|
Time is clearly running out for George Bush’s
adventure in Iraq, but the U.S. big business rulers are no less clearly
determined to hold on to the bitter end. In the last weeks, two major
national newspapers—The Christian Science Monitor and the Los Angeles
Times—have published articles about a "change of strategy in
Iraq." The burden of these pieces is that the U.S. administration
is trying to shift the away from a scenario of occupation to one of
keeping a reduced force in Iraq "to fight al-Qaida."
Of course, this
"shift" may simply one of political stance designed to deflect
the antiwar vote in the next year’s election and not be intended to
lead to any real reduction in the U.S. involvement in Iraq. In fact,
Reuters reported July 30 that the commander of the occupation forces in
Iraq, David Petraeus, predicted that the U.S. would have to keep
"large contingents" of troops in the country at least until
the middle of 2009.
A number of the most forthright
observers, such as David Brooks of The New York Times and The Wall
Street Journal, have argued that the U.S. cannot be "half in and
half out." That is, as long as the U.S. retains forces in Iraq,
the local population will hold it responsible for the situation in the
country, and if it tries to withdraw to the sidelines it can lose
control.
Moreover, the hypocrisy of the
claim that the U.S. would remain in Iraq to fight al-Qaida is blatant.
There was no al-Qaida in Iraq before the U.S. occupation. It is the
U.S. role there that makes al-Qaida a rallying point for Arab
nationalists and attracts funding and volunteers from the Arab world.
In fact, most of the money seems to come from Saudis who are embittered
by the contradiction between the Islamist pretences of their rulers and
their actual subordination to U.S. imperialism.
With its pan-Islamic ideology
and its ruthless methods, al-Qaida seems to be increasingly alienated
from important sectors of the Sunni population, to which it looks for
support. U.S. government and military spokespersons have based their
claims of progress in Iraq mainly on this tendency. However, al-Qaida
has the advantage of expertise in military technique (largely learned
from the CIA in Afghanistan) and the sympathy of many Sunnis, who still
see it as an effective force against the U.S. occupation.
Thus, an article in the July 10
Christian Science Monitor reported: "As the US military continues
to move through Diyala Province to uproot Al Qaeda fighters hidden amid
its villages, an emerging foe may be helping to erode many of the
successes the Americans are having in the three-week-old operation ‘Arrowhead
Ripper.’"
"According to Iraqi
soldiers and US officers, militants linked to Al Qaeda are using tribal
and family connections and, in some cases, also providing financial
incentives to members of the Iraqi Army to help them remain strong and
evade capture.
"For example, six Sunni
officers in the Iraqi Army battalion in Khalis hail from the prominent
Sunni Arab Obeidi tribe. They are accused by Shiite officers in the
battalion, and even by some fellow Sunni soldiers, of being on the
payroll of fellow Obeidi Khaled Albu-Abali, a former senior officer in
Saddam Hussein's army, who is suspected to have links to Al Qaeda in
Iraq."
There have been and continue to
be many indications that the Iraqi security forces are not loyal to the
U.S. client government and are heavily influenced by various insurgent
groups, sometimes in conflict. Thus, there have been reports of battles
between Iraqi army units in which Sunnis play a prominent role and the
Iraqi police, which are reportedly dominated by the Shiite militias.
There has been an evident shift
on the part of the Bush government from "shock and awe"
displays of military power toward manipulation of the various forces in
Iraq. That is characteristic of the age of neocolonialism rather than
the outright military dominance of the colonial age. Ruling-class
pundits such as Zbigniew Brzezinsky have in fact criticized Bush’s Iraq
policy as an attempted return to the days of colonialism.
That is true, but it is now
clear that the U.S. rulers do not have the power to turn the clock so
far back. However, the U.S. attempts at manipulation may lay more and
more traps for its allies.
An article in the Christian
Science Monitor of July 17 pointed out: "[Iraqi premier] Maliki
warned US forces last month against creating new militias in their
fight against Al Qaeda-linked operatives. He insisted that all
collaboration with local groups must be done through his government.
"‘What the Americans are
doing is very risky and unwise. They are planting the seeds for future
wars,’” warned Sami al-Askari, a parliamentarian close to Maliki,
commenting on groups like the LRF [Legitimate Resistance Front, a force
of alleged ex-resisters that the U.S. has sponsored in Diyala province].
The occupation forces, however,
are drowning in a sea of hatred aroused by the misery that the U.S.
assault has dealt to the Iraqi people.
The British Guardian reported
July 30 that the humanitarian organization Oxfam and the NGO council in
Iraq estimate that a third of Iraqis need emergency aid: "Researchers
found that 15% of Iraqis cannot regularly afford to eat, 70% do not
have adequate water supplies (up from 50% in 2003), 28% of children are
malnourished (compared with 19% before the invasion), and 92% of
children suffer learning problems.
"The report also said more
than 2 million people—mostly women and children—have been displaced
within Iraq and have no reliable income, while another 2 million Iraqis
have fled the country as refugees, mostly to neighbouring Syria and
Jordan."
No matter how much the
occupation forces may maneuver or armor themselves, the surrounding
hatred will penetrate all their shields and defenses. The prime example
is the "Green Zone" in Baghdad, the center of U.S.
administration and the Iraqi government, which is guarded by every
imaginable defense but still subject to constant attacks that often
damage and terrorize and not infrequently kill.
Moreover, the U.S. military
commanders constantly complain about infiltration of the Iraqi security
forces by the insurgents. But in such a situation, it is inevitable
that the mass sentiment of hostility to the U.S. occupation will
influence and penetrate all Iraqi institutions.
As the futility, the
counter-productiveness, and the waste and corruption of the Iraq War
have become more evident, a strong majority of the American people are
demanding an end to it. And there is no end to it without the total
withdrawal of American troops.
The problem is that not just the
Bush administration but U.S. big business has an enormous stake in
Iraq, both political, in terms of control of the strategic Middle East,
and economic, in terms of control of the third largest oil reserves in
the world. They will use every murderous weapon at their disposal,
every intrigue, and every deception to maintain their stake.
With the approach of elections
in the United States, in which all the major candidates are controlled
by big business, it can be expected that we will see all sorts of
lavishly financed and dramatically touted subterfuges to deflect the
mass antiwar sentiment.
The success of the U.S. antiwar
movement depends on its ability to understand, expose, and consistently
oppose the deceptions of those who want to continue the adventure in
Iraq. The mass demonstrations scheduled for the fall will be a major
test of its capacity to do that and the welfare and security of the
American people depend on it.
It is inevitable that crimes of
the scope that the U.S. rulers have perpetrated in Iraq will have to be
paid for. The problem is to make sure that only those responsible for
them pay, and not the American people in general. That is the task of
the American antiwar movement.
|