|
U.S. authorities have been boasting of gains in Iraq against the
insurgents and against the Mahdi Army of Muqtada al-Sadr. At the same
time, however, it is evident that their political position in the
country is becoming more perilous.
Al-Sadr has ordered his followers not to confront the occupation or the
Iraqi government forces—apparently because he is looking forward to
making a breakthrough in upcoming elections. His followers will stand
on a program of demanding U.S. withdrawal. And now the U.S. client
government in Iraq is also demanding that the United States set a
timetable for withdrawal.
A July 7 AP dispatch reported: "Iraq's prime minister said Monday
his country wants some type of timetable for a withdrawal of American
troops included in the deal the two countries are negotiating. It was
the first time that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has explicitly and
publicly called for a withdrawal timetable—an idea opposed by President
Bush."
The U.S. government has been trying to get the Iraqi government to
agree to a treaty allowing long-term stationing of U.S. troops in the
country. But it has been encountering apparently unexpected resistance
from its client government. The demand for a timetable for withdrawal
appears to be a countermove by the Iraqis in an attempt to escape from
vassalage to the U.S.
The U.S. oil companies seeking contracts in Iraq and their government
sponsors are also showing a new anxiousness not to appear as if they
are imposing naked robbery. Spokespersons for the interests involved
are saying that the conditions of the new oil deals will be on the same
lines as contracts with other states in the region where the oil
resources are national property.
This is a new turn. In the early stages of the occupation, the U.S.
authorities tried to impose a neoliberal settlement on Iraq, opening it
up entirely to imperialist companies.
However, the projected deals with imperialist companies still seem to
be a roll of loaded dice. The Christian Science Monitor reported July
1: "The move, while vitally important to rebuilding this country's
war-shattered economy, is expected to stoke more controversy over the
future of Iraq's oil industry and raise many questions regarding
unresolved oil legislation, experts say.
"Six of the prequalified companies—British Petroleum (BP), BHP
Billiton, Chevron, Exxon-Mobil, Shell, and Total—were already involved
in noncompetitive negotiations with the Ministry of Oil to finalize
service and consulting contracts seen as granting them a strong
foothold in the country and a competitive edge over the others.
"Major oil firms have been positioning themselves for years to
gain access to Iraq's vast oil reserves, which are estimated at 115
billion barrels—the world's second largest after Saudi Arabia.
"The news of those early negotiations between major oil and the
government returned to the forefront here the debate that America's
true motives for invading Iraq in 2003 were about oil." No wonder!
And likewise, it is no wonder that the interests involved are trying to
cover themselves, and probably to no avail.
One of the main boasts of the occupation authorities is that the Iraqi
police and army are becoming more effective in fighting the insurgents.
But there continue to be indications of infiltration of the Iraqi forces
by insurgents, or perhaps just sympathy for the insurgency among many
of the recruits.
An example is the bombing of a district council meeting in Sadr City
that killed three Americans along with Iraqi collaborators. The bombing
occurred as the council was preparing to elect a new chairman to
replace one who had refused to cooperate with the U.S. forces.
The Christian Science Monitor reported June 25: "The blast reveals
the new dangers—and extreme resistance—that Americans face as they move
forward with a campaign to further marginalize and weaken Mr. Sadr's
movement. What's more, it brings into the forefront, yet again, serious
doubts about the capabilities and even the loyalties of Iraqi forces.
The Iraqi Army had prime responsibility for securing the building
located behind a stretch of high walls and barbed wires. No civilian
vehicles are allowed into this stretch and everyone coming in is
supposed to be searched by the Iraqis."
Another meeting between collaborators and the U.S. military was bombed
on June 26 in the town of Karmah, west of Baghdad. About 20 Iraqis and
three Americans were killed. The local police said that the bomber had
been able to penetrate security because he wore an Iraqi army uniform.
However, it is unlikely that an Iraqi army uniform alone would have
been sufficient to get him through. Such uniforms are readily available
in markets and that is well known. It is quite likely that the bomber
was in fact a member of the Iraqi army.
While some Iraqis collaborate with the occupation and its client
movement for tactical reasons, the forces and their allies are
surrounded by a sea of hatred. And it is inevitable that some of this
hatred is going to seep through any security barrier.
U.S. officials are now usually attributing attacks by Shiite insurgents
to groups sponsored by Iran. These reports are undoubtedly exaggerated
and generally rejected by the U.S. client government. But if Iranian
groups are playing a role, it seems certain to increase in response to
U.S.-backed terrorism in Iran.
The U.S. client government is based on Shiite religious forces friendly
to the Islamist government of Iran. And there are many indications that
the Iraqi government will move closer to Iran as the U.S. hold on the
country weakens. The main rival of Muqtada al-Sadr in the Shiite
religious spectrum, the al-Badr Brigades, are more closely linked to
Iran than he is.
As the complications of the U.S. political position in Iraq are
becoming more evident, more and more evidence is coming to light of the
massive corruption of big "well connected" U.S.
companies that have reaped huge profits from a war that has been
disastrous for the United States and its people.
Thus, the Washington Post reported June 17: "The Army official who
managed the Pentagon's largest contract in Iraq says he was ousted from
his job when he refused to approve paying more than $1 billion in
questionable charges to KBR, the Houston-based company that has
provided food, housing and other services to American troops." KBR
is linked to Halliburton, a company in which Vice President Cheney
played a formal leadership role before assuming his present post in the
Bush administration.
The internationally respected French daily Le Monde summed up these
accounts in an article June 17: "Corruption was endemic under
Saddam Hussein, at least for his entourage and his allies. After the
Anglo-American invasion, in March 2003, it has become generalized.
According to Transparency International, an independent organization
that every year gives a view of corruption in the world, out of 180
countries, only Burma and Somalia are now more corrupt than Iraq."
So, despite the U.S. administration's boasts of "progress" in
Iraq, and some military gains owing to a reaction among Iraqis against
the ruthlessness of al-Qaida, it is obvious that occupied Iraq remains
a festering sore. And as long as the U.S. maintains forces there, the
infection is going to go deeper and wider.
It becomes more and more urgent for people in the United States to
mobilize to force their own corrupt and ruthless rulers to withdraw
their military from this wounded country.
|