Get out now!
FOR MOST OF August, Iraq was convulsed by the conflict in
Najaf. A second attempt by US forces, backed by the stooge Allawi government, to
smash Moqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi army, brought three weeks of intense,
brutally destructive fighting in Najaf, where al-Sadr’s militia seized control
of the Imam Ali shrine. Al-Sadr’s resistance sparked uprisings in at least seven
other cities in the Shia south of the country.
The fighting ended on 26 August, with the intervention of
the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani, previously absent in London for medical
treatment. Al-Sadr’s forces were allowed to disperse, ready to fight another
day. Scores of civilians were killed in the conflict, many hundreds wounded. The
old city of Najaf now resembles Stalingrad after the 1943 siege. Far from
strengthening the US occupation or the Allawi government, the assault on al-Sadr’s
forces has strengthened the resistance throughout Iraq. All the political
tensions remain. Once again, reconstruction has taken second place to further
destruction.
The Najaf siege shows a number of things. Despite giving
himself emergency powers, reintroducing the death penalty, etc, Allawi’s
government is extremely weak. It is entirely dependent on US and other
imperialist forces. Zigzagging between ultimatums to al-Sadr and offers of
‘inclusion in the political process’, Allawi’s ministers were incapable of
resolving the Najaf crisis. No one doubts that they wanted to see al-Sadr and
his militia crushed. Their escape has left Allawi’s government even weaker than
before, a transparent camouflage for imperialist occupation.
Allawi’s government has not be strengthened by the selection
of an interim assembly by the Iraqi National Conference (15-18 August). The
first two days were dominated by Najaf. The delegation they sent to negotiate
with al-Sadr was effectively ignored. The 100-person interim assembly selected
by the thousand-plus conference delegates is completely dominated by the parties
which participated in the defunct Interim Governing Council and now dominate
Allawi’s government – two Kurdish parties, the Communist Party, two Shia Islamic
groups and a Sunni Islamic party. The conference was boycotted by al-Sadr’s
movement and by the Council of Sunni Muslim Clerics. Smaller, independent
parties are excluded from the new assembly. "It is a rubber stamp and not a
watchdog to oversee the government", said Jabbar Mustaf, head of the Iraqi
Pilots’ League and chairman of an umbrella group of trade unionists. "This
parliament is not representative". (Daily Telegraph, 19 August)
Moqtada al-Sadr is a powerful force, who has gained strength
from his rejection of the ‘political process’ sponsored by the occupying powers.
Despite his diplomatic retreat from the Najaf mosque, his resolute resistance
has widened his support. His main base is among the Shia poor of Baghdad and
southern cities. But his stand in Najaf had the support and sympathy of many
Sunni Muslims, who sent food and medical supplies. There are signs, moreover,
that al-Sadr is attempting to reach out politically to other opposition forces,
putting more emphasis on national resistance and less on the call for a
Khomeini-type Islamic republic in Iraq.
Najaf also shows the limits of US power. US imperialism
undoubtedly has the military firepower and resources to annihilate guerrilla
forces like al-Sadr’s Mahdi army. But the atrocious death and destruction caused
by US heavy weaponry arouses an ever deeper anger among Iraqis and around the
world. The US is enmeshed in a political war, where military strategy has
serious political repercussions in Iraq, internationally, and at home in the
United States. They dared not launch an assault on the Imam Ali shrine, which
would have provoked an explosion throughout the Islamic world. When al-Sistani
launched his march on Najaf, the US was forced to back off and allow al-Sadr to
withdraw.
From Vietnam to Iraq…
THERE IS AS much destruction through continuing military
operations by US, British and other imperialist forces as reconstruction.
Millions of Iraqis still lack continuous power supply, clean water and sanitary
waste disposal, let alone adequate hospitals, schools, etc. The New York Times
recently described reconstruction as a ‘fiasco’. "Of the $18.4 billion that
Congress approved last autumn, only about $600 million has actually been paid
out". (Editorial, 10 August)
Weak, erratic and unpredictable oil supply from Iraq has
contributed to the surge in the price of oil, which reached almost $50 a barrel
on 20 August (though it has declined slightly since then). "Poor planning for
the post-war period, a raging insurgency and more than 700 attacks on Iraq’s oil
facilities have left it hamstrung and unable to revive its dilapidated oil
infrastructure". (The Costly Barrel, International Herald Tribune, 14 August)
Rising energy prices and fears of insecurity of supply are exerting more and
more of a drag on the US and world economy.
After the 1991 Gulf war, Bush senior boasted that the US had
‘kicked the Vietnam syndrome’. The syndrome is back with a vengeance, however.
There are many differences, of course, between Vietnam and the situation today.
Nevertheless, the fundamental problem is the same: US imperialism is bogged down
in an unwinnable war which is undermining its power and prestige internationally
and arousing growing opposition in the US.
The situation was recently summed up by Scott Ritter, a
former US marine assigned to the UN’s weapons inspectorate in Iraq from 1991 to
1998. His case, put forward before the US invasion in March last year, that
Saddam had destroyed his so-called weapons of mass destruction and their
production facilities, has been completely vindicated. Though he is not a
socialist, his summing up of the present dilemma of US imperialism could hardly
be better put:
"Regardless of the number of troops the US puts on the
ground or how long they stay there, Allawi’s government is doomed to fail. The
more it fails, the more it will have to rely on the US to prop it up. The more
the US props up Allawi, the more discredited he will become in the eyes of the
Iraqi people – all of which creates yet more opportunities for the Iraqi
resistance to exploit.
"We will suffer a decade-long nightmare that will lead to
the deaths of thousands and more Americans and tens of thousands of Iraqis. We
will witness the creation of a viable and dangerous anti-American movement in
Iraq and will one day watch as American troops unilaterally withdraw from Iraq
every bit as ignominiously as Israel did from Lebanon…
"There is no elegant solution to our Iraqi debacle. It is no
longer a question of winning but rather of mitigating defeat". (International
Herald Tribune, 23 July)
November reckoning
FOREIGN AFFAIRS – Iraq – are now the key issue in the US
election. This is unusual, given that domestic issues, particularly the economy,
usually predominate. Moreover, it is in spite of the weakening of the US
economy. Bush will be the first president since Hoover in 1929-33 to preside
over a decline in total employment (a net loss of 1.2 million jobs). Moreover,
weekly earnings for the majority of workers have declined in inflation-adjusted
terms.
Opinion polls in July and early August show that over 50%
disapprove of Bush’s Iraq policy. Overall, 58% do not believe that Bush has a
‘clear plan’ for bringing Iraq to a ‘successful conclusion’. Among swing voters,
62% take this view. Only 45% now believe that the Iraq invasion has helped the
‘war on terrorism’, down from 62% in February.
With even a half-effective opponent, Bush would be facing
certain defeat in November. Unfortunately for the Democrats, most people are not
convinced that Kerry has a clear plan for Iraq either (54% compared to only 15%
who believe he does). (Washington Post, 19 August)
In his struggle to pre-empt Howard Dean in the Democratic
primary elections, Kerry highlighted his Vietnam war record and subsequent
opposition to the war. His ‘anti-war’ stance, however, is hollow rhetoric. While
criticising Bush’s handling of the war, Kerry recently admitted that, despite
the fraudulent WMD pretext for war, he would still have voted to give Bush
congressional authority for the war against Iraq. While advocating cooperation
with US allies, Kerry defends the US’s right to take unilateral action if
necessary. He wants to spend more on active combat forces, increase the size of
the US armed forces, and send more troops to Iraq if necessary.
On balance, Bush’s prospects of re-election are weakening.
Kerry, however, is also a big-business candidate who offers no real alternative
either on Iraq or the economy.
The situation cries out for a real alternative, a party that
opposes the capitalist corporations and their global imperialist outreach –
which speaks for the working class, oppressed minorities, women, and youth.
Ralph Nader’s independent campaign, on an anti-war platform and radical demands
in the interests of workers, points in the right direction. The dirty tricks
being used by the Democrats to keep Nader off the ballot in many states,
including California, highlight the limitations of ‘American democracy’.
The Iraq debacle and economic and social convulsions within
the United States will create the conditions in which socialists and the
politically conscious sections of workers and young people will fight for the
creation of a new mass party on the left – a party that stands not only for
‘regime change’ but for system change.
|