The US state is sinking into a quagmire in Iraq, as the racism and brutality of its neo-colonial occupation produce growing hostility in Iraq and beyond.

A whole myriad of justifications for the war, from the ever-elusive weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to the promotion of democracy and the emancipation of women, have proven plainly absurd. The revelations of doctoring and plain lying about evidence of WMD in the lead up to the war, the images of sexualized and racialized torture in Abu Ghraib prison, and the mounting numbers of dead American soldiers have undermined the Bush administration’s legitimation of this war. Support for the Iraq war and occupation is at an all time low within the United States and elsewhere.

From the outset this war was about controlling the world’s access to the largest oil resources and cementing US hegemony in the Middle East. An additional bonus of the occupation of Iraq for the American state and its immediate beneficiaries within the ruling class has been the massively lucrative “reconstruction” of Iraq’s infrastructure. It is on this point that the insidious complicity of the Canadian state comes most clearly to the fore. As is now well known, the Canadian government, under Chretien and Martin, supported the Iraq war militarily through its use of Canadian naval destroyers in the Persian Gulf, military advising at US central command in Qatar, and the sending of troops to occupied Afghanistan, the latter freeing up American troops for Iraq. All the while, of course, the Canadian government’s posture was non-involvement in the Iraq war.

Initially, this posturing caused some problems for the Canadian state when the US government declared in December 2003 that companies from “anti-war” countries, including Canada, would not be eligible to bid on “reconstruction” contracts in Iraq worth $18 billion (US). John Manley, then Deputy Prime Minister, forgot for a moment his lines on democracy promotion, and revealed the underlying truth behind Canadian interests in Iraq: “I don’t know how we could justify to Canadian taxpayers that we would be contributing funds to reconstruction if Canadian firms were excluded from hoping to win some of the contracts” (Globe and Mail December 12, 2003). The situation has reversed under Paul Martin, with the US re-opening access for Canadian firms. Canadian companies are now lining up to profit from the devastation of Iraq (Globe and Mail, Report on Business, January 14, 2004).

With the growth of resistance in recent months, there’s been a lull in reconstruction, to put it mildly. The resistance to the US occupation is to be celebrated, as it makes it much more difficult for the American state to extend its imperial ambitions. At the same time, this is not yet a Vietnam. While it may be true that, through insurrection against a singular colonial enemy, the Sunni minority and Shia majority – erstwhile foes – are coalescing in a pan-Islamic Iraqi nationalism, the resistance is not yet a full-fledged popular war of national liberation capable of driving out the occupying forces.

In addition, it’s important to consider the implications of the fact that significant parts of the resistance are inspired by a political vision that is in no sense progressive: Islamism. Much as we celebrate the American army’s difficulties, we must also acknowledge that, if victorious, sections of the resistance would inflict terrible setbacks for the rights of women and other groups.

At the same time, it is essential to point out that the American/British occupation is also allying itself with groups with similar views, so there must be no illusions about their “progressive” commitments. Indeed, the US has a long and sordid history of backing Islamic fundamentalists, both to marginalize the secular left in the Middle East and to support the mujahadeen in Afghanistan’s war against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Osama bin Laden himself was backed by the United States when the enemy of their enemy was their friend.

In this complex terrain, the international left must try to encourage the development of unions and secular social movements that could undermine the hold of religious ideas.

At this point, the US would love nothing more than to bolster its fading legitimacy with a UN façade. As Jackie Esmonde points out in this issue of New Socialist, if the UN were to accept the latest US resolution calling for UN administration of occupied Iraq, it would be tantamount to UN endorsement of the US occupation. The resolution would leave the US in total control of the fundamental security, military and economic matters of the country. Similarly, with or without UN approval the June 30 transfer of “sovereignty” to the Iraqi Governing Council will represent nothing but cosmetic change.

In these circumstances, the key task of activists is to try to rebuild and revitalize the global anti-war movement. The objective must be to isolate US imperialism – and to expose the UN wherever necessary – so that governments worldwide will hesitate before supporting this and other imperial adventures.

The anti-war movement must incorporate explicitly the theme of anti-occupation, extending to Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine and Haiti. All justifications for the new imperialism must be countered and condemned.

We can’t at this point expect the millions in the streets who opposed the war before it was launched. While there is mass hatred toward the US occupation – and the web of lies on which it was based – this is not translating into massive activism at the moment. Instead, the movement must strengthen its roots – in schools, in unions, on campuses, in communities – through meetings, teach-ins, rallies and so on, all designed to recreate the feeling that resistance is possible.