Iraq:
Democracy or permanent war?
by Harold Lavender
The spectre of prolonged war and occupation hangs over Iraq. The US has tried to re-brand two years of occupation as a struggle for “democracy” against terrorism. However, the resort to Orwellian language cannot hide the slide into barbarism in Iraq, in a conflict whose primary victims are Iraqi civilians.
“Democratic” occupation is rapidly proving incapable of halting the spiral of violence. Continued occupation is a recipe for only one thing: mounting deaths and resistance.
In North America, the response to the barbarism remains rather subdued. The US-led propaganda campaign of half-truths to vilify the Iraqi opposition and paint it in the al-Qaeda mode has had some impact. The occupation has grown increasingly unpopular but there are few signs of active mass opposition in the US.
But on the ground the war is stalemated. As a result, the question of the occupation is likely to be a central fact of political life for a long time to come.
Occupation is a Crime
News from inside Iraq is limited in the corporate media. However, thanks to the work of independent journalists and the Internet, enough information has trickled out to draw the clear conclusion: the occupation is a crime.
This is highlighted by the fate of Fallujah. Last November, this city of 350,000 people was turned into a free-fire zone by US forces and largely leveled. The main casualties of the US offensive were civilians. Independent journalists such as Dahr Jamail now report some 3,000 people, mostly women, children and the elderly, were killed. Residents were forced to flee to makeshift camps. According to Dahr Jamail, only about 20,000 have returned and occupying authorities said Fallujah was uninhabitable.
In a blatant act of racism and an outright violation of the Geneva Convention, the occupying power has refused to count the number of Iraqi dead. However, according to a study published in the British medical journal, The Lancet, the death toll due to the war and occupation has reached 100,000 people.
Nothing can justify such crimes. There is only one solution: end the occupation. The anti-war movement needs to develop and sustain clear and sharp demands. The first such demand must be for the complete, immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US and allied forces from Iraq.
No one should be under any illusion that US imperialism will voluntarily withdraw its forces. Only determined Iraqi resistance and mass-based worldwide and domestic opposition will force them out.
The US has invested a great deal politically, financially and militarily to gain a new foothold in the Middle East. And in terms of both resources (oil) and geo-politics, Iraq is far more vital to US strategic interests than Vietnam ever was.
A clear understanding of imperialism is important to counter widespread mass illusions about the peaceful intent of forces such as the Democratic Party in the US, or the governments in France and Germany. The Martin government faithfully represents the interests of Canadian imperialism.
It is also important to target corporations that profit from occupation and war, such as Canada’s SNC Lavalin, which signed a huge contract to supply bullets to the US armed forces. However, the conflicts highlight the fact that corporations ultimately rely on vast state military power to enforce their global rule.
It is important to defend the right of Iraqis to resist the occupation by many means, including armed attacks on military targets. However, the nature of parts of the Iraqi resistance poses some thorny questions for the Left.
In assessing the resistance in Iraq, we need to keep in mind fundamentals. Resistance in Iraq is born of opposition to foreign occupation, brutal repression and the sharp decline in the living standards of the large majority. It is also important to keep in mind that there are many Iraqi resistances employing a wide range of tactics and representing very different political agendas. The most spectacular attacks generate much publicity, but countless other acts against the occupation are blacked out by the corporate media.
However, Left and secular forces in Iraq remain weak and endangered. The weakness of the Left has facilitated the dominance of Islamic forces of different stripes (Sunni and Shia), which have seized the situation and are playing prominent leadership roles. These Islamic forces in Iraq in no way represent a socially progressive or anti-capitalist agenda. Indeed, part of the Shia majority could gravitate towards an Iranian-style regime.
Meanwhile, the secular Left has been caught in a deadly vice. It has been squeezed by relentless pressure, between the fundamentalist currents on one hand and the US occupiers and their appointed thugs, like former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, on the other.
For instance, the Iraqi Communist Party, once a strong presence, has sought to participate in the government rather than taking the necessary hard line against any collaboration with the occupiers and their Iraqi allies. The results have been disastrous. Secular forces have been attacked and killed by the occupiers, Iraqi forces and fundamentalist currents.
Supporters of secularism and democracy should reflect long and hard before giving unqualified solidarity to a general Iraqi resistance. But the situation cannot move forward without the defeat of the occupation.
“Democratic Occupation”
US imperialism clearly underestimated the pitfalls of occupying a country against the will of its people. The Bush administration is now attempting to recoup its losses by a double strategy of continued militarization and political legitimization under the name of democracy in Iraq and the Middle East.
Militarily, the US continues to have mixed results, as was shown by the dispersal and quick regrouping of armed currents after the destruction of Fallujah.
Much attention has been given to training tens of thousands of Iraqi military and security forces to take over the dirty work of repression. The Pentagon, CIA and private security firms have offered training in counter-insurgency. Iraqi security forces have borrowed from their masters—human rights groups are now accusing Iraqi security forces of routine use of torture, arbitrary detention and extortion.
However, even with US training, there is little evidence that Iraqi forces can win the military conflict.
George W Bush is upfront about his intention of maintaining the occupying forces in Iraq. “We will not set an artificial timetable for leaving Iraq that would embolden the terrorists and make them believe they can wait us out,” Bush told the world in his January “State of the Union” address. “We are in Iraq to achieve a result.”
Vast US military bases are under construction in Iraq. The US plans to stay for the long term, especially to guard the major oil fields. However, the US recognizes that such a message needs to be hidden and sold to a reluctant US public, to a potentially hostile international opinion and within Iraq itself.
No Winners
In Iraq, the unmistakable will of the Shia majority forced the US to shift from its original plan of unmasked military control to supporting elections on January 30, 2005. The elections were held far earlier than had been originally envisioned.
The Bush administration undoubtedly got some mileage from the election. However, the political gains from the supposed “step towards democracy” cannot last for long.
Overall turnout was about 60 percent. However, though this turnout is high, particularly compared to elections in the US, by itself this statistic disguises the complexity of voter responses. The election exacerbated internal divisions within Iraq. Voter turnout was high among Shias, who are seeking majority rule, and Kurds, who are seeking autonomy and independence. Voter turnout was very low among Sunnis, where the armed insurgency is strongest and obviously has some mass support.
The gross under-representation of Sunnis in the new assembly (seven percent of total seats) poses a problem. Equally, the difficulty in forming a new government illustrates how ungovernable Iraq is becoming.
The situation is not necessarily all bad for Washington. To the extent that conflict deepens between Iraqis, Washington will be able to use divide and conquer tactics to protect its interests. However, as skewed as they are, the election results reveal that the sentiment in Iraq was clearly against the US occupation.
The United Iraqi Alliance (UIA), which includes key Shia fundamentalist groups as well as a variety of Shia and non-Shia groups, received 48 percent of the vote. It received a majority in the new assembly but not the two-thirds necessary to make fundamental changes under the rules established by the occupiers. Kurdish forces received 26 percent of the vote. The slate put forward by Iyad Allawi, politically and financially backed by Washington, suffered a crushing defeat, receiving only 14 percent of the vote.
The UIA had campaigned on the need to set a timetable for US forces to withdraw from Iraq, but it was divided over the timetable. Many wanted a short-term exit. However, the dominant forces, including those influenced by cleric Ayatollah Sistani, favour a medium-term perspective. It is the middle-term withdrawal that appears to have been adopted as the direction of the new government.
These forces want to consolidate the Iraqi military first. But they are left extremely vulnerable to intense US pressure to maintain a strong US military presence. As a result, the popular will for the US to leave the country seems likely to be thwarted for the immediate future.
The results of a long term military occupation are likely to be horrific for the population: intensified repression, intensified violence and an intensified slide into civil war.
We have no direct control over the situation in Iraq. However, we need to say loudly and clearly that continued occupation of Iraq can only lead to barbarism.
Harold Lavender is an editor of New Socialist magazine, and a member of the Vancouver branch of the New Socialist Group.