|
Three critical developments have emerged in Iraq as a result of the battle of Fallujah, still raging as these points are drafted, and the sudden Shi'ite uprising in southern Iraq, spearheaded by the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr.
1— The balance of power inside Iraq has shifted significantly against the occupation in military as well as political terms. The US efforts to assert control as the still vague turnover of "sovereignty" on June 30 approaches triggered a mass revolt. This revolt and the US military's use of Israeli-style retaliatory collective punishment strikes have galvanized a significant section of public opinion there against the occupation. Many Iraqis who had been privately dubious about the occupation have stepped up to take an active stand against the US.
The appearance of both organized and spontaneous armed units, a general strike which turned Baghdad into a ghost town for three days, unified Sunni/Shi'a relief efforts for devastated Fallujah, all showed intense popular anger-and US vulnerability. To repress the popular uprisings and regain control of contested areas, including both towns and highways, will require a heavier hand from US troops. This means thousands more dead and wounded Iraqis like the men, women and children who died in Fallujah. The result will be more anger and a stronger resistance-and with it a heightened anti-imperialism throughout the region, combined with a powerful sense of pan-Arab, pan-Islamic pride.
2— The heavily-hyped "transition to Iraqi sovereignty" scheduled for June 30 is now exposed as a complete sham. As that date approached, the US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), headed by American viceroy Paul Bremer, positioned itself to insure continued absolute control, even as it was about to be forced by intense Iraqi pressure to acknowledge a transitional government - a government likely to be heavily influenced by the revered Shi'ite Ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, who has been demanding a US troop withdrawal effective July 1.
On March 25, Bremer declared that a UN resolution from last October provided "a legal basis for American troops to continue their military control over the security situation in Iraq," no matter what the "sovereign" government might want. And the new "sovereign" Iraqi army, he added, would remain under direct US military command. In short, there is no designated body to whom this mythical "sovereignty" will be turned over and no Iraqi military or police forces with the capability or will to act as agents of the new regime. Meanwhile, in ironic counterpoint, the US's "Coalition" members are advising all non-essential personnel to leave the country pronto. The June 30 "transfer" is seen in Iraq and around the world as little more than a public relations stunt, driven by the electoral needs of the Bush camp at home.
3— The occupation cannot continue without a massive expansion of military forces. US forces are taking casualties at the highest rate of the whole war (and that's without including the uncounted toll among private military company [PMC] personnel—mercenaries—which may have been higher than among regular troops during the recent multi-focal eruption of combat). Coalition "partners" like the Ukraine and South Korea are scrambling to follow the lead of Spain and Honduras and get their troops headed for the exit. The Iraqi police stepped down or rallied to the armed opposition almost everywhere that fighting broke out. Two battalions of the new puppet Army (out of only four created so far) refused orders to join the vengeance strike against Fallujah.
US troop strength in country was supposed to be below 110,000 by the end of this month. Instead, Pentagon "Stop Loss" orders have deferred the scheduled discharges of almost 80,000 troops armed-forces-wide, effectively drafting them. Troops under Stop Loss and those still on their regular enlistments are facing indefinite extension of their deployment in theater. Many troops had finished their promised year of service in Iraq and were scheduled for immediate rotation back to the US, only to find themselves stationed back in Iraq for months to come. There are 134,000 US troops in country today, and a combination of Stop Loss, extension, redeployment of veteran stateside units to Iraq and more Guard and Reserve call-ups may drive that number up even further, if armed resistance takes hold in Shi'a areas. (This is in addition to deployment to other theaters like the ongoing re-occupation of Haiti and the push to commit additional troops to Colombia and the Philippines.) Every day that passes makes the reinstitution of the draft more likely if the occupation doesn't end soon.
Panic, the United Nations and World Public Opinion
Military history shows that one of the gravest developments in combat operations is losing the initiative and having one's operations reduced to reacting to the actions of the enemy, as opposed to forcing the enemy to react to one's own decisions. From the early days of the occupation, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crew has been on the defensive, politically and militarily, in Iraq. The current revolt has worsened the American military position by orders of magnitude.
In these desperate straits, with each new American plan evaporating before the heat of new contingencies, the Bush administration finds nowhere to turn but the United Nations. They hope that the UN can be persuaded to step in and somehow rescue the occupation for them. That rescue may cost them more than they are eager to pay. UN Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi has already made it clear that Bremer's carefully cultivated puppet Iraqi Governing Council will have to be thrown overboard before the June 30 deadline.
The US wants two things from the UN now. The first is a simple Security Council resolution legitimizing the occupation and the post-June 30 "sovereign" government in Iraq. This will make it possible to sign economic treaties and troop-basing agreements that will be binding on future Iraqi governments. The second is real help-troops, money, aid in "nation building," that is, a civil administration for the occupation.
Such help may not be forthcoming. Why would other countries want to put more troops in harm's way in Iraq, under US supreme command no less, when things are going so badly? The armed resistance has underlined this point by adopting the method of kidnapping foreigners-troops, mercenaries, media people, NGO employees, workers. Some have been released, but others have been killed, most remain captive and more are taken almost every day.
And Bush & Co. just can't seem to resist showing their contempt for the UN and world public opinion. At a time when the US stands indicted in the Arab world and globally for the brutal and unjust occupation of an Arab country, Bush just gave unqualified approval to Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's declaration that Israel will annex outright large sections of the occupied West Bank and further announced that the US does not recognize the right of Palestinians to return to their homes. There was American acquiescence to the assassination of the widely revered, paraplegic Hamas leader Ahmed Yassin, then to the follow-on assassination of his successor, Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Beyond the obvious fury this has produced in Arab countries, these positions are in direct violation of long-standing United Nations resolutions, resolutions the US has never before been willing to renounce openly, instead using its veto in the Security Council to shield Israel from censure.
Nevertheless, looking at the coming months, greatly increased UN involvement in the occupation is a very real possibility. This will require us to conduct a careful re-analysis. While many of the countries in the UN, and the UN bureaucracy itself, have sharp contradictions with the rulers of the US over the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the US remains the dominant power in the world and exerts massive influence inside the UN. Even if the Bush administration were forced to turn over the formal leadership of the occupation to the UN, it would likely remain in fact a predominantly US occupation. At the most basic level, where is the United Nations to find 100,000 plus combat troops to maintain the occupation? To ask the question is to answer it-from the US.
New Conditions at Home
The new dynamic in Iraq and throughout the Middle East is giving rise to important developments here in the US, two of which are beginning to unfold hidden behind the smoke and fire of news from Iraq.
For one thing, there is a split developing in the Democratic Party about what policy to take toward the war. John Kerry had been trying to run a low-key campaign with regard to the war, content not to say too much and just let Bush sink deeper in the quagmire. The escalation of Iraqi resistance means that is no longer an option. And Kerry and other Democrats are now opting to run as the ones who can win in Iraq. How? By being "smarter" than Bush, roping in the UN and other international support, and enlarging the US Army by two divisions (a process which would take a minimum of three years). This will not sit well with a section of Democratic Party politicians who see the war as a disaster to be forsaken as soon as politically possible. It will be even less popular among the energized base of anti-war activists who flocked to the party to support ABBA (Anybody But Bush Again) out of frustration after massive anti-war demonstrations failed to prevent or end this unjust and unjustifiable war.
The Dems will do their best to paper this difference over, because they smell victory in the Fall. If they can't, they know they could be looking at a rerun of the 1968 Nixon-Humphrey race, where the Democrats were unable to hold their anti-war base and lost.
Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the second new development-a dramatic increase in the cost of the war—will thrust this schism into public view. The Bush administration is going to run out of money for Iraq much, much sooner than it anticipated, thanks to the increased resistance in Iraq. The $87 billion Congress appropriated last September to pay for Iraq for 2004 cannot begin to cover the costs of an occupation gone as sour as this one. Right now there are 25,000 more troops in country than budgeted for. 20,000 mercenaries, at a conservatively estimated daily cost of 750 dollars apiece, by themselves make for a fifteen million dollar a day tab. All those copters and tanks and APCs and hummers and convoy trucks in flames on the evening news? They have to be replaced. So do the munitions, food, fuel and other supplies they were carrying, burned-or appropriated by Iraqis in the vicinity. It's hard to say precisely when the administration and Congress will have to acknowledge that the checks are bouncing, but it's bound to be within the next few months, well before the November election. And Democratic politicians are going to have to decide, again, whether or not to vote for Bush's new multi-billion dollar appropriation. Talk on the Hill is already about $73 billion, and the Democratic Party leadership has begun to talk more and more like a War Party in anticipation of it.
Our Tasks
New developments in Iraq haven't created entirely new tasks but there are a few points to which we would like to direct the attention of activists. The lull many were expecting between the huge push to create the March 20 demos and the Democratic and Republican conventions just isn't going to happen. At the same time it's clear that just gearing up for another round of big generic No To War demos may be counter-productive. Locally-based organizing and education, not just cranking up the converted, will be key.
Because they are disoriented, big sections of the public are open to learning more about the background and nature of the invasion of Iraq and the closely related question of Palestine. We need to take advantage of this teachable moment to develop accessible literature, to do teach-ins, lots of them, and to target new audiences for both, especially in oppressed nationality communities whose own experience is mirrored in so many ways by this history.
We also have to be prepared for the eventuality of greater involvement by the UN in the occupation if the security situation can be improved, and be ready to analyze the particular forms which it takes. This does not mean targeting the UN as the main problem or breaking united fronts which have been built with people who favor UN intervention as a solution. It means keeping first things first: As long as Iraq is occupied, Iraqis will resist. The US military occupation, the prime cause of Iraq's suffering, must end. The people of Iraq are the ones who must determine their own destiny. We cannot build a broad mass movement against the occupation if we try to solve the ruling class's problems for them. Complex policy-wonk plans from the anti-war/anti-occupation movement about how to put in place a transition to genuine self-rule for the Iraqi people will be ignored by the administration and the UN and they will turn off ordinary people in the US who want this war over with-now.
The shock of the revolt and of the Bush administration putting Stop Loss and extension orders on troops who had literally only days to go in theater has produced a huge upswell of anger and desperation among military families, and all possible support should be given to Military Families Speak Out and others organizing this critical sector.
Now, before the campaign positions become fixed and Convention planning is finalized, is the time to put real pressure on Democratic Party politicians. Phone calls, faxes, emails, visits-let 'em know that there are some angry people out here who expect them to do more than promise to do a better job. Questions should be pointed: Will you push for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq? Will you vote for another $70 billion appropriation to pay for the continued occupation? Contact should be followed up by publicizing their responses and exposing those responses to public critique.
While we must continue to support the organizing of military families, veterans, and troops, we are also obligated to highlight the atrocities being committed by the US military in Iraq. This is not as paradoxical as it seems. So long as the public can delude itself into believing the US occupiers are merely surviving, or that they are somehow a benign force, the position that the US "needs to stay to prevent chaos" will be bolstered. The My Lai massacre was a huge turning point during the Vietnam occupation, because it gave the lie to official "motives" for the war and simultaneously confronted the United States with the bloody reality for the occupied and the terrible transformation of the occupiers. To counter administration propaganda requires emphasizing US war crimes, like the destruction visited on Fallujah, and showing them to be systematic, frequent, and committed with the full knowledge of every level of command. They are.
Last and by no means least, it's high time to step up organizing which emphasizes the cost of the war and connects it to the real economic suffering so many working class and oppressed nationality communities are suffering today. The attacks on basic programs like Section 8 housing aid and the drive to privatize much of government haven't slackened at all. This is doubly true where major attacks on state and local budgets are underway, like California. Work done now sets the stage for bigger campaigns when the emergency request for additional tens of billions comes before Congress within the next few months.
National Executive Committee,
Freedom Road Socialist Organization /
Organización Socialista del Camino para la Libertad
|
