Skip to content

20 years since the invasion of Iraq the brutal legacy of imperialism

Marxist Theory · 2023-03-20

Core Argument

The article argues that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was not a blunder or a well-intentioned mission gone wrong, but the logical expression of imperialism's predatory nature. Twenty years on, the war's legacy — over a million dead, a shattered state, sectarian civil war, and the emergence of ISIL — is not an accident but the direct product of capitalist logic: the drive for raw materials (oil), markets, and spheres of influence. The central thesis is that imperialism cannot reform itself; it can only produce barbarism. Therefore, the only adequate response is not pacifism or legal appeals to the UN, but socialist revolution — the overthrow of the capitalist system that generates such wars.

Theoretical Grounding

The analysis draws on the Leninist theory of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, where the division and redivision of the world among rival national capitalist groups is an inescapable feature of the system. The article explicitly rejects the notion that the UN or "international law" can restrain imperialism, characterising the UN as a "thieves guild" that negotiates between competing capitalist interests but cannot resolve their fundamental antagonisms. This places the argument firmly in the classical Marxist tradition of Lenin, Bukharin, and Trotsky, rather than in the social-democratic or liberal-internationalist currents that sought to reform imperialism through institutions.

The piece also deploys the concept of "blowback" — the idea that imperialism's methods (arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets, creating Al Qaeda) return to haunt it — but frames this not as a moral lesson but as a structural feature of imperialist intervention. The argument that the US created the conditions for ISIL by destroying the Iraqi state and unleashing sectarian forces is presented as a predictable consequence of "divide and rule" tactics, not an unforeseen tragedy.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article is explicitly timed for the 20th anniversary of the invasion (March 2023) and uses the Iraq war as a lens through which to read the Ukraine war. The key conjunctural claim is that the Iraq war exposed the limits of US hegemony — that the American colossus is overstretched and cannot impose its will everywhere simultaneously. This is presented as the geopolitical context for the Ukraine conflict: emboldened regional powers (Russia) can now balance between multiple poles in a "crisis-ridden world order."

The article draws a direct parallel between the arming of Mujahideen in Afghanistan (which produced Al Qaeda) and the arming of "fascist paramilitaries" in Ukraine today, warning that this will "come back to haunt" the imperialists. Britain is characterised as a "madly yapping chihuahua" in Ukraine — a declining power whose military is "no longer able to defend the UK and its allies" — a specific reference to the deterioration of British military capacity since Iraq.

The piece also notes that the anti-war movement of 2003, while historically massive (55 million globally), was politically limited by its "empty slogan" of "peace" and its refusal to advance a socialist programme. This is connected to the fate of the 2011 Arab Spring, which the article argues was derailed precisely because it lacked a revolutionary party with a clear socialist perspective.

Where the Argument Continues

The article is a retrospective assessment, but it points forward in several directions. The argument about the limits of US hegemony and the emergence of a multipolar world of competing imperialist blocs is developed in other IDOM articles on the Ukraine war and the shifting global order. The critique of the anti-war movement's political limitations — the substitution of moral outrage for revolutionary strategy — is a recurring theme in IDOM's writings on the Stop the War Coalition and the broader anti-war left. The claim that the Arab Spring was derailed by the absence of a revolutionary party connects to IDOM's extensive analysis of the revolutions in Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria, and to their broader argument about the need for a Leninist party in the Middle East.

Connections

The article should be read alongside:

  • Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism — the theoretical foundation for the analysis of inter-imperialist rivalry and the drive for spheres of influence.
  • Trotsky, The War and the International — for the classical Marxist position on imperialist war and the duty of revolutionaries to turn it into civil war against the ruling class.
  • IDOM's series on the Ukraine war — to see how the same framework is applied to the current conjuncture, particularly the argument that the conflict is an inter-imperialist war, not a "defence of democracy."
  • IDOM's analysis of the Arab Spring — to understand the claim that revolutionary movements require a socialist programme and a revolutionary party to succeed.
  • Against the Stream episodes on US decline and the "new world order" — for the development of the argument about the limits of American hegemony and the rise of rival imperialist blocs.

Key Quotes

  1. "The UN is no better than a thieves guild. Its purpose is not to uphold 'world peace' or 'international law', but to negotiate between the interests of competing national groups of capitalists. But their antagonistic interests – the scramble for profits and the division of the world – restrict them to dealing only with secondary questions."

  2. "As Iraq demonstrates, the imperialists don't wage war for 'freedom' or 'democracy' but to defend the domination of their national monopolies, and their endless hunger for profit. This necessitates the conquest of sources of raw materials, markets, and spheres of influence."

  3. "Like a machinegunner fighting a swarm of wasps, the 'allied' response – including indiscriminate bombing, torture, and white phosphorus – created massive civilian casualties, further devastating Iraq and fertilising the soil for reaction."

  4. "Ironically, Al Qaeda had no foothold in Iraq before the war. But it easily germinated amidst the ruins, evolving into the monstrous caliphate of ISIL. The chickens were again coming home to roost for the USA. Al Qaeda had developed from the Mujahideen, which was funded and trained by US imperialism to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now history was repeating itself."

  5. "Though America has been pushed back, it has not drawn any of the lessons. Today, in pursuit of its short-term aim of weakening Russian imperialism, it is sowing the seeds for barbarism and reaction. For example, by arming and training fascist paramilitaries in Ukraine, sooner or later this will come back to haunt them, as with the Mujahideen."

  6. "But there can be no peace on the basis of capitalism. Unless a mass movement of the working class disarms the ruling class, which has a material interest in these intermittent slaughters, then the imperialists will simply close their windows, shut out the noise from demonstrations, and continue with their plunder."