Bush pledges to stay in Iraq despite occupation’s collapse

Faced with the utter collapse of his administration’s latest game plan for occupying and running Iraq, President George W. Bush has repeated his refusal to consider other options. At an Aug. 21 news conference he said that though the Iraq war is “straining the psyche of our country … we’re not leaving so long as I’m president.”

His statement was a preemptive strike against a growing opposition to his Iraq policies that has reached into the Penta gon and even to Republican senators like John Warner, who have supported the Bush administration and its war in the past. No matter how disastrous the consequences of the war, the administration has not only ignored popular opposition, it has refused to listen to other voices from its own class allies and taken no advice about how to pursue U.S. imperialist interests.

Within the United States, popular support for the war has dropped to 35 percent in the latest polls. This the Bush gang completely dismisses, except to design electoral strategies to overcome it.

Bush has even rejected suggestions from military officials and imperialist civil servants who have only tactical differences with his administration’s policies—policies that have damaged U.S. interests worldwide even as they inflict murder and mayhem in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon and threaten Iran, Syria, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.

Through much of this summer the news of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Lebanon, which has been another administration setback, dominated the media. On Aug. 17 and 18, articles that refocused attention on the impending collapse of the Iraq occupation in its present form made it to the front page of the New York Times.

As bad as life was for the Iraqi people in the beginning of 2006, their suffering has grown enormously throughout the year. In July some 3,500 Iraqis died in fighting.

It is amazing to think that a few years ago there were voices in Europe and the United States, some even in the peace movement, that warned that a “precipitous” end to the occupation would bring a bloodbath. The criminal occupation continued—and the bloodbath is on.

Iraqi resistance grows

But the Aug. 18 Times article had an additional message. Even with death squads connected to the puppet regime and U.S. bombs and mysterious masked figures killing 100 Iraqis a day, the resistance movement against the U.S. occupation is still growing.

U.S. officials in Iraq revealed to the Times that attacks against U.S. troops had nearly doubled in July as compared with last January. “In July, of 2,625 explosive devices, 1,666 exploded and 959 were discovered before they went off. In January, 1,454 bombs exploded or were found.”

The Times quoted an anonymous “senior Defense Department” official: “The insurgency has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically high levels. … The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than at any point in time.”

“Insurgency” is the word U.S. officials use to describe the heroic Iraqi resistance, especially in the areas of Iraq that are predominantly Sunni and where the Ba’ath Party still has a strong following.

After Gen. John Abizaid testified to Con gress that Iraq was in danger of sliding toward civil war, “the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia, said that if Iraq fell into civil war, the committee might need to examine whether the authorization provided by Congress for the use of Ameri can force in Iraq would still be valid.” (New York Times, Aug. 17) Since Warner has up to now been a strong supporter of Bush’s policy in Iraq, it can be assumed that Bush’s Aug. 21 declaration was aimed at preventing this defection from gaining momentum.

While the Bush government and Congress often speak as if they would do anything to avoid civil war and “sectarian violence” in Iraq, U.S. policies have exacerbated differences and provoked fighting between Iraqi communities. Ever since the Iraqi resistance showed its strength toward the end of 2003, U.S. strategists have advised the government to split Iraq into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite sectors.

Never before in modern Iraqi history had Sunni and Shiite communities battled with each other on the basis of their sectarian differences. But Washington promoted an Iraqi Constitution that reinforces these differences. The U.S. occupiers have relied on some of the Shiite-based political parties and their militias like the Badr Brigades to provide the backbone of the puppet Iraqi state.

Iraqi Shiites praise Hezbollah

While these parties and militias have been antagonistic to the Sunni-based resistance and especially to Ba’athists, they have not always followed Wash ington’s wishes.

The most glaring example was when hundreds of thousands of people from around the country, called to Baghdad by Moqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, demonstrated in solidarity with Hezbollah and its heroic resistance against the Israeli attack. The puppet Iraqi government had to allow the demonstration, and it also publicly protested the U.S. and Israeli policy with regard to Lebanon.

In general, Hezbollah’s successful defense against the supposedly invincible Israeli army has encouraged united struggle of Shiite and Sunni forces throughout the Arab and Muslim world.

While the Iraqi opponents to U.S. occupation have not yet formed a united national resistance, Washington can rely on none of the major forces in Iraq to provide a stable base for a client state.

Perhaps that’s why another anonymous military affairs expert told the Times that “senior administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives other than democracy.” While no serious observer of the Iraq occupation ever thought Bush was sincerely interested in “democracy,” this comment means that the administration is considering changing the current Iraqi regime that resulted from elections.

Haditha shows dilemma
of occupation

On Aug. 18, the Times and other media reported on the news of the military investigation of last fall’s events in Haditha. This is the small city in Iraq where a group of U.S. Marines killed 24 Iraqi civilians under suspicious circumstances and, Iraqis say, raped a young Iraqi girl and murdered her family members.

The latest news was that not only did the rank-and-file Marines involved in the massacre lie in their statements to investigators, but senior Marine officers failed to aggressively investigate the events and indeed could be seen as having covered up the crimes, although they are not directly charged with this.

The logbook for last Nov. 19, the day of the crime, had all its pages missing. In addition, Marine officers originally told investigators that a video of the day’s events taken by a drone was unavailable. Later, after an initial investigation had been completed, these Marines were forced to produce the tape, which did exist after all.

The Marines’ original report claimed that 15 civilian deaths were caused by a mine explosion. This was a lie that everyone knew was a lie. It is doubtful that any of the 24 people killed were resistance fighters, although the resistance was strong in Haditha and had strong popular support.

While the Marines’ actions in Haditha were excessively cruel and violent toward the Iraqi people, it is apparent that the situation itself—enforcing an occupation against a popular resistance—makes such massacres almost inevitable, just as they were in Vietnam. The military brass from Bush on down impose an attitude that Iraqis are less than human, that they are all dangerous to U.S. troops and that troops can open fire at them at will.

According to the Aug. 20 New York Times Magazine, the message on the wall at one U.S. base near Barwana in Anbar province was, “Be polite, be professional, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.” The Times article discussed the weaknesses in the puppet Iraqi army and indicated it would be impossible for the Iraqi army to replace U.S. troops in years, let alone months.

Now the Pentagon is again calling up troops on “inactive ready reserve” status to send them to Iraq. These are troops who had ended their active military duty over a year ago. Additional U.S. troops are being positioned in Baghdad from Anbar province, where the fighting has been hardest. Everything points toward a troop increase rather than a pullback.

The most optimistic news is that resistance within the U.S. military to being used as war criminals and/or cannon fodder is growing. One can only hope this resistance grows quickly.