Iraqis want their country back

By Fred Goldstein

On Sept. 4, 1967, the New York Times carried the following headline: "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror."

The dispatch by Peter Grose began: "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election. ... A successful election has long been seen as a keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam. The election was the culmination of a constitutional development that began in January, 1966, to which President Johnson gave his personal commitment... ."

At the time, Washington had 500,000 troops in Vietnam. The U.S. was carpet bombing with B-52s, dropping napalm and Agent Orange, destroying villages and assassinating people suspected of being with the National Liberation Front. The puppet government was torturing prisoners in underground "tiger cages." Yet it was able to organize a sham election and delude itself that the election was a "turning point" in its futile effort to conquer and colonize Vietnam.

Today the Pentagon is bringing "democracy" to Iraq with bombs, bullets, raids, checkpoints, prisons and the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib. Over 100,000 Iraqis have been killed by U.S. forces. The country is in a shambles. Falluja has been destroyed; Ramadi and other cities are in a permanent state of war against the occupation. Electricity, running water and public services barely exist and unemployment is between 60 and 70 percent.

Washington is deluding itself today about its so-called "democratic" election in Iraq. In fact, this election will result in compounding the Bush administration's crisis there. The country is still run from the U.S. Embassy--the largest embassy in the world--headed by John Negroponte, former organizer of death squads in Guatemala in 1981-1985, and by Pentagon generals George Casey and John Abizaid.

From here on in, they are going to be faced with not only an insurgency, but with having to manage a political process in which the parties and candidates are going to come under intense mass pressure to get the U.S. troops out of the country. Whatever the true turnout was in the election, the overriding expectations of the masses of Iraqis are that the election will lead to getting the U.S. out. This is the one thing the masses are passionately united on and the thing they could not vote for in this fraudulent election.

President George W. Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld refuse to give a timetable for the U.S. to get out. And the puppet president of Iraq, Ghazi Yawar, told a press conference, "It's only complete nonsense to ask the troops to leave in this chaos and this vacuum of power." (Washington Post, Feb. 1)

The New York Times chief reporter in Baghdad, John Burns, had to digress from gushing over the election to admit that
people from the U.S. could not "assume that elections madeby the United States military power would reverse, except briefly, the hostility toward their country."

Burns quoted Ahmed Dujaily, 80, a London- trained engineer who was agriculture minister under King Faisal II. Dujaily said of the U.S. government: "Now, we know what they are looking for. They are looking for oil, and military bases, and domination of the new regime. They will have their military headquarters for the region in Iraq, and when they will leave, nobody knows."

A vote against occupation

Dahr Jamail, a syndicated independent journalist who has been reporting regularly from Iraq, warned against the "misrepresentation" of the election by the main stream media. After explaining that figures on the turnout were dubious, he added:

"What they also didn't tell you was that of those who voted, whether they be 35 percent or even 60 percent of registered voters, were not voting in support of an ongoing U.S. occupation of their country.

"In fact, they were voting for precisely the opposite reason. Every Iraqi I have spoken with who voted explained that they believe the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation.

"And they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their country to come sooner rather than later.

"This causes one to view the footage of cheering, jubilant Iraqis in a different light now, doesn't it?" (Zmag.org, Feb. 1)

The election itself was a massive demo nstration of the brutal occupation of 150,000 U.S. troops. Washington organized this so-called "democratic election" with helicopter gun ships, fighter jets, Abrams tanks, Bradley fighting vehicles and rooftop snipers at polling places throughout the country, backing up Iraqi puppet troops who wore hoods for fear of being identified.

Cities and towns were in lock-down for close to a week. Vehicular traffic was prohibited. Journalists could not travel freely; they could only go where the Pentagon wanted them to. No international election observers were permitted.

The names of the 7,700 candidates were released six days before the election and, except for government figures and religious leaders, are completely unknown to the people. The candidates have been in hiding and the polling places had to be kept secret until days before the election.

The big business media, from the New York Times to the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal and all the television networks, went into ecstasy over the elections, hailing the upsurge of "democracy" and the turnout--quoting the figures of 8 million and 57 percent as the gospel truth.

Voting for food rations?

The turnout was nonexistent to low in central and northern Iraq, with the exception of parts of Baghdad and the Kurdish regions. There was no voter registration. The government arbitrarily declared that 14 million people were eligible to vote using the food ration system developed under the Oil for Food program. Voters were sent to food ration centers to vote and there was widespread suspicion that the renewal of food ration cards would be tied to voting.

The puppet electoral commission at first declared that 72 percent of the voters had turned out. It then reduced that to 57 percent, with 8 million voting. This was long before the votes were counted. The communications system in the country is in a shambles and it was physically impossible to come up a count so quickly.

The numbers were given out by Farid Ayar, spokesperson for the Independent Iraqi Electoral Commission--a stooge of the Allawi government and the U.S. When asked at a press conference about the numbers given, Ayar said, "Percentages and numbers come only after counting and will be announced when it's over... It's too soon to say that those were official numbers."

Meanwhile, the ballots have been brought to the Green Zone and are being counted by the former CIA agent and now puppet prime minister. The world still doesn't know how many votes were cast in Ohio during the U.S. presidential election, and no true results will ever emanate from the U.S. high command in Iraq. This is the process of manufacturing an outcome that the imperialists want.

Undoubtedly participating in this pro cess are the Shiite clerical forces headed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. The election would not have taken place without the collaboration of al-Sistani. The most prestigious Shiite leader in Iraq, he told his followers that they must vote as a religious duty. This fact is highly important for the U.S. imperialists when they consider the significance of the election.

The turnout for the election in the heavily Shiite areas of the south and in sections of Baghdad does not show support for the occupation. What Washington needs most of all in Iraq is to build a social base so that it can stabilize a neocolonial regime, take over the oil, complete its military basing project and reduce its military presence.

What the election showed was not that the U.S. has expanded its base, but that al-Sistani still has a social base. And while he may have agreed to collaborate in the elections for opportunistic purposes, the fact is that the masses are expecting him to press for an end to the occupation.

Salim Lone, who was director of communications for Sergio Vieira de Mello, the UN special representative killed in a bombing in 2003, wrote a piece in the London Guardian of Jan. 31 entitled: "An Election to Anoint an Occupation." Lone wrote that "The U.S. has little support in the country. It has, however, won the support of the extremely influential Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who tolerates an occupation most of his followers hate."

Mass pressure to get out

Therein lies the new contradiction that will face U.S. imperialism in the aftermath of this phony election. George Bush should have heeded the old saying, "Be careful what you wish for, because you might get it." Bush wanted an election. Given that the occupation will continue, the basis for the insurgency remains very strong.

The election now opens another political avenue for mass pressure to end the occupation. Any politician in Iraq who wants to retain mass support is going to have to push to end the occupation, restore sovereignty and begin the rebuilding of the country. This is precisely what U.S. imperialism is opposed to.

Sami Ramadani, a political refugee from Saddam Hussein's regime who is a senior lecturer at London Metropolitan University, wrote in the Feb. 1 edition of the London Guardian:

"George Bush and Tony Blair made heroic speeches on Sunday implying that Iraqis had voted to approve the occupation. Those who insist that the U.S. is desperate for an exit strategy are misreading its intentions. The facts on the ground, including the construction of massive military bases in Iraq, indicate that the U.S. is digging in to install and back a long-term puppet regime. For this reason, the U.S.-led presence will continue, with all that entails in terms of bloodshed and destruction.

"An honest analysis of the social and political map of Iraq reveals that Iraqis are increasingly united in their determination to end the occupation. Whether they participated in or boycotted Sunday's exercise, the political bond will soon reassert itself--just as it did in Vietnam--despite tactical differences, and despite the U.S.-led occupation's attempts to dominate Iraqis by inflaming sectarian and ethnic divisions."

Reprinted from the Feb. 10, 2005, issue of Workers World newspaper

This article is copyright under a Creative Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: [email protected]
Subscribe [email protected]
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)

HOME :: U.S. NEWS :: WORLD NEWS :: EDITORIALS :: SUBSCRIBE :: DONATE