by Darrell Rankin

The split in the US oligarchy about Russia and its
significance
Lenin commented that nothing is firm or fixed about
imperialists’ views on war or the right level of
aggression.
He also wrote that imperialism would continue to slide
increasingly towards reaction and militarism, an inevitable outcome of
capitalism’s ever-deepening general crisis.
If we consider that war is merely a continuation of foreign
policy by other (violent) means, this helps to explain the hesitation and lack
of conviction often felt by bourgeois politicians when they believe war could
backfire.
For example, Hitler and his entourage were not of one mind when
to invade Russia. They all thought it was a great idea, but they differed on the
timing to a degree, their disputes kept out of the public eye by means of
threats and backstabbing.
Today, the ferocity of anti-Russian views in the US oligarchy
is such that Trump’s hand is being forced, but not to the degree Clinton wants.
Trump may have thought that an extra $50 billion for the military
industry was enough for his back to be safe from pointy objects for a while.
But it appears not.
The casualties on the Trump side continue to mount from ongoing
investigations into Russia’s role in defeating Clinton and general control of
the Trump administration.
Clinton, who timed her emergence from seclusion perfectly,
demanded completely to obliterate the Syrian air
force.
Trump carried out a so-called “proportionate” strike that
damaged (not destroyed) six Syrian aircraft.
The Trump entourage’s conflict with the faction that wants war
now with Russia (the Clinton Dems and McCain Reps) is sure to Continue.
This a significant split. There are two important reasons why
it is important.
First, we have to recognize that Clinton’s intention to impose
a no-fly zone over Syria would have brought Russian forces into direct,
unannounced conflict with US forces.
There are reports that Trump gave Russia (and thereby Syria) a
heads-up phone call before launching yesterday’s cruise missile strikes.
One understandable casualty of Trump’s missile attack is the
US-Russian exchange of information about US flights over Syrian airspace.
Now, all US flights will be deemed hostile, intrusive and
Unapproved, just like Israeli overflights.
Will US overflights be subject to the same ‘shoot on sight’
rule as Israeli jets? I would say that depends on the target and level of
aggression by US imperialism, which will probably get worse, especially if Trump
continues to prove he dislikes being called a coward, baby-killer and traitor by
the pro-war faction.
Both Syria and Russia could and should realize that restraint
can still help avoid war in the absence of an overflight
agreement.
Still, the danger of war between Russia and the U.S. is higher
because of the ferocity of the pro-war faction.
That intensifying conflict brings me to my second point, the
Importance of what happens ‘on the streets,’ among the popular forces in the
United States who are regularly ignored over Trifling matters such as a world
war.
Trump’s definite restraint compared to the pro-war faction
gives the popular forces in the US time – a breathing space – to mobilize
against war with Russia, a war that would be directed as much against them as
against Russia and the international working class.
They could offer the idea that it is not cowardly to ask for
evidence and follow diplomacy to resolve disputes.
It is necessary and extremely important that the anti-war
sentiments be galvanized and moved into action on the streets.
A powerful and definitely strong clique of the oligarchy
believes war with Russia is necessary and an exceedingly good idea.
We cannot dismiss the importance of popular movements –
especially unions – working to deepen the split in the oligarchy on that
issue.
The strongest united front effort would be one that does not
hide the role of unions and popular forces, emphasizing their leading role in
staying the hand of the most bellicose elements of US
imperialism.