AS IRAQI RESISTANCE GROWS
Bush tries to sell 'endless war' to Asia
By Fred Goldstein
The "endless war" plans of the Bush
administration after Sept. 11 were to crush Afghanistan,
destroy the regime of Saddam Hussein and quickly stabilize
puppet colonial regimes in both countries. Bush wanted to use
this momentum of military terror to move rapidly forward with a
campaign of "regime change" and "preemptive war" directed
against all governments and liberation movements that refused
the dictates of Washington.
The momentum of this campaign, however, has been drastically
slowed by the determined resistance of the Iraqi people to the
brutal colonial occupation of their country, with more and more
U.S. soldiers being killed and wounded on a daily basis and
hatred for the occupiers spreading throughout Iraq.
But as Bush's poll numbers sink at home, under the impact of
the growing U.S. casualty rate and the skyrocketing costs of
the occupation, the administration's response is to go abroad
to stoke up a war psychology at home and to rekindle support
for its campaign of aggression and world domination.
Before Bush embarked on his trip to Asia, he set the
political tone while appearing with Gov.-elect Arnold
Schwarzenegger in San Bernardino, Calif. Bush declared "America
is following a new strategy," according to the Oct. 17 New York
Times. "We are not waiting for further attacks. We are striking
our enemies before they can strike us."
Thus Bush was reiterating his "preemptive war" doctrine, and
specifically laying the basis for expanded intervention in
Asia. The Philippines and Indonesia were mentioned by name, but
the threat could easily be construed as broader in application,
since Bush has described any number of countries as
enemies--including Iran, Syria, Cuba, Libya and North
Korea.
U.S. pressure on Korea
Bush went to South Korea to pressure the government there to
send troops to Iraq and to get it to commit money for the Iraq
occupation at the upcoming Madrid Donors Conference to take
place on Oct. 23-24. The South Korean president, Roh Moo-hyun,
agreed in principle. However, fearful of mass opposition, he
made the timing and the number of troops conditional on "taking
into account public opinion."
Bush also pressed the South Korean government to support his
new initiative of getting the Democratic People's Republic of
Korea--North Korea--to agree to destroy its nuclear weapons
program in exchange for a multilateral security "guarantee"
that the U.S. would not militarily attack Korea. This proposal
is, on the surface, a partial retreat from the previous "no
negotiation" hard line of the Rumsfeld-Cheney faction.
But it can also be seen as a maneuver by Bush and his
administration to make the U.S. look "reasonable," when in
actuality they are maliciously proposing something that is
highly unacceptable to the North Koreans and lays the basis for
further U.S. aggression. It's a way of avoiding the completely
justifiable North Korean demand that the U.S. sign a
non-aggression treaty, which would have to be ratified by the
U.S. Senate.
The fact is that North Korea was invaded by the U.S.
military from 1950 to 1953. Five million Koreans were killed in
that war. The U.S. has refused to sign a peace treaty ending
the war.
Bush has branded North Korea as a member of his "axis of
evil," a status conferred also on Iraq and Iran. Iraq, of
course, was then invaded by the Pentagon. Wash ington has
37,000 troops in South Korea. It has nuclear weapons, warships
and military aircraft in the region, and has threatened
"surgical strikes" against the North.
Under such an extreme threat, the North's demand for a
non-aggression treaty in return for giving up a major deterrent
against U.S. attack seems to be very minimal.
Bush moved on to the Philippines, where he sought to bolster
the pro-U.S. regime of President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo with a
five-year military supply and training plan. Under the guise of
fighting terrorism, the U.S. has stationed 1,500 troops in the
Philippines and is trying to overcome that country's law that
forbids foreign troops from entering into combat.
Bush made his stock speech about the "war against terrorism"
before a joint session of the Philippine Congress, where his
speech writers had the audacity and/or ignorance to allow him
to reminisce over how U.S. and Philippine troops "liberated the
Philippines from colonial rule."
He was referring to the Spanish-American War of 1898, in
which the U.S. seized the Philippines from Spain. It then
killed up to 1 million Filipinos in the 12 years of war that
were required to destroy the national liberation movement
there. The U.S. carried out another counter-insurgency war
against the Hukbalahap liberation forces after World War II,
while granting formal independence to the Philippines in
1946.
Bush then went to Thailand, where he declared the government
there a key "non-NATO" ally, a dubious status held only by the
Philippines. He praised the regime for sending engineers to
Afghanistan and Iraq and offered it military aid. This tips the
Thai regime from its previous diplomatic and military position
of formal neutrality in the recent period and caused
consternation in the country. For Thailand to move closer to
the U.S. militarily is a threat to Laos, Vietnam, Myanmar,
Cambodia, and China, and could upset relations in the
region.
While Thai Army chief Gen. Chaisit Shina watra defended the
new status, Suriyasai Katasila, who heads the
anti-globalization organization Campaign for Popu lar
Democracy, said that the announ ce ment was more likely to give
Washington opportunity to interfere in Thai military affairs.
(Bangkok Post, Oct. 21)
Bush was in Thailand to attend the Asian Pacific Economic
Conference. He hijacked the economic conference's agenda by
demanding a resolution against terrorism and a resolution to
pressure North Korea to go along with Bush's initiative to stop
that country's nuclear program.
Iraqi resistance deepens and widens
But for all the resolutions and belligerent speeches, Bush
cannot escape the mounting setbacks to the occupation at the
hands of the Iraqi resistance. Pictures of Iraqi youth on top
of a burned-out U.S. Army truck told the story of the
Pentagon's problems.
"A roadside bomb--set against a monument reading 'Welcome to
Falluja'--exploded on a truck hauling Hellfire missiles," wrote
the Oct. 20 New York Times, "and then crowds incinerated the
entire truck, using gasoline." When U.S. troops returned to get
the wreckage, they were attacked again and forced to
retreat.
On the same day, two U.S. soldiers were killed in Kirkuk in
the north. The following day, one soldier was killed and six
wounded in Falluja. Times military correspondent Michael Gordon
obtained a document prepared for Paul Bremer III, head of the
Occupation Authority, reviewing the military situation in the
recent period. It recorded recent events such as a missile
attack on a C-130 transport, an attack on the motorcade of the
governor of Diyala Province, an attack on a convoy north of
Mahmudiya, attacks in Tikrit, near Jalula, near al Fathah, near
Safwan, in Basra in the south, and numerous other attacks.
There are 11 "red zones" in and around Baghdad where no U.S.
forces are supposed to go "unless on urgent business." (New
York Times, Oct. 19)
The frequency, accuracy, coordination and sophistication of
the attacks are increasing and they are occurring over a wider
area. All indications are that the hatred for the occupation is
spreading and the active resistance is growing. It is fueled by
the increasing number of atrocities committed by U.S.
forces.
When a U.S. paratrooper was killed and six others were
wounded in Falluja on Oct. 19, soldiers opened up with wild
gunfire and killed a Syrian truck driver taking a shipment to
Lebanon. He was one of two civilians killed. Their bodies were
taken to the hospital. "One of them, Iraqi Nazem Baji, had a
gunshot wound in the back of the head and his hands were tied
in front of him with plastic bands similar to those used by the
U.S. military when they arrest suspects." (Associated Press,
Oct. 20) The victimbrother told the AP that U.S. soldiers
"raided the house, shot him first in the leg, tied his hands
and then shot him in the head."
These are the unspoken rules of engagement sanctioned and
encouraged by the brass. Soldiers are rarely charged in any
instance of killing civilians, let alone punished. This was an
execution carried out in plain sight. It bespeaks a culture of
brutality, such as existed during the Vietnam War, which is
angering Iraqis and sowing demoralization among many U.S.
soldiers.
Under such conditions the U.S. occupation will only meet
more resistance, have to stay longer and maintain if not expand
its forces. U.S. imperialism is being stretched ever thinner by
this colonial occupation. It is in desperate need of troops and
money.
UN vote: U.S. bought victory
This is what was behind all the maneuvering at the United
Nations Security Council. The struggle over the role of the UN
is really the struggle of the French and German imperialists,
allied with the Russian capitalists, to break the iron grip of
the Pentagon and the U.S. Agency for International Development,
which have been doling out all the contracts to U.S.
corporations such as Halliburton, Bechtel, WorldCom and
others.
The Bush administration was forced by the dire situation in
Iraq to go to the UN, which it had previously scorned. It
finally got a unanimous resolution, authorizing a multinational
force, that presumably paves the way for other countries to
send troops and money. But the resolution, as written, was
simply providing a UN cover to the U.S. occupation, without
yielding any political or economic authority to anyone. Thus it
raised eyebrows when the resolution was passed by a 15-0
vote.
But the Oct. 20 edition of the New York Times carried a lead
story shedding light on the vote:
"Under pressure from potential donors, the Bush
administration will allow a new agency to determine how to
spend billions of dollars in Iraq, administration and aid
officials say. The new agency, to be independent of the
American occupation, will be run by the World Bank and the
United Nations."
The Times quoted a World Bank official as saying that the
European countries "don't want their funds to be perceived as
commingled with the funds controlled by the CPA [Coalition
Provisional Authority]. They want their own say over how the
money is spent. ... [T]he new agency could open up" the
contract process "and award contracts to global companies.
Donors could also give directly to Iraq, specifying that their
own companies do the work."
The resolution passed in the Security Council had
specifically designated the U.S-controlled Development Fund for
Iraq, set up by the Pentagon, as the only agency authorized to
handle funds. But it appears that the new agency, if it is
actually formed, would "open up the process" to the other
imperialists and allow them to get an economic foothold in
Iraq. This must have been part of the price for the 15-0 vote
and gave the U.S. a boost for the upcoming Madrid Donors
Conference.
The anti-war movement should not regard the entry of the UN
and the World Bank into the reconstruction process as any kind
of victory for the struggle. If they get in, it would open up
the Iraqi people to a new group of corporate robbers while
relieving some of the pressure on U.S. imperialism.
On the contrary, the movement should make every effort to
get all the imperialists off the backs of the Iraqi people, get
the troops out, use the war money for human needs, and allow
the Iraqis to determine their own destiny.
Reprinted from the Oct. 30, 2003, issue of
Workers World newspaper
This article is copyright under a Creative
Commons License.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php)
HOME
:: U.S. NEWS ::
WORLD NEWS ::
EDITORIALS ::
SUBSCRIBE ::
DONATE
Email
this article
Printable
page