Imperialist rivalry, not religion, lies at the heart of the war in Syria. At stake are the vast energy resources of the Middle East. To maintain control of the region’s oil and gas, the U.S. capitalist ruling class is pointing toward a “decisive” Syria intervention. With the Russian bosses arming in opposition, U.S. rulers need to win U.S. youth to support a new military draft.  They also need the broader working class to support fascist war powers for widening regional conflicts. To date, however, their efforts toward these goals have faltered.
On the ramifications of the Syrian conflict, the New York Times (6/2/13), the top mouthpiece for U.S. capitalism, says:
The Syrian war fuels, and is fueled by, broader antagonisms that are primarily rooted not in sect but in clashing geopolitical and strategic interests: the regional power struggle between Saudi Arabia and Iran; Iran’s confrontation with the West over its nuclear program; and the alliance between Hezbollah and the secular Syrian government of Mr. Assad against American-backed Israel.
Why Syria Matters
But that is only part of the truth. Regional bosses aren’t the only ones responsible for the blood of 80,000 Syrians. The Times fails to mention the greater clash between U.S., Russian and Chinese rulers that underlies — and will likely intensify — the slaughter in Syria. Syria stands at the doorstep of the competing imperialists’ geostrategic grand prize, Middle Eastern oil and gas resources. That’s why U.S. planners are seriously pondering the risks of an all-out invasion and occupation of Syria that would kill tens of thousands more workers.
On May 28, the Times published a more candid op-ed piece, headlined: “In Syria, Go Big or Stay Home.” In it, Ray Takeyh, a senior fellow at the finance capital-dominated Council on Foreign Relations think tank, and who previously served as Barack Obama’s chief advisor on Iran, called for “full-scale, decisive American intervention” in Syria. Takeyh suggests that such an onslaught would set the stage for a U.S. conquest of energy-rich Iran.  By contrast, a limited U.S. campaign — along the lines of the brutal but failed U.S. invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan — would only embolden Teheran’s pro-Russian and pro-Chinese ayatollahs.
As Takeyh wrote, “Rather than intimidating Iran, a less-than-decisive American intervention in Syria would do the opposite. It would convince Iran’s leaders that America doesn’t have an appetite for fighting a major war in the region.”
Russian bosses, allied to Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, are taking lethal steps to counter any U.S. offensive. Moscow is stationing more warships, including an aircraft carrier, at its naval base in Tartus, Syria. It has begun delivery of sophisticated, game-changing S-300 anti-aircraft missiles to Damascus, to be followed by MiG-29 fighter jets. Russian ruler Vladimir Putin has defended this escalation as a response to the U.S. threat: “Russia… [is] only providing Assad with weapons intended to protect Syria from a foreign invasion” (Associated Press, 5/31/13).
Enter China
By 2035, China’s vast oil needs from the Middle East will double to seven million barrels per day (Oil Magazine, Dec. 2013). For the moment, China’s capitalist rulers are not equipped to project military power into the region. They are acting diplomatically, using the United Nations to oppose U.S. aid to anti-Assad forces.  But China’s push for a blue-water navy, to forcibly challenge U.S. supremacy in the Persian Gulf, is well under way. And China has already outfoxed the U.S. in Iraq, reaping the oil rewards of the Bush invasion as the U.S.-China rivalry escalates (see box).
Wider wars, like a possible near-term U.S.-Syria-Russia-Iran conflict, loom large for U.S. bosses. They’re also planning for an inevitable World War III with their imperialist rivals. Fresh from their misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, which slaughtered more than a million workers but failed to consolidate U.S. control, they are well aware of their military shortcomings. They know they need more troops and broader support for war — both within the working class and among U.S. capitalists themselves — than George W. Bush or Obama could muster.
True to form, the rulers’ loyal New York Times printed yet another militaristic op-ed piece (5/27/13) to demand restoration of the draft and a new way for Congress to declare war. Written by two Stanford University cheerleaders for the U.S. empire, retired General Karl Eikenberry (formerly Obama’s ambassador to Afghanistan) and Professor David Kennedy, the column proposed: “Let’s start with a draft lottery.... [that] could be activated when volunteer recruitments fell short, and weighted to select the best-educated and most highly skilled Americans providing an incentive for the most privileged among us to pay greater heed to military matters.”
The bosses’ idea is to rebuild their depleted officer corps by making top colleges once again a recruiting ground for the U.S. military. The Reserve Officers’ Training Corps is regaining lost ground on the campuses, returning to New York’s City College after a 40-year absence. The rulers’ broader goal is to build patriotism among young people. If they succeed in implementing a new, all-inclusive draft, no one will be able to escape military service — not middle-class students seeking college deferments, not working-class immigrant youth seeking citizenship via Obama’s Dream Act.
The Bosses’ Problems
In an attempt to unite the diverse array of capitalists represented by U.S. politicians, Eikenberry and Kennedy assert, “Congress must also take on a larger role in war-making. Its last formal declarations of war were during World War II. It’s high time to revisit the recommendation, made in 2008 by the bipartisan National War Powers Commission, to replace the 1973 War Powers Act, which requires notification of Congress after the president orders military action, with a mandate that the president consult with Congress before resorting to force.”  
For now, however, involving Congress more directly in U.S. militarization appears to be a pipedream. A significant Congressional contingent fronts for domestically oriented capitalists like the Koch brothers, who have little to gain from oil-driven military action overseas. And divisions will persist between states that profit from weapons contracts and those that need to protect profits with reinvestment in domestic infrastructure.
Meanwhile, a gut opposition to a universal draft has persisted since the Vietnam era among students and workers. Much of it stems from the militant anti-imperialist actions led by the Progressive Labor Party, which made “U.S. Imperialism, Get Out of Vietnam!” into a mass slogan supported by millions.
As U.S. rulers mount an international drive to war, communists in PLP and our allies must intensify our attacks on the ruling class in the score of countries where our Party is growing. We need to link the issue of imperialist war to every class struggle. The capitalists’ murderous drive for maximum profits must be fought in our battles against wage and social service cuts, against hospital cutbacks and strike-busting. It must be tied to our fights against racist, killer cops and against the mass deportations of immigrant workers. Most of all, it must infuse our organizing of rank-and-file soldiers to win them to fight the military brass, not their class brothers and sisters under attack by U.S. imperialism.
Building the Party while immersed in these struggles will ultimately lead to communism, the only system that will end exploitation, racism, sexism, mass unemployment and imperialist war. Workers of the world, unite!  Join PLP!