Socialist Action newspaper

One benchmark of the disaster the U.S. rulers have inflicted on Iraq is the number of Iraqis that have fled the country since the U.S.-led invasion and occupation. According to the UN High Commission on Refugees, the number already stands at nearly 2 million, close to 10 percent of the prewar population of the country.

An article in the March 26 issue of the French newspaper of record, Le Monde, commented that this was the largest flood of refugees in the Middle East since the expulsion of most of the original Arab population from the areas of Palestine conquered by the Zionists in 1948.

The article quoted the UN High Commissioner for Refugees for the Middle East Area and North Africa, Radhouane Nouicer, as saying: "If the situation continues to worsen in Iraq, and if there are new major waves of Iraqi refugees, we could be faced with a situation resulting in the closure of borders around Iraq." In order to prevent this, Nouicer said, the UN might establish refugee camps in Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia to separate the displaced Iraqis from the local populations.

Nouicer went on to say: "Iraq’s neighboring countries would prefer that we establish what they call "security zones" inside Iraq. … We do not see any zone in Iraq that would be completely secure, so we prefer to drop that option."

The refugees are fleeing a country where, according to a study published in the British medical journal Lancet in October, almost three-quarters of a million have died as a result of violence since the U.S.-led invasion. The BBC website reported March 26 that its reporters found out that the British government had been advised not to publicly criticize the Lancet report. It pointed out that the British ministry of defense’s principal scientific advisor had said that the study’s methods were "close to best practice."

These sources indicate a virtual holocaust. Moreover, the picture has to be filled out with an appreciation of the deterioration of the quality of life in the occupied country, the ruin of the infrastructure, unemployment, and the insecurity of life.

In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that an ABC and Media Partners poll reported in The New York Times of March 19 showed that only 18 percent of Iraqis have any confidence in U.S. and coalition troops. About three-fourths of the Iraqis interviewed admitted to feelings of emotional distress. About half of them said that a friend or relative had been killed.

The New York Times article played up a contradiction in the poll—that is, that four out of five Iraqis were anxious to see the last of U.S. soldiers but only a third of them wanted immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces.

That undoubtedly reflects the fear created by the sectarian atrocities. It is the biggest political advantage the occupiers have, their most effective argument. It was the justification for the escalation of the U.S. counterinsurgency, in particular in Baghdad and al-Ambar province.

The U.S. client government claims that "the surge" in Baghdad has reduced sectarian killings by 25 percent, but that figure, if real, is very relative. Sectarian attacks are still continuing, and there are indications that even the Shiite population is losing patience with the so-called joint Iraqi-U.S. "peace-keeping" operation.

Thus, the Los Angeles Times reported March 13: "Hundreds of Shiite Muslims, beating their chests in mourning, accompanied 17 coffins through Baghdad's main Shiite district Monday, demanding that militiamen be allowed to protect them after a wave of attacks on pilgrims.

"‘Despite the heavy security presence in Baghdad, we are seeing the terror and bombings escalate and more innocents being killed,’ said a man who identified himself by a traditional nickname, Abu Fatima Sadi. ‘When the Al-Mahdi army was providing protection, there were no violations.’"

The Mahdi Army is the militia associated with the movement of Muqtada al-Sadr, the leading opponent of the occupation among the Shiite clergy and the leader of two uprisings against occupation forces. It was evident that when the U.S. launched its "surge" in Baghdad that al-Sadr was the primary target.

He has since disappeared, and the U.S. authorities claim that he is in Iran. The Mahdi Army has gone into hiding and therefore been unable to continue its role of protecting the Shiite neighborhoods from sectarian attack.

Because of the fear among Shiites of such attacks, apparently, and perhaps his desire to retain his foothold in the occupation-sponsored government, al-Sadr had temporized in his opposition to the U.S. invasion of his main base, the teeming Sadr City slum of Baghdad. But he is stiffening his attitude.

Reuters reported March 16: "A statement from Sadr that was read out at prayers in Sadr City on Friday repeated his longheld opposition to the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, and appeared to respond to recent statements by U.S. military officials who have said people in Sadr City were cooperating with them." … ‘I'm confident that you consider them (U.S. forces) your enemies,’ said the statement carrying Sadr's seal, which was issued by his office in the holy city of Najaf as well as being read out to thousands of worshippers in Sadr City.

"‘I call upon you all to raise your voices all together and shout with one voice, "No, No, America,"’ the statement said."

The U.S. has been steadily increasing its pressure on the Sadr movement. On March 21, U.S. troops raided the office of a Sadrist member of the Iraqi parliament, Bahaa al-Araji, and seized his computer memory card. He denounced the raid as a "violation of Iraqi sovereignty" and a "provocation against the Sadrist movement."

The U.S. is clearly getting more and more entangled in the catastrophic situation that it has created and is constantly aggravating. The American public, as well as the Iraqis, is very rapidly losing its illusions that the U.S. has any solution to the conflict. That explains the contortions of the Democrats in Congress who been trying to offer some perspective for eventual U.S. military withdrawal without challenging the occupation that exists, or giving up U.S. capitalism’s basic objective of tightening its grip on Iraqi oil.

In fact, if the U.S. rulers did not have huge interests in the country, they would never have committed the enormous resources they have to the war and the occupation. They will not relinquish their grip until they face a massive and determined repudiation at home.

The polls show an overwhelming opposition of the American public to the war. But this opposition is not yet being shown in an active and determined way.

Demonstrations against the war are continuing, like those around the country on March 17-18. They are substantial but not as massive as they should be given the sentiment of the majority of the American people.

The reasons for this weakness are evidently problems of leadership in the antiwar movement combined with illusions that the Democrats will force a discredited reactionary regime to give way. The two are obviously connected. As the illusions fade, the likelihood is that the determination of the antiwar movement will increase and the chances will improve for its solving its political and organizational problems.