not only do these Democratic worthies oppose the Murtha or McGovern bills for rapid withdrawal or defunding the war; they oppose as much as a timetable….The position of these Dem. candidates is indistinguishable from that of George W. Bush”. It is also worth remembering that in 2002 elections, when Bush’s victory was being treated as a foregone conclusion, the race was livened up by a candidate challenging Iraq War. The Democratic Party leadership had then moved to prop up the candidature of John Kerry, a supporter of Iraq war.

While the Middle-east is in focus for the struggle of the people of these countries against US-Israel aggressions, Democratic Party does not represent any change in the course. Democratic Party nominee for the speakership of the House, Ms. Pelosi is an ardent supporter of Israel’s aggressions. In a speech she remarked, “In truth, the history of the conflict is not over occupation, and never has been: it is over the fundamental right of Israel to exist.” She also shares the US-Israel drive against Iran “The greatest threat to Israel’s right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran.” Both the Republican and Democratic Parties, representing the interests of giant MNCs, are votaries of US hegemonism.

However, the Iraq situation is forcing itself on the ruling elite of US who had not bargained for such a strong resistance from the Iraqi people. With nearly 3,000 US soldiers killed in Iraq and over 20,000 seriously wounded, the US authority is limited to their barracks and green zone in Baghdad. Even the US President George Bush had to admit that “US is not winning in Iraq”. With Bush script going awfully wrong in Iraq, the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Congressional Committee has given its report calling for changing course. They have suggested among other things, talking to Iran and Syria for their help in stabilizing Iraq and gradual withdrawal of US Army from the combat duties though without suggesting any timetable for withdrawal. All calls for change of course in Iraq are aimed at preserving the US influence in Iraq and middle-east. The impending defeat in Iraq is being viewed as a catastrophe to US interests in the whole region and also wider world. It is unimaginable for them to visualize a world where they do not play the overlord, where they are not called upon to bear the “white men’s burden.” What is required is not merely a change of course in Iraq but a change of course in America whose rulers consider it their right to lord over the world, to crush the people’s aspirations in all countries.

Bush Admn. has already started work on “other ways” while Bush is set to announce his new policy in early January. Contacts have been established with Govts. in Iran and Syria while Bush is rallying puppet Emirs and Shahs showing them the danger of Iran. His Govt. is also alarmed at the rising stock of Hizbullah in Lebanon who had defeated the Israeli aggression. Hizbullah and its allies have launched a people’s movement against pro-US Govt. of Sinoria which has drawn unprecedented participation and is threatening to undo the ‘victory’ of west sponsored change in Lebanon after the assassination of former Premier Rafiq Hariri.

US-UK imperialists are working overtime to deepen Shi’i-Sunni divide in Iraq and the whole Middle-east thereby diverting attention from what is essentially revolt of the people against their domination and aggression of their protégé, Israeli Zionists. It was the US-UK invaders who sponsored the death squads in Iraq killing those opposed to US led occupation of their country. Role of US-UK imperialists in these attacks has been documented by a number of reports. UK imperialists have been past masters in this game from their colonial days.

However, their game of playing Shi’i-Sunni divide is seriously hampered by the situation in Palestine where the Israeli military aggressors have created new records in trampling people’s rights under military boots, targeting old and children, killing civilians and devastating the infrastructure. Palestinians' cause is close to the people of all middle-east countries and it is here that US rulers are called upon to show results. Baker-Hamilton, Emirs and Shahs, all desirous of seeing the US influence not wane in middle-east are urging action. And here is the Achilles heel of US middle-east policy. US, UK and other western powers, all ‘champions of democracy’ refused to accept the results of free and fair Palestinian polls in which Hamas triumphed over Fatah. They demonstrated to the whole world that their avowed love for democracy is only to further their own imperial interests and has nothing to do with people’s right to choose their representatives. Even at home they suppress the democratic rights of the people in the name of their ‘war against terror.’ They have made their democracy from exportable commodity to pure export commodity, that too retaining their right to export.

Hence we see a renewed drive to crush Palestinian struggle and impose Abbas and his Fatah over the Palestinian people so that they can show a sort of progress in resolving the Israel-Palestine disputes. But their game will come to nought as elsewhere.

While Hizbullah's resistance to Israeli aggression dramatically brought into open the limits of US power, it is the national war of Iraqi people which has pride of place among the struggles of world people which have challenged the US strategy to secure its hegemonism and have spurred the change in the international situation. Iraqi people have made and are making tremendous sacrifices in their national struggles. According to reports nearly 7 lakh Iraqis have died after the US led military occupation of Iraq. The national war of Iraqi people has reined in the aggressive designs of US imperialism and given a crude jolt to the US plans to invade Iran.

Even in Afghanistan that national war of Afghan people has been dealing serious blows at the US-UK invaders. UK is leading the NATO operations in Afghanistan where the Mayor of Kabul, puppet Karzai, does not dare to venture out of his palace. The intensifying war in Afghanistan has forced the UK’s Defence Secretary Des Brown to admit, “We do have to accept that it’s been even harder than we expected.” At the recent Riga summit of NATO, US president Bush asking NATO members to increase their Armymen in Afghanistan, had this to say, “The Taliban radicals who are trying to pull down Afghanistan’s democracy and regain power saw the transfer from American to NATO control as a window of opportunity to test the will of the Alliance.” Situation is quite desperate for the NATO forces in South and Southeast Afghanistan. After five years of occupation UK’s Premier Blair admitted, “Here in this extraordinary piece of desert is where the future of world security in the early twenty-first century is going to be played out.” Only the parts which are relatively peaceful are northern (Tazhik-Uzbek) areas of Afghanistan where Russia holds influence and western part inhabited by Shi’is aligned with Iran. It is not only Iraq but also Afghanistan that US-UK tried to colonize, that the people fought against the imperialist invaders.

The struggle of world people against growing imperialist exploitation and in particular against the US war drive and hegemonism have been intensifying. The whole of Latin America, once considered by the US rulers as their backyard, has become a front against US imperialism. A wave of anger sweeps through the Latin American countries resulting in electoral defeats of a number of pro-US regimes in the region. The US domination and the role of US MNCs in monopolizing the resources of the region and supporting the fascist rulers subservient to their imperialist interests have increased the anger of the people. The growing trade relations with European countries and the intensifying contradictions among imperialist countries, sharply increasing trade relations with China which has emerged as a large trading partner of Latin American countries, are also playing their role in the growing anti-US mood of the people in the Latin American countries.

In Colombia revolutionary forces are waging armed struggle and control nearly half of the country. The US backed rulers' military campaigns and sponsored vigilante groups are being combated by the people's forces. Plan Colombia of US imperialists has failed to stop the revolutionary struggle. Struggle in Colombia is the most important struggle from the point of challenging the existing system. In addition in a number of countries, the rulers have come to power through elections on the basis of growing anger against US imperialism and its lackeys. All these regimes are not similar in their approach towards US imperialism and the financial institutions controlled by it. Hugo Chavez Govt. of Venezuela has been the most vocal critic of US imperialism and Chavez had survived a coup attempt authored by US imperialists. Bolivia, the only Latin American country with a majority of indigenous population, elected its first indigenous President, Morales, who has sought to exercise the Govt. control over its natural resources. Sadinista leader Ortega has been re-elected in Nicargua after the US sponsored contra rebels ousted them from power. Chavez and Morales, Chavez in particular, have been taking more forthright stand against US imperialism, extending support to the Govts. targeted by US imperialists and having closer relations with Castro led Cuba.

Moreover in a number of Latin American countries, elections have led to victory of 'Left' leaders on the strength of anti-US sentiments among the people. Some of these leaders have been leaders of social democratic parties. These leaders, prominent among them Lula of Brazil and Kirchner of Argentina, though elected defeating pro-US candidates, are not taking clear stand against US imperialism, collaborating with US led financial institutions like IMF and World Bank and implementing structural adjustment programmes advocated by them. These leaders on the one hand benefit from the anger of the people and on the other do not stand for anything radically different from the discredited policies.

US imperialism is undergoing serious crisis. Their attempts to secure world hegemony, flying in the face of aspirations of world people and facing opposition from their rivals, are being grounded. This is part of the crisis of imperialism which is hitting the sole superpower the hardest. Their economy is facing serious crisis as the gross national debt reaches 9 trillion US$ and revenue deficits grow every year. The housing boom which had sustained the increase in economy over past few years is over. Their ability to sustain high debts due to US$ being international currency is being serious threatened by the rise of Euro as an alternative. Value of dollar is declining with a number of countries opting for Euro at least for part payments. The decline of dollar compromises the US Admn.'s ability to absorb huge deficits.

Their plan to dominate the energy resources, trade routes, in brief, using military means to secure their hegemony, are being resisted by the people who are its victims. Middle-east has been the theatre where its drive for "a new world" is being tested with Iraq being the test case. Failure in Iraq is being seen by them, and correctly so, as unwinding of their strategic drive. Bush is hell bent on success of his drive even as the people are writing epitaph on his rule. Bush and Blair may visit as many times as they like but their visits are like the criminals going back to scenes of their crime.

Bush war strategy lies in shambles but not so US imperial designs nor the complicity of their puppets and compradors. The effort is on to save the drive, to save the imperialist interests, to achieve their objectives by other means. The people have the task of defeating these objectives themselves.