Lately, there have been increasing calls to pull US troops out of Iraq. However, to paraphrase Clarence Thomas of ILWU local 10, one of the initiators of the Million Worker March, concessions aren’t won by asking for them, they are won by fighting for them. That idea applies as much to concessions wrung from the government as it applies to concessions wrung from employers. To get the US troops out of Iraq, and to keep them from being sent on other military adventures, we need to move from resolutions against the war to resolute struggle against the war.
Hot-cargoing military goods, that is refusing to handle them, is one of the means available to struggle against the occupation of Iraq. It is a means of struggle that is naturally posed by the situation, because it is a means that could actually bring success. At the same time, it is a means of struggle that brings with it a risk of personal hardship to individual union brothers and sisters.
In the final analysis, the decision to hot-cargo military goods rests with individual union locals. No-one can make that decision for them. But for that very reason, no-one should be accused of irresponsibility merely for raising the issue, or for arguing the case for hot-cargoing.
Hot cargoing could lead to success in the struggle against the occupation of Iraq. However, this success would, in all likelihood, not come from shutting down tight the supply chain of the occupation forces. In order for military supplies to be blocked on a large scale, hot-cargoing would have to include all major ports as well as trucking and rail. No president in the midst of war would permit such a thing if they can help it. On one hand, there are purely military channels of transport that would be used. On the other hand, the tactic of placing transport under military control is available to the government. But especially the tactic of militarizing transport poses a serious risk to the government. Do they really want to open a second front and use the military in attempts to break American unions at the same time that they are fighting a war in Iraq that they can’t seem to win? (And if the American unions are under attack, might not dock-workers in other countries hot-cargo US ships in solidarity?) It is precisely this option of opening a second front that the government may find unappealing, and which may provide the incentive for a withdrawl from Iraq.
One of the first arguments which is brought against hot-cargoing military goods is that such actions would be stabbing US soldiers in the back. Hot-cargoing would, according to this argument, aggrevate the shortage of supplies such as body armor. This argument, we believe misunderstands the real effects of hot-cargoing. Any shortage of supplies felt by the armed forces is a shortage due to the decisions of the government and the brass, and exists for no other reason. When the military “does without” it is because it is cheaper. Hot-cargoing, except under very unusual situations, would not, and could not, prevent the military from supplying itself. The pressure on the government from hot-cargoing results from the potential for “another front”, and not from an absolute shortage of supplies.
Undoubtedly, the brass would try to drive a wedge between workers and soldiers by trying to bring about the appearence that labor actions was causing soldiers to die. They might intentionally ship things like body armor through hot-cargoing ports in order to make a propaganda point. They would try to make the argument that labor action was the cause of soldiers’ deaths. But while shipments of body armor was lying idly, the military, through one means or another (such as military transport) would be getting the supplies that the brass thought actually needed for prosecuting the war aims. It is the tricks the government will use that will cause GIs to be killed, not labor action.
But the real question is not what tricks the military brass will use to gain a propaganda advantage, but how to actually mount a struggle which has the potential to bring an end to the horror which is the occupation of Iraq. The sooner a struggle is mounted that forces Bush or Kerry to withdraw from Iraq, the fewer American casualties there will be and the fewer Iraqi casualties there will be from American aggression.
It has been argued that if workers in a given union local decide to hot-cargo military goods, the union tops will leave them to hang in the wind. This is undoubtedly a possibility. But the number of resolutions against the US occupation of Iraq that have been approved by the union tops shows that the official leaders are under increasing pressure to oppose the occupation, and that the union rank and file are increasingly in favor of an end to the occupation. Can the labor bureaucrats stab unionists who hot-cargo military goods in the back? Absolutely. Can the labor movement demonstrate solidarity, and defend one another despite the union bureaucracy? We think that is possible too. How things turn out will depend on the course of the struggle.
>p> One step toward organizing the hot-cargoing of military goods is building support for the workers who would be on the front lines of such actions. Every person at the Million Worker March, whether or not they belong to a union, and whether or not military goods are handled at their work site, can contribute to building such an action. All workers, and not just those in organized unions, can pledge material support to such to a hot-cargo movement. Those who belong to unions, can urge their union to pledge to defend all workers who might be victimized in the course of such a struggle.
As this leaflet is being printed, the US military brass is considering charges against 19 reservists in Iraq for refusing to obey orders. The targeted GIs are members of the Army’s 343rd Quartermaster Company who refused orders on Wednesday to haul fuel to the Iraqi town of Taji, north of Baghdad.
Charges have not yet been filed against the soldiers, who were read their rights and have been removed from military barracks and detained in tents. If charged with wilful disobedience, the soldiers could face up to five years imprisonment, loss of pay and dishonorable discharge.
The big news agencies are portraying the soldiers as simply cowards, fearful of undertaking a dangerous mission. We don’t have the full details yet, but the details we do have, as well as our knowledge of how the brass conducted the war in Vietnam suggest that much more is at play. During the war in Vietnam, the brass sent GIs into the jungle as bait, to lure attacks, so gunships could mow down the attackers. As the GIs in Vietnam increasingly understood that their sacrifices on the battlefield had nothing to do with anything virtuous, they increasingly disliked playing the role of bait, and in increasing numbers refused such missions. It is possible that the “fuel delivery” mission of the 343rd was also meant to lure attacks. According to early reports, the same fuel had been “delivered” on a previous mission. However, the party to which it was delivered refused it, reportedly because the fuel was contaminated with water.
Rather than being cowards, the soldiers of the 343rd have demonstrated a fair amount of bravery by standing up to the brass. They deserve to be defended by the entire working class. They should not be victimized.