Lamont is not anti-war

An examination of Lamont’s positions and statements reveal a clear support for U.S. imperialism in the Middle East and around the world. His positions are similar to those of Rep. John Murthaâ┚¬â€supporting U.S. interventions but disagreeing on tactics to carry out those policies.

Lamont semi-opposes the Iraq war because the US is losing, not because it never should have happened. Nor does Lamont question the US policy of invading countries whenever it deems it fit to do so. Dead Iraqi and Lebanese civilians are barely mentioned, if at all.

In the coming months, liberal anti-war groups and media outlets will call for support of ruling-class politicians like Ned Lamont who supposedly promote “peace” and “a speedy end to the war in Iraq.” No progressive person should be fooled. These self-interested appeals keep the progressive movement tied to the capitalist class and its interests. They divert crucial efforts away from building an independent, anti-imperialist anti-war movement and deepening class consciousness.

The public now clearly opposes the Iraq war. The Lamont victory has made the war as the central issue in November, and that’s a good thing indeed, even as his opposition to the war is tepid at best. The people are way ahead of the politicians on this. Building a strong people’s movement is the way to end the war(s).