U.S. Rulers’ Choice in Iraq: No Good Options, “No Graceful Exit”
“So we’ll be in Iraq until the job is complete, at the request
of a sovereign government elected by the people. I know there’s a lot
of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there’s going to
be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq. We’re going to stay in Iraq
to get the job done, so long as the government wants us there.”
-George W. Bush, at a press conference in Amman,
Jordan, Nov. 30, 2006
The U.S. is facing a crisis–and possible defeat–of historic proportions
in Iraq. Sharp debate is raging over how to proceed, with Bush himself
preparing to announce reshaped plans in a major address after New Years.
Two things stand out in all this.
First, government officials, media pundits, etc. are trying to enlist
people in supporting their particular plan–and the war. “What should
“we” do in Iraq?” is how the debate is framed, as if
“we” are all in it together. In fact, all the plans being
debated represent efforts to maintain the domination of the Middle East
by the U.S. imperialists. All would likely mean ongoing war, more intolerable
suffering for Iraqis, and an intensification of the current horrific dynamic
created by the clash between reactionary imperialism on the one side and
reactionary Islamic fundamentalism on the other. These plans, as we”ll
see, have nothing to do with the interests of the great majority of people,
either in Iraq, the Middle East more broadly, or the U.S. itself.
Second, the war will continue–and may very well escalate–unless there’s
a “surge” of something sorely missing now: mass opposition
to the entire war that is not bound by the terms of the current debate
within the government and bourgeois media. Without that, nothing good
will come of the current struggle within the ruling class.
Overlapping and Reinforcing Crises–and No Good Options
The current ruling class turmoil reflects the complexity of the contradictions
they face–and the tension between their great necessity to succeed in
Iraq, and the fact that no course of action guarantees success, while
any could backfire.
The Bush administration invaded Iraq to change the trajectory in the
Middle East, a region crucial to the functioning and power of U.S. capitalism-imperialism–in
particular to stem the rapid and destabilizing growth of anti-U.S. Islamic
fundamentalism. Hussein wasn’t a fundamentalist, but the Bush team
saw the conquest of Iraq as a way to dramatically assert U.S. power and
begin to restructure regional governments to undercut the Islamists.
But the war boomeranged. The U.S. invasion and subsequent collapse of
the Iraqi state exacerbated a host of contradictions, including hatred
of the U.S. and its ally Israel, and opened the door to anti-U.S. Islamist
and nationalist currents among both Sunni and Shia Muslims. The repressive
and somewhat incoherent U.S. response intensified these problems. Thus
today the Bush regime faces a host of overlapping and rapidly intensifying
crises in Iraq: an anti-U.S. insurgency, a civil war between Shia and
Sunni, a weak and fragmented state, infiltration by Al Qaeda, and the
unraveling of Iraqi society in many areas.
This has spawned what the liberal imperialist New York Times
calls a “cacophony of competing plans.” The Baker-Hamilton
Study Group, Democratic Congressman John Murtha and Senator Joe Biden,
Republican Senator John McCain, and others have proposed different ways
to move.
The military options being debated include increasing troops levels,
maintaining current troops levels, and withdrawing troops (either immediately
or according to a timetable). The Bush team is reportedly considering
the so-called “temporary surge” option–adding 20,000 to 50,000
more combat troops to gain control of Baghdad (including possibly by attacking
the Shia Mahdi Army militia headed by cleric Muqtada Sadr) and then Anbar
province. This plan is favored by Sen. McCain, many neoconservatives,
and reportedly Vice President Cheney, who argue that without order and
security, political and economic steps, including efforts to consolidate
a coherent Iraqi government, will be impossible.
“Surge” is imperialist-speak for escalation. Some in the
military are reportedly calling it for what it is–“double down”–raising
the stakes or double-or-nothing. Think about what this would mean. A study
conducted by Al Mustansiriya University in Baghdad and Johns Hopkins University
(published in the British medical journal Lancet ) estimates
that 655,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war, 601,000 of them
violently, including an estimated 180,000 at Coalition hands. “Surge”
means more of this and worse. As Col. W. Patrick Lang and ex-CIA analyst
Ray McGovern point out (Counterpunch, 12/25), a “surge” of
troops will mean “total war with the likelihood of all the excesses
and mass casualties that come with total war. To force such a strategy
on our armed forces would be nothing short of immoral, in view of predictable
troop losses and the huge number of Iraqis who would meet violent injury
and death.”
There is no guarantee such a “surge” would be temporary because
it may well fail (as did a U.S. effort this past summer to quell violence
in Baghdad by adding 8,000 troops). Having more decisively committed U.S.
forces and “credibility,” there would be enormous pressure
on the imperialists to escalate once again should it fail.
Others in government have their own reasons for opposing escalation.
According to the Washington Post (12/14), some Pentagon officials
worry it “will increase the Iraqis’ dependency on the United States,”
fuel anti-American hostility (as it has since the occupation), and impede
a political solution that the Pentagon feels is key to bringing stability.
The Army’s top general warns that Iraq and Afghanistan “will break”
the active-duty Army, unless the military is expanded and reserves are
called up more often. Attacking Sadr’s forces could also confront
the U.S. with a two-front war–Sunni fighters and Sadr’s Shia followers.
Another option under consideration (and recommended by the Baker group)
is maintaining the current troops levels (or gradually reducing them),
while focusing on forging a credible Iraqi government and shifting the
U.S. military mission to training the Iraqi military and going after al
Qaeda in Iraq.
In reality, the U.S. has already been training the Iraqi military, and
one result has been the empowerment of reactionary Shia and Kurdish militias
and the rise of Shia death and torture squads (and there is evidence that
the U.S. directly encouraged or organized some of them).
(This effort has so far failed to create a reliable Iraqi government
military because the new Iraqi forces have either refused to fight or
been loyal to their tribe or political faction, instead of the new government.)
Another permutation of this plan is to train Iraqi forces, set a fixed
withdrawal date for U.S. forces, and then be able to blame Iraqis for
the general disaster that sets in (thereby attempting to sum up that the
debacle wasn’t the U.S.’s fault, and congeal as much ideological
and political support as possible for other U.S. interventions).
A third option–championed by Murtha–is to re-deploy U.S. forces from
Iraq to neighboring countries (such as Kuwait), and let the Iraqis fight
to a finish, then deal with the victor, all the while being poised to
intervene if U.S. regional interests are threatened (including if the
fighting spilled over into other countries). Right now, this option is
not being seriously considered–it is mainly being held and promoted as
a “safety valve” for the majority of Americans who actually
oppose the war and want withdrawal. But a withdrawal plan like this trains
people to think that Iraqi lives are supposedly worth less than American
lives (“who cares, let “em kill each other” is the almost-openly-stated
subtext) and that American military might should be stationed
in the Middle East and able to intervene to dominate other nations and
peoples.
Question: how are any of these options in the interests of the people?
And for those who voted in November, thinking that they would end the
war by doing so–how is any of this conscionable?
“80% Solution”–or Coalition of Pro-U.S. “Moderates”
There is also debate over political strategy–both its relation to military
strategy and over how to cobble together a government that can exercise
authority, restore order, and maintain Iraq’s territorial integrity.
A leading candidate at this point, reportedly favored by Cheney, is the
so-called “80 percent solution.” This would basically turn
Iraq’s government over to the Shias and Kurds who make up roughly
80 percent of Iraq’s population, while scaling back or ending efforts
to include elements of the Sunni establishment and co-opt Sunni resisters.
It would essentially mean backing the slaughter of the Sunni population.
Establishment opponents of the “80% solution” (reportedly
including Secretary of State Rice, elements in the Pentagon, and the Baker
group) fear it’s a recipe for ongoing civil war, the break-up of
Iraq, and a possible regional war which could undermine, even topple,
key U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Jordan, while strengthening pro-Iranian
factions of the Iraqi government. (Saudi officials are reportedly warning
the U.S. that if it leaves Iraq or doesn’t protect the Sunni population,
they will arm and fund Sunni fighters to prevent ethnic cleansing, perhaps
even send Saudi brigades to join the fight. One Saudi advisor warned in
the Washington Post that in the event of an anti-Sunni bloodbath
backed by Iran, Saudi Arabia would boost oil production and cut prices
in half to bankrupt Iran. “Saudi engagement in Iraq carries great
risks–it could spark a regional war,” he wrote. “So be it:
The consequences of inaction are far worse.”)
Instead, they propose trying to form a governing coalition of Sunnis,
Shias, and Kurds willing to collaborate with the U.S., backed by increased
U.S. economic, financial, and political support, while isolating or crushing
the militia of the Shia Mukhtada Al-Sadr. If successful, such a plan would
mean consolidating a pro-U.S. government in Iraq, isolating and crushing
any anti-U.S. forces, and creating a platform for further U.S. aggression
in the region. Thus far, however, such efforts have failed–with the dramatic
evidence on the streets of Baghdad.
Another plan, favored by Democratic Senator Joe Biden, proposes that
Iraq be divided into three separate autonomous areas, with a weak federal
government and some means of dividing up oil revenues. Such a plan is
a blueprint for increased and intensified U.S. domination in the region
by destroying Iraq as a nation, leaving a group of smaller, weaker, and
fragmented regions, which could be played off against each other by the
U.S. and Israel. So far this plan hasn’t gotten much traction because
a unified Iraq is still seen as a potential counterweight to Iran, and
because of the fear of regional war as a result of partition.
In sum, all of the above plans involve ongoing war, the ongoing slaughter
of Iraqis, and continued U.S. domination of the region and Iraq in particular.
None of this is in the interests of anyone other than the imperialists,
and the Islamic Fundamentalist trend that has fed off this carnage. What
also stands out here is that for all the talk of democracy and “self government,”
it is the councils of U.S. imperialism that are debating and dictating
the future political arrangements of Iraq.
Talking to Iran and Syria–or Attacking Them
There is also debate over regional strategy. The Baker group and others
argue that Iraq can’t be stabilized without help from neighboring
states, and so the U.S. should talk to Iran and Syria (as well as other
states in the region) to get their help. This is a plan for maintaining
U.S. influence in the region, and a very oppressive status quo, while
regrouping and possibly preparing for confrontation with Iran and Syria
down the road. Even Baker himself has acknowledged that there is not all
that much benefit for Iran and Syria in such a move, but has said that
part of the point of such a plan is that should Iran and Syria refuse
to help, they will isolate themselves–with the unspoken punch line that
this would open the door for a possible U.S. assault on either one.
Others–seemingly the dominant elements of the Bush team–argue that
Iran and Syria are part of the problem in Iraq and in the region generally,
so the U.S. should do nothing to cut against the current state of crisis
and hostility, but should instead step up pressure and continue to push
for “regime change.”
Iran remains the focus of imperialist concern, in part because it has
benefitted from U.S. difficulties in Iraq and increasingly made itself
a, if not the, central player in the whole Islamic movement through its
support of Hezbollah in Lebanon and its activities within Iraq (and now
there are reports that it is trying to increase its influence in Afghanistan).
So the danger of taking the “war on terror” to Iran remains
very great, and perhaps is growing. Recently the U.S. has increased its
naval patrols near Iran, arrested Iranians in Iraq and accused them of
organizing attacks on U.S. forces (even though some were invited by the
Iraqi government), and helped pass a UN resolution against Iran’s
nuclear program. (According to Time magazine (12/19), it is also
working to undermine the Syrian government.) The fact that no Democrat
has opposed this aggressive posture–and that some have at other times
called for going after Iran–makes this possibility very real indeed.
In 2004, speaking about the possibility of the U.S. bombing Iran, Barack
Obama said: “In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all
the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created,
us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position
for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy
in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would
be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling
clerics of Iran…” (Chicago Tribune, September 25, 2004)
“The Primary Strategic Challenge of Our Time”
As the internal debate proceeds, the core of the Bush team has publicly
staked out an approach of staying their strategic course, even as they
adjust: Bush is reportedly “weighing whether to make a deeper American
commitment in Iraq” and talks of “victory,” not backing
off. Rice has stated there would be “no retreat from the administration’s
push to promote democracy in the Middle East,” which is a “matter
of strategic interest,” and has rejected negotiations with Iran
and Syria.
“I’ve heard some ideas that would lead to defeat,” Bush declared
shortly after the release of the Baker report. “And I reject those
ideas, ideas such as leaving before the job is done.” A few days
later, he said, “If we lose our nerve, if we’re not steadfast in
our determination to help the Iraqi government succeed, we will be handing
Iraq over to an enemy that would do us harm.”
This is a rejection of core elements of the Baker report, which never
mentioned victory or Middle East democracy. The Baker report warned the
cost of Bush’s present course could be astronomical–a broader regional
war, Sunni-Shia clashes across the Islamic world, skyrocketing oil prices,
growth of Islamic jihadism, weakening of U.S. global standing, defeat
in Afghanistan, and greater polarization in America.
The Bush team is not oblivious to these dangers, but they also fear that
retreat or defeat could intensify all of these problems, including further
emboldening anti-U.S. Islamist forces, strengthening Iran in the region,
isolating Israel, weakening pro-U.S. allies, and creating openings for
other global powers. And they continue to feel these crises also contain
opportunities; the Washington Post (12/15) reported that Rice
told them the region “is being rearranged in ways that provide the
United States with new opportunities,” which she described as a
“new strategic context,” and this was “a “clarifying
moment” between extremists and what she called mainstream Arabs.”
Bush’s determination to maintain U.S. hegemony in the Middle East
in the face of enormous risks isn’t due to “stupidity”
or loss of contact with reality. Rather, it flows from the deep realities
of U.S. capitalism, and the structure of the global social order. A handful
of rich, imperialist countries feast off the markets, raw materials, and
labor of impoverished Third World countries like those of the Middle East–while
they also contend with each other for advantage and dominance. This demands
the U.S. control key regions and resources–including energy sources–while
preventing imperialist rivals like Russia and emerging “wild cards”
like China from doing so. This drive isn’t peripheral, it’s
foundational.
These necessities are today sharply concentrated in the Middle East/Central
Asian region. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, the geopolitical “tectonic
plates” of this region have been in motion, and its future up for
grabs. The stakes there are huge–militarily, politically, economically,
and ideologically, including–but not only–because this is home to 80%
of the world’s oil and natural gas. And central to this whole mix
is the rise of Islamic fundamentalism as a pole of opposition to the regional
status quo, including the domination of the U.S. and its allies.
Recently on the Charlie Rose show, imperialist foreign policy guru Henry
Kissinger said that due to the wave of Islamic “fervor” sweeping
the Middle East and Central Asia, forces were coming together there which
threatened the entire global system. He pointed specifically to one “catastrophe”
scenario: Iran obtains nuclear weapons, a political vacuum develops in
Iraq, then Iran is tempted or compelled to intervene (challenging the
regional order), and its possession of nuclear weapons changes the whole
U.S. calculus of how to respond in this or other regional crises (and
undercuts the longstanding U.S. insistence that Israel be the region’s
dominant military force).
For these and other reasons, many U.S. strategists, including the Bush
team, feel the Middle East is, as one put it, “The Primary Strategic
Challenge of Our Time”- a hinge or focal point that impacts
everything else. All this points to why dominance of this region is urgent
for the U.S. today, why it’s central to the Bush program, and why
there is no easy way out for the U.S. rulers. In fact, to the degree the
war has ended up accelerating the negative dynamics they confront in the
region, it heightens their sense of urgency to wrench something approaching
victory in Iraq. So picking up and leaving is not on the table.
Important: there is no Democrat of any standing who would dispute or
deny the “right” of the U.S. to remain the dominant power
in that region. Indeed, it was Democrat Jimmy Carter himself who, while
President, declared in his 1980 State of the Union address that “any
attempt by any outside forces to gain control of the Persian Gulf region
will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States
and such an assault would be repelled by any means necessary, including
military force.”
Also important: Bush remains “the decider.” And because the
Democrats share his underlying assumptions, and because they remain loath
to really unleash the antiwar millions who are still following their leadership,
he retains the initiative in enforcing and carrying through whatever plans
he decides on–as long as things remain within the current political framework,
terms and dynamics. In fact, Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi has
stated, “As long as our troops are in harm’s way, we will be there
to support them”–in other words there would be no cut-off of funds.
And Senate leader Harry Reid has said he would support a troop “surge.”
Needed: a “Surge” of Opposition to the Entire War
Which gets to the last point. Without determined and massive opposition
to the war, one or a combination of these plans will be chosen, and U.S.
aggression will continue in Iraq and the region, in spite of whatever
disastrous consequences this bring to the masses or the real risks this
may pose for the imperialists themselves.
The people’s interests require a complete U.S. withdrawal from Iraq.
Any U.S. “victory” would legitimize an illegal, immoral, and
unjust war of imperialist aggression and would guarantee ongoing bloodshed
and torture by the U.S. and its Iraqi allies. It would mean forging a
pro-U.S. neo-colony and strengthening the oppression of the Iraqi people
in many ways, for decades to come. It would turn Iraq into a “model”
of U.S. domination in the region and a staging area for further aggression
in the region. It would embolden the U.S. rulers to attack others, while
driving even more people in the region into the arms of reactionary Islamic
fundamentalism.
This is not to say that a U.S. withdrawal would immediately end the bloodshed.
By invading and smashing the previous order, the U.S. has unleashed and
strengthened reactionary Islamic fundamentalist forces–both Sunni and
Shia. While each are complex and somewhat different political mixes, both
are guided overall by reactionary religious ideologies and programs (as
well as former supporters of Saddam Hussein’s regime in the case
of the resistance)–not revolutionary or even nationalist anti-imperialism.
Both have employed the strategy of targeting civilians and have committed
massive atrocities against innocent people. These Islamist forces justify
military attacks on civilians and blur the distinction between the masses
and the forces of imperialism, and decide who’s friend and who’s
enemy based on religion–whether one is a believer or an “infidel.”
This has fueled a dynamic of revenge killings, and a spiral of ethnic
cleansing and civil war. If the U.S. leaves Iraq, this dynamic could continue.
The U.S. ultimately bears primary responsibility for turning Iraq into
a waking nightmare, but the Islamist forces–both Sunni and Shia–have
also played a big part. Should either take power, that nightmare would
continue in Iraq. And if such forces gained power, there is no getting
around the fact that there could be increased attacks on U.S. interests
and allies in the region, and quite possibly on the U.S. itself.
Today, the U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and its war for greater
empire overall, is creating a dynamic that is strengthening – not
undercutting – such reactionary forces. That dynamic must be reversed
– and one crucial way to begin to reverse it is by politically forcing
Bush to end the Iraq war and withdraw U.S. forces. We need a powerful
mass movement, not only against the war but aimed at driving the Bush
regime from power; part of that effort must include repudiating this whole
so-called “war on terror.” This will require people taking
to the streets in the millions – but if it were done, it could be
part of inspiring people all around the globe with the potential for something
different – neither the McWorld/McCrusade of imperialism nor the
Jihad of reactionary Islamic fundamentalism. Such a resistance could pose
the promise of a common cause among people of the world who hate imperialist
domination. It could give “air to breathe” to the kind of movements around
the world that can really liberate people from the global oppressors-and
create societies where poverty, unjust violence, ethnic hatred, and the
oppression of women can be eliminated.
Such opposition and resistance is possible and extremely urgent. Major
papers editorialize that the “nation is in crisis,” and the
potential for this to sharpen will increase if (as is likely), Bush’s
actions fly in the face of what millions thought they were casting ballots
for (against the war), and what they expected the Democrats mid-term election
victory would bring. But it will not happen unless people break out of
the killing confines set by the system, where efforts to bring about change
are all geared toward and channeled into the elections – including the
Democrats.
The millions who oppose the war can become a force–if they dare to face
the reality of what their government is doing and what it has already
meant for the Iraqi people; if they dare to face the reality of the even
greater horrors to come if this force is allowed to continue; if they
do not shrink from their responsibility to others on the planet and instead
recognize that their actions (or inaction) reverberate powerfully around
the world; and if they combine their actions to feed into the movement
to drive out this vicious regime, halt its crimes, and reverse the intolerable
overall direction of this society.