|
The
pessimistic predictions about the effects of George W. Bush’s
"surge" are being rapidly confirmed. U.S.
military losses in Baghdad
have doubled, along with increasing the alienation of the Iraqi
population. And the criticism of the U.S.
war in Iraq
is growing sharper even in capitalist political circles that share
Bush’s objectives.
Thus,
the Democratic majority leader in the Senate, Harry Reid, went so far
as to defy the fury of the jingoists by saying outright on April 19
that the war in Iraq
is already lost. The Nevada senator
even said that he was convinced that the top officials in the Bush
administration themselves had recognized that the U.S.
position in Iraq
was hopeless.
Of
course, Bush is not admitting anything. His specialty is his defiance
of reality. Bush egregiously lacks the realism characteristic of
capitalist politicians in times when their system was more stable. A
prime illustration is this administration’s attempt not only to deny
global warming but to cover up the evidence as well.
The
latest extreme example of this is the president’s statement that
Alberto Gonzales’ testimony in Congress increased his confidence in
him, when virtually all political commentators, even far-rightists,
thought that the attorney general’s testimony was a disaster for him,
the administration, and his party, and when more and more Republicans
are calling for Gonzales’ resignation.
Of
course, Bush’s stonewalling on the Iraq
war may be an attempt not only to stave off accepting defeat in Iraq
but to avoid accepting a setback in the attempt of the capitalists to
create a reactionary social and political climate within the U.S.
itself. That would be a bigger disaster for the interests Bush
represents than U.S.
imperialism breaking its teeth in Iraq.
The
whole so-called neo-conservative offensive, and specifically the far
right’s taking a dominant role in the broadcast media in the 1990s, is
closely identified with Bush’s Iraq
adventure and the propaganda campaign designed to justify it.
The
intended prey of the U.S.
rulers, of course, was Iraq’s
oil resources. The oil law adopted by the U.S.
client government would bestow a bonanza on the imperialist oil
companies, far more profitable conditions than in any other
oil-producing country. But the Iraqi resistance has poisoned this juicy
morsel.
The
British Economist wrote April 20 bemoaning the "monumental
difficulty of realizing that potential, that is, exploiting the oil
resources now estimated to be the second or even the first largest in
the world.
The
article concluded: "Persuading international companies and
financiers to commit resources to Iraqi oil projects in the current
political and security circumstances will be another matter entirely."
After
four years of occupation, the U.S.
forces and their Iraqi allies have not been able to assure the volume
and regularity of oil exports that the U.S.
capitalists and their political representatives counted on when they
undertook the conquest of Iraq.
The
occupation forces face swelling and more and more active hostility of
the Iraqi people. In fact, a fundamental shift in the political
situation is now clearly underway, which is unfavorable to the U.S.
operation. It is the turn of a growing majority of Shiites away from
collaborating with the occupation.
The
Shiite community, which was brutally opposed under Saddam Hussein,
tended at first toward a tactical alliance with the occupation, which
it saw as opening the way for it to take control of Iraq.
Now for some time, polls have been showing that the majority of Shiites
support armed attacks on occupation forces. The changing mood was
highlighted by the massive demonstration for U.S.
withdrawal in the Shiite holy city of Najaf
on April 9.
The
demonstration was called by the Shiite radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and
supported by some Sunni clerics and politicians. The theme was Iraqi
unity against the occupation. Most of the European press, including the
prestigious British Economist, estimated the participation in the
hundreds of thousands. The British Guardian of April 9 reported that
the BBC had indicated that it would reach a million, which is the
number its organizers claimed. It was certainly a truly massive
outpouring for a country with a total population of only about 27
million.
In
the wake of the demonstration, al-Sadr
withdrew the ministers loyal to him from the U.S.-sponsored Iraq
government, although he did not withdraw his people from the
parliament. (He commands the largest faction in the Shiite majority on
which the government is based.)
Al-Sadr’s opposition to U.S.
imperialism and its agenda for the Middle East
is clear. He went into hiding after the announcement of “the
surge," possibly in Iran.
He had little choice but to disappear. A lot of forces want him dead,
including al-Qaida, which has been very
effective in assassinating Iraqi politicians.
The
U.S.
military undoubtedly also wants him dead and could instigate his
assassination or blame it on any one of a number of fanatical groups
involved in the resistance, or even a dissident faction in al-Sadr’s own movement.
The
serious international capitalist press has been carrying a lot of
speculation about divisions in al-Sadr’s
movement, likely encouraged by the U.S.
intelligence services.
Divisions
in the resistance recently have been presented in the capitalist press
as the major hope for the ability of the U.S.
occupation forces to maintain their control. One such split is the one
between the tribal sheikhs and al-Qaida in Anbar province. The local sheikhs have reportedly
been alienated by the indiscriminate slaughter of Iraqi civilians
carried out by al-Qaida.
There
is probably some truth in these claims. Al-Qaida,
politically, is the ideal enemy for the U.S.
The deadly suicide bombings of Shiite crowds apparently carried out by
fanatics recruited and trained by al-Qaida
are clearly an obstacle to the unity of Iraqis against the occupation.
They
put even al-Sadr in a difficult position,
since his own base would likely support U.S.
security operations in their neighborhoods if it would protect them
from the suicide bombers. This factor undoubtedly explains why he did
not directly oppose "the surge" at the beginning.
But
as the deadly suicide bombings have continued, al-Sadr
has moved toward direct opposition to the U.S.
security operations. In fact, the failure of the U.S.
occupation forces to achieve the security they promised was highlighted
in mid-April when resisters managed to bomb the Iraqi parliament
cafeteria in the heart of the heavily fortified Green Zone.
In
a country where the occupation forces and their clients live in a sea
of hatred, it is virtually inevitable that breaches will occur in
whatever walls they build. In this situation, it is not surprising that
a poll done by ABC, the BBC, and USA Today, cited in Counterpunch of
April 21, showed that seven out of 10 Shiites and virtually all Sunnis
believe that the U.S.
military presence is more of a cause of insecurity than it is a
protection against it. Given this general attitude, it seems likely
that Iraqis are aware of the attempts of the U.S.
forces to divide them and are resistant to them.
The
determination of nearly all Iraqi political forces to oppose U.S.
operations to divide them is shown among other things by the opposition
of both Sunni and Shia political leaders to
the U.S. project of
building a so-called protective wall around the Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya in Baghdad.
On
April 26 al-Sadr issued a statement
supporting protests against the wall in the Sunni neighborhood. The
website of the Arab nationalist TV channel al-Jazeera
reported April 27: "Al-Sadr said on
Wednesday that the protests showed that Iraqis reject ‘the sectarian,
racist and unjust wall that seeks to divide’ Sunnis and Shias."
A
spokesperson of the al-Sadr movement, Abdul Mehdi Mutairi, was quoted
in the April 22 International Herald Tribune as saying: "How can
we accept the fact that our country is taken over or occupied,
especially since we've seen nothing from the occupier but destruction
for four years, and they've succeeded only in planting sectarian
strife? Our priority is to drive the occupation from the country."
The
Los Angeles Times of April 26 reported the results of interviews with Iraqis
on the street in the neighborhoods patrolled by the U.S. Army. The
picture that the article gave was one of disillusion and disgust. The
Iraqis saw the troops as totally ineffective in providing security, and
as capable only of disrupting their lives—creating traffic jams among
other things:
"Most
residents, though, say the traffic-clogging military checkpoints are
the only visible sign of the initiative, and that the backups they
create are providing new targets to bombers. ‘We are calling it the traffic-jam
plan rather than the security plan, because traffic jams are the only
things that have increased,’ said Isam Jasim of Sadr City,
an impoverished Shiite district where U.S.
and Iraqi troops established a presence in early March.
"Now,
entering the massive neighborhood from central Baghdad
requires going through one of three checkpoints, the roads to which are
usually jammed with cars, taxis, and minivans caught in
bottlenecks." Characteristically, a foreign army makes a very
ineffective police force.
A
Los Angeles Times dispatch dated April 16 reported on a demonstration
of thousands in Sadr City,
the main Shiite area of Baghdad
condemning the U.S.
scheme for establishing fortresses in the neighborhoods. “‘We do not
want your bases in our city,’ some of their signs read. ‘If you build
them we will burn them down,’ read others.”
In
any case, however divided the resistance may be,
it is clearly capable of maintaining and increasing its attacks on the
occupation forces. U.S.
losses have increased, particularly in Diyala
province—to which, reportedly, resistance fighters have retreated from Baghdad.
This
is the typical pattern for an insurgency. It is everywhere, while the
regular military forces have to be concentrated. So, it just moves to
areas where the regular military is thinner on the ground. This, in
fact, was the way the American revolutionary war was won.
|