|
|
Iraq�s descent into chaos
Every day, the news from Iraq is more desperate.
Sectarian divisions are hardening, as predicted by many before the
invasion by US and British forces three years ago. Such is the
volatility of the situation, that any event could trigger all-out civil
war, as illustrated by the fall-out from the devastating bomb attack on
the al-Askari mosque in Samarra, one of Shia Islam�s holiest shrines.
ROBERT BECHERT writes.
THREE YEARS AFTER the invasion of Iraq, tens of
thousands of Iraqis are dead, well over 2,000 US service personnel have
died and the Bush administration�s initial strategy lies in ruins.
Regularly, atrocities and provocations, like the destruction of the al-Askari
shrine in Samarra, lead to renewed bouts of sectarian killings that
bring closer the possibility of civil war. Today, George Bush and his
gang are desperately trying to salvage what they can, especially as
their original plans to impose a pliant regime in Baghdad have run into
the overwhelming Iraqi demand for a complete US withdrawal.
Certainly, occasions like the holding of elections
last December have provided opportunities for brief bursts of propaganda
to justify and praise the �success� of the war in Iraq. But, inevitably,
soon the reality of the situation breaks through the White House�s media
spin.
The war is continuing, instability reigns.
Casualties on all sides are continuing to mount. Outside the fortified
Green Zone, most of Iraq shows precious little sign of improvement in
the daily lives of ordinary working people. While billions of dollars
have been lost in corruption, reconstruction of the economy is barely
advancing. Indeed, as Condoleezza Rice told the US Senate in
mid-February, the Iraqi economy now produces less than under Saddam
Hussein. As a major oil producer, Iraq should be gaining from the high
export price, but this is certainly not the case for ordinary people,
who are being forced to pay more for Iraqi petrol. Prices in Iraq
tripled last December and are planned to rise tenfold this year.
While Rice was speaking at the Senate, Donald
Rumsfeld claimed before a House of Representatives committee that, "for
the most part, the country is functioning". It was still not "a pretty
picture", but not everything was horrible.
But this is the official, public presentation. While
Rumsfeld was testifying, a senior government official "speaking� on
condition of anonymity, questioned these assertions. He spoke of growing
concerns in the administration that the US and UK were becoming
embroiled in a civil war, and that the Shia-dominated government they
were supporting, particularly the interior ministry, was fuelling that
war through its use of death squads and secret prisons. �We are
enhancing their ability to be more lethal�� He cited Basra, under
British control, as the worst example of a region under the control of
sectarian militia". (Financial Times website, 16 February)
But it is not only in southern Iraq that the
occupying forces have effectively done deals with local militias to
maintain control while recruiting some of them into the Iraqi security
forces. This is what has also happened in the Kurdish region and
increasingly in the rest of Iraq. Given that the militias and personnel
the US and British are using are either religiously or ethnically based,
this divide-and-rule policy has accelerated Iraq�s fragmentation.
Militarily, US forces are now trying to reduce their own casualties by
deploying more and more air power, with the average number of air
strikes rising from 25 a month at the beginning of 2005 to 150 last
December, not a sign of spreading peace.
The costs of the war continue to spiral. Bush plans
to spend $120 billion on Iraq and Afghanistan this year, bringing the
total since 2001 to $440 billion. And this $120 billion is in addition
to the $439 billion Bush has proposed for the normal defence budget this
year. Remember Rumsfeld once predicted that the invasion of Iraq would
cost in total $50 billion. Part of this has gone on the lucrative
contracts given to big companies; part of it has been spent on �security
contractors�, the latest name for mercenaries; and part has just been
looted. In January, an official audit reported that the Coalition
Provisional Authority that ran Iraq until mid-2004 could not account for
nearly $9 billion. It just disappeared! The worsening security situation
has meant that in the year to last September less than half of the �Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Funds� had actually been spent, $8,599 million
out of $18,439 million.
Divide and rule
DECEMBER�S ELECTIONS revealed Iraq to be a country
divided on religious and ethnic lines between Arab Shia, Arab Sunnis and
Kurds. Both Washington and London had hoped that the broad,
pro-occupation grouping of Iyad Allawi, who they made prime minister in
2004, would do well; but his list won only 20 of the 275 seats.
February�s narrow, one-vote re-nomination of Ibrahim
al-Jaafari as prime minister has not settled Iraq�s future. While it
seems that al-Jaafari and his backers, including Moqtada al-Sadr, want a
more unified Iraq, the Bush administration backed those forces wanting a
more federal arrangement. In general, Washington is using a
divide-and-rule policy of balancing between the different forces in the
country and playing one off against the other. Of course, there is an
irony in Bush supporting the candidate of the originally
Iranian-sponsored Sciri party for prime minister. But this also partly
explains the administration�s more belligerent approach to Iran, as
alongside its divide-and-rule policy within Iraq, Bush and Co are
seeking to weaken Iran�s growing influence in Iraq.
The formation of a new Iraqi government is not going
to be an easy task given the divisions within the country. Pointing to
the difficulties, US ambassador, Zalmay Khalilzad, said in February that
"sectarian and ethnic conflict is the fundamental problem in Iraq".
While this is only partially true � Khalilzad just ignores the
overwhelming Iraqi opposition to the occupation � it does reflect the
deep divisions in the country. Khalilzad�s statement that, "we are not
going to invest the resources of the American people into forces run by
people who are sectarian", was both an indication of the key role the US
is playing in running this nominally �independent� country, and a
warning to Shia leaders not to take too much power.
For months, opinion polls have consistently showed
that a majority of Americans see the invasion and war as wrong. The lies
about the invasion being part of Bush�s �war on terror� have been
exposed and replaced by the cynical argument that it is better to fight
al-Qa�ida in Iraq than elsewhere. Since Bush issued his notorious �Bring
�em on� challenge to the insurgents in July 2003, over 2,000 US
servicemen and women and thousands of Iraqis have died.
While an overwhelming majority of Congress
originally supported the war, more and more of the war�s backers,
including former members of the Bush administration, are now rushing to
distance themselves from the war and its consequences. Republican
Senator, John McCain�s calls for more troops to be sent are mainly an
opportunist way to be critical of Bush while not being accused of being
�soft�.
Those ruling class strategists, both at home and
overseas, who regarded Bush and the neo-cons� strategy as wrong are
becoming more open. Yuval Diskin, the head of the Israeli security
service, Shin Bet, has spoken of the chaos in Iraq and remarked, "I�m
not sure we won�t miss Saddam". This was a simple piece of realpolitik;
from Diskin�s point of view a strong dictatorship was preferable to the
present chaos. This was, of course, one reason why the West backed
Saddam until his 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Today, it is not accidental
that Iraq�s murderous 1980-88 war with Iran is not being mentioned in
Saddam�s trial. That war cost at least 500,000 lives, but to charge
Saddam with starting it, or the use of poison gas during it, would, for
example, open the door to Rumsfeld being asked to explain exactly what
he discussed with Saddam on his 1983 and 1984 visits to Baghdad! In
fact, the Western powers supported and armed Saddam to fight against
Ayatollah Khomeini�s regime in Iran.
Troop withdrawal
IN MOST OF Iraq outside the Kurdish areas there is
continuing overwhelming opposition to the presence of the occupying
troops. Within the Kurdish areas there have been the first signs of
opposition to corrupt Kurdish leaders and only limited support for an
indefinite US presence. A February opinion poll showed that 70% of
Iraqis wanted a full US withdrawal within two years, while another
recent poll organised by Maryland University found that 87%, including
64% of Kurds, wanted a timetabled withdrawal of the occupying troops.
There is hardly any support for the US maintaining long-term bases in
Iraq. Significantly, last December�s election saw the anti-occupation
supporters of al-Sadr become the largest single bloc within the dominant
United Iraq Alliance Shia coalition.
Nevertheless, as the run up to US mid-term elections
is getting under way, the administration hopes to be able to proclaim at
least progress towards �victory�. Thus during this year they want to
continue to withdraw troops from Iraq and get the overall total down to
around 100,000 by the end of this year.
Despite the White House�s public optimism there is a
real discussion going on amongst the ruling elite about what next to do.
On the one hand, the invasion has not turned out the way Bush, Cheney
and Co expected. On the contrary, it has plunged them into a quagmire in
one of the most important economic and strategic regions of the world.
Within the ruling class there is a united position on the importance of
maintaining control of the Middle East and its resources. This is why
all the ruling elite�s discussions about Iraq are simultaneously about
getting out of the swamp and how to maintain a grip over the Middle
East, including whether it is a good move to try to keep permanent US
bases within Iraq.
The disintegration of Iraq along both religious and
ethnic lines produced by Bush�s invasion is something that can spread to
other parts of the region. Washington fears that the growing hostility
in the Middle East to US policies, alongside the growth of �political
Islam�, will undermine its allies. At one stage, it hoped to contain the
opposition by persuading its allies to hold elections and then moderate
the opposition leaders. But after Hamas�s sweeping victory in the
Palestinian elections this strategy has become more difficult.
Amid the wreckage of the Iraqi invasion, Bush and
Co, along with their media apologists, have adopted the position that,
irrespective of views on the invasion, it would be �irresponsible� to
totally withdraw troops now. The situation is so bad, this argument
runs, that the occupation troops cannot leave now. But, they assure us,
things will get better tomorrow. This is also a major theme of Bush�s
main ally, British prime minister, Tony Blair, in the face of a constant
majority in Britain opposing the war.
Strategic interests
THIS ARGUMENT HAS gathered some support, especially
when seen against the background of regular suicide attacks, sectarian
killings, and more recently the bombing of the Askari shrine in Samarra.
But it is clear that the occupation itself, and the divide-and-rule
policies of the US and Britain, are the major reasons for the
development of this sectarian civil war. In recognition of this some
argue that, as the US and British forces are seen as occupiers, an
alternative would be for the United Nations (UN) to assume responsibly
for helping to build a democratic Iraq.
The UN, however, has never been able to act against
the interests of its key members. In decisive moments it has always
served one or more of the big powers. This is especially true whenever
it has been involved in strategic areas, and Iraq is in one of the most
contested areas of the world. All the key world powers have interests in
the Middle East and the surrounding region. Sometimes, as in the case of
Russia and China, these interests are partly geographical. But this area
is vital for all the world powers from the point of view of oil. This
means that any UN operation would risk being torn apart by a struggle
between the different powers or would simply be an agreement to exploit
the region.
The interests of big business and the ruling elite
have never been the same as for working people. Bush�s 2003 invasion was
a war for control over oil and strategic interests, not for the benefit
of working people in Iraq or the US.
Socialists believe that the Iraqi working people can
find a way out of the crisis they have been plunged into only on the
basis of united, collective struggle for their common interests. Such a
struggle could, while defending democratic rights, including that of
self-determination, undermine and stop the sectarian warfare while
uniting the working people and poor in a struggle to end the occupation
and fight for a better future. Unfortunately, so far, this type of
movement has been almost totally absent in Iraq. Indeed, one of the
reasons the West for so long backed Saddam�s dictatorship was because it
crushed the independent workers� and socialist movement in Iraq. Today,
this movement, faced with the obstacles of the occupation and the growth
of sectarian divisions, is still only starting on the road to recovery.
Last December�s elections were not really free.
Apart from allegations of rigging, no democratic regime can be
established in Iraq so long as the occupation by foreign, legally
immune, soldiers continues. The 2003 invasion and occupation were based
upon the lies of �WMD� and claims that Saddam was linked with al-Qa�ida
and 9/11. These lies undermine any Bush administration claims about
�good intentions� today.
Mass action
SOCIALISTS BELIEVE THAT the only basis upon which
the Iraqi people can freely decided their future is liberation from both
foreign occupation and sectarian attacks from both the forces of the
Iraqi state and militias. Concretely, this means striving to establish a
non-sectarian defence force, made up of Shia, Sunni and Kurdish workers,
youth and all the Iraqi peoples, that is controlled by democratically
elected committees of workers, students, the unemployed and peasants.
The formation of these sorts of bodies would be part
of building a genuine movement of ordinary working Iraqis, forming
democratic independent labour unions and other mass organisations.
On this basis, Iraqi people could genuinely debate
and decide their future through the convening of a constituent assembly
to determine the future of Iraq on the basis of free elections organised
by non-sectarian elected committees of all the Iraqi peoples, and not by
a US-appointed stooge government.
So long as the occupation forces remain, there will
continue to be resistance to their presence. This does not mean that
socialists support all of the actions of the resistance, especially the
terror attacks by those self-proclaimed resistance groups comprised of
reactionary right-wing Islamic groupings of an al-Qa�ida type.
Socialists oppose right-wing Islamists who, although fighting the
occupation, are themselves completely reactionary and would, if they
came to power, impose an anti-working class, clerical dictatorship in
Iraq, on similar lines to Iran.
Socialists call for the immediate withdrawal of the
occupying forces. Iraqi people must be free to determine their own
future. Socialists demand real democratic rights in Iraq, including the
right to assembly, freedom of speech and to organise unions.
Working people can have no confidence in an Iraqi
government dependent on occupying troops and composed of a rotten elite.
We say that working people internationally should assist Iraqis in
struggling for a genuine alternative of a workers� and peasants�
government, representing the working class, the rural poor and the
genuine organisations of women and youth.
Such a government would immediately move to
introduce a socialist programme, which would stop privatisation and,
instead, re-nationalise industry under democratic workers� control and
management. The country�s vast potential oil wealth must be used to
finance the reconstruction of its sanctions-hit and war-torn public
services - schools, hospitals, housing, public transport, etc - through
a programme of public works to re-employ the millions of unemployed
Iraqis on decent wages and provide for a liveable pension.
Socialists fight for a democratic, socialist society
that would guarantee religious freedom and full rights to minorities,
including the right of self-determination for ethnic groups such as the
Kurds and Turkomans. Iraq is a rich country and it has enough resources
to rebuild the country and to feed its people. But for the masses to
benefit from that wealth, they need to have control over it and make
sure that it is not used to fill the pockets of multinational companies
or local cronies in the Iraqi parliament. That means breaking with
capitalism and imperialism, and striving for a socialist Iraq, as part
of a voluntary democratic confederation of socialist states of the
Middle East.
|