The United States' imperial goals in Iraq have been remarkably clear, despite all of its claims that it is "liberating" Iraq or protecting the world from the threat of phantom weapons of mass destruction. One key goal of the invasion, and of the occupation that has followed, has clearly been to give the US control over key oil resources. Further, with a government in Baghdad firmly under its control, the US will be able to strengthen its hegemony in the Gulf region and push forward with its agenda to create a free-trade area in the Middle East. The US is now poised to profit immensely from the business of rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, an infrastructure that has been decimated by 20 years of war and sanctions.

It is because of the geo-political, economic and strategic importance of Iraq in the region that the US has chosen to invest enormous resources into rebuilding Iraq, in this case constructing a state designed to protect US interests, under US supervision and with the protection of US troops. This is somewhat different than its approach in Afghanistan, for example. In comparison to Iraq, the US has not placed significant military or financial resources into rebuilding Afghanistan and has instead allowed it to return to the control of warring factions under the ineffective supervision of their puppet, Hamid Karzai.

However, now that the US has delivered its resounding military defeat of a shattered country, it increasingly finds itself in an untenable position in Iraq. Americans are becoming concerned by the rising death toll and the prison scandal has caused the administration to lose significant moral authority. How can George W. Bush now proudly claim to have shut down Hussein's "torture chambers" and "rape rooms", when US troops have turned around and re-opened them? Like nothing else, the images of the sadistic torture of brown-skinned men and women by white soldiers make clear the racism that underlies the occupation.

Most significantly, the US has clearly lost the battle for Iraqi hearts and minds. In fact, the one truly surprising aspect of the US occupation is the degree to which the Bush administration appears to have underestimated the scope and depth of the Iraqi resistance. Each day brings reports of new losses on the American side, inflicted by an armed national liberation struggle that appears to have united many Iraqis across sectarian and ethnic divisions. The resistance has thrown a serious wrench into America's plans to expand beyond Iraq, to Syria, Iran, Cuba and North Korea.

The Resistance

While it is crucial to support the right of Iraqis to self-determination, and to oppose the occupation of Iraq, the resistance seen to date is not without its complexities. The Iraqi resistance is not, as the US claimed for a long time, made up solely of Saddam loyalists and foreign trouble makers. In fact, Islamic groups in the Shi'a south, who were viciously repressed by Hussein, appear to be at the forefront of the organized resistance movement as are other Islamic groups. This is not surprising, given the repression of leftist groups under Saddam Hussein (notably during a period in which he was still supported by the US) and throughout the Middle East more generally.

A debate has emerged regarding how the left should respond to the Iraqi resistance. Some, like James Petras, have argued that the resistance must unquestionably be supported: "to refuse to take sides is tantamount to complicity."

Others have been more cautious. To a certain extent it is difficult to know exactly what the makeup of the Iraqi resistance is, but in the absence of any progressive movements in Iraq, Islamic groups have filled the void to lead and direct the more broadly based anti-occupation sentiment. This is enormously significant, as Iraq was one of the most secular countries in all of the Middle East. The combination of Saddam Hussein's repression and US support in the form of funding and weapons for anti-Ba'athist religious groups have created the conditions for the total dominance of religious leaders over Iraq's south. The US invasion and occupation have contributed even further to this dominance. One of the most visible faces of the resistance is Moqtada al-Sadr, who has been quite open about his goal of creating an Iran-style Islamic republic in Iraq. Al Sadr leads the Mahdi Army, a 5,000 to 10,000 strong armed militia.

The consequences for women are serious. The United States has consistently claimed that its imperialist actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are improving the lives of women. They point to the new Iraqi constitution that legislates equality for women and guarantees women 25 percent of seats in the new legislature. Such claims by the US have little substance, and are undermined by the fact that US commitments to improving the lives of women around the world does not extend to its client states, such as Saudi Arabia, with terrible records when it comes to women's rights. In Iraq there is mounting evidence that women, particularly in the south, have been forced to wear the veil. Women attending universities are particular targets. To the extent that the US occupation has allowed Islamic groups to gain momentum, the result has been a drastic restriction in women's rights.

To complicate matters further, there are many Islamic fundamentalist organizations that have aligned themselves with the US-led occupation forces and who do not support the armed resistance. The picture, then, is much more complex than a battle between good vs. evil. A more nuanced analysis is required, that absolutely opposes US imperialism and the occupation of Iraq, supports the Iraqi right to self-determination, but is critical of any attacks on women's rights.

Quagmire in Iraq

In the face of a growing and militant Iraqi resistance, and increasing criticism at home, the US is faced with two possibilities: to either continue to rule the country by brute force, or to allow the Iraqi people to democratically choose their own future. If the latter option is chosen, it is most likely that the US would then be faced with an Iraqi government that is, if not an Islamic state, at the very least deeply hostile to US interests.

In the short term then, the US will not change its plans to occupy the country. The June 30 deadline for the transfer of power is essentially meaningless, and everyone knows this. After June 30, the US will continue to be responsible for virtually all matters of importance in the administration of the Iraqi state including all security and military matters. Moreover, the Iraqi Governing Council is so without popular backing that even the US does not attempt to put them forward as a transitional government. The Bush administration has attempted to distance itself from the man they had previously hand-picked to run Iraq after the invasion, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi is now accused of providing "misinformation" about the weapons of mass destruction and also of being a spy for Iran.

It is clear, however, that the US would prefer to shroud its occupation in the legitimacy of the United Nations. UN mediator Lakhdar Brahimi has suggested that he appoint a caretaker government to run the country until elections can be held in 2005. More recently, the US has brought a new resolution to the UN, which would see the UN responsible for the administration of the occupation.

The proposed Security Council resolution is really nothing more than a UN endorsement of US occupation. The resolution does not propose an end date to the US occupation, nor does it explicitly allow whatever Iraqi government emerges to have the power to force the US to leave. The Resolution also leaves the US in complete control of security and military decisions in Iraq, and does not allow the interim government the power to overturn any of the economic privatization laws imposed by Paul Bremer. In other words, the Resolution protects the status quo, while ensuring that soldiers from countries other than the US start dying to protect the occupation.

UN involvement will not legitimize what will continue to be an American occupation of the country. It cannot be forgotten that the UN has a very poor track record when it comes to Iraq. It was the UN, after all, that imposed the genocidal ten years of sanctions that led to the deaths of millions in Iraq. The UN is also an extremely undemocratic organization that gives disproportionate power through the "veto" power to the five permanent members of the Security Council: the US, Britain, France, China and Russia. The US occupation and imperialist control of Iraq must be opposed, whether or not there is UN involvement.

The Iraqi resistance has been essential in disrupting the US's plans. As important as this factor is, the task of challenging US imperialism cannot be left to those in Iraq alone. Growing dissatisfaction with Bush's performance by those in the US has unsettled the Bush administration and has led even some of Bush's allies to become concerned. It appears that there may be some divisions growing among the ruling class regarding Bush, and they will only remain loyal to Bush as long as he appears able to protect their interests. Bush may well be in trouble in the November presidential election, although a win for Democrat John Kerry is not a win for the anti-war movement either. Kerry has explicitly stated that he would continue the occupation, though he prefers to have UN involvement.