Attacks on US soldiers mount: Bush admin. under pressure to escalate or retreat

["Fred Feldman" <ffeldman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

The following article from the Sydney Morning Herald highlights the
growing trouble the US imperialists are facing in Iraq.

I thought Lou Paulsen's comments about the bind the administration is
in over Iraq were very sound, and I share his feeling that something
big in response is coming down the line.  Withdrawal without at least
the clear appearance of victory from Iraq will be catastrophic for
Washington's superpower image and aura of invincibility (and it won't
help the other imperialist powers to hang on to their colonies and
semicolonies either, which is part of the explanation for the Security
Council vote).

My own bet -- basically speculation -- is that an invasion of Syria is
the most likely form that an attempt to take arms against a sea of
troubles will take.  The  prospect of an attempt to destroy North
Korea has faded somewhat -- it has become very clear that North Korea
really HAS those weapons of mass destruction.  Even without nuclear
weapons, Iran is much too big a challenge to the US militarily.  The
resistance they would face is much more than the US military is
prepared to handle. I think the current agreement on inspections --
which will not prevent Iran from continuing to advance toward advanced
nuclear technology including weapons -- has aspects of registering a
retreat by Washington from confrontation there.

Since Vietnam, Washington's wars have unfailingly been directed
against the helpless, the demobilized, the disarmed, and/or regimes
unwilling to fight back.

But Syria is a country in which Washington can attempt to run the
weapons of mass destruction scam as they did in Iraq -- with scare
stories about advanced weapons developments that almost certainly do
not exist or only on a very small scale, and therefore cannot pose any
substantial threat to the US military. A regime with a narrow base of
popular support, fairly ineffective military in conflicts with Israel,
and so on.

The stories  about the Iraqi weapons being hidden in Syria will
escalate. (After the weapons have finished their work in Syria, we can
assume that they will pack their things and move on to the Bekaa
Valley in Lebanon, from where it will be easy for the weapons to pick
themselves up and head for Sudan. Go West, Mysterious Weapons of Mass
Destruction!)

Of course, attacking Syria would be an adventure, but so was Iraq.  In
Iraq, Washington was able to handle the Baathist army but did not
fight but they now have to deal with the so-called remnants -- all the
Baathists who wanted to fight along with those who have been won to
fighting
since -- plus all the sections of the population that were
demobilized and stifled under Saddam.
Syria would end up even more explosive because of its role as a
confrontation state with Israel with a significant Palestinian
population. Iraq as a nation after the occupation has turned out to be
a much harder nut to crack than it was before the occupation.

Washington can count on Israel's willingness to participate in an
invasion and occupation of Syria to a far greater degree than any US
ally is willing to do in Iraq.  But the inevitable direct Israeli
involvement in Syria on some level would also be an explosive factor
throughout the Middle East.

I am not sure that the massive financing Bush is getting from Wall
Street indicates primarily backing for his war policy, although it.
The Bush administration has been aggressively courting business with
the enormous tax cuts and deficit spending, basically allowing them to
strip the treasury, the national resources, the labor movement, and
just about everybody else of everything that was previously aaumed to
be nailed down. There is the prospect of even more tax cuts and
giveaways, TOGETHER with massive attacks on Social Security and other
programs justified by the need to get the budget more in balance. The
Republican party is also carrying out an aggressive policy of
EXTORTION of capitalists who waver between the parties or attempt to
support both in the old-fashioned way.

So more narrow and shortsighted considerations may be building the
Republicans' bribery fund. But I agree that the New York Times, the
liberal Democrats, and the whole spectrum of official opinion thinks
that Washington must stay the course in Iraq

So I see this administration as headed toward another war to transform
the Middle East in the near future, driven by the needs of imperialism
that got them into Iraq in the first place and  partly to head off the
real possibility of disintegration on both the domestic economic and
war on "terrorism" fronts.

I hope a lot of list members will be joining us in  Washington and LA
tomorrow.
Fred Feldman





http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/23/1066631570429.html

Sydney Morning Herald
October 24, 2003

Attacks on US soldiers in Iraq soaring
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran in Baghdad


Attacks on US troops in Iraq have increased sharply
over the past two weeks, to a high of 35 a day.

Over much of the Iraqi summer, military officials had
said there were 10 to 15 attacks on US soldiers most
days. However, since early this month, the number had
fluctuated between 20 and 35 a day, said the US
military commander in Iraq, Lieutenant-General Ricardo
Sanchez.

A summary provided by the US military to private
contractors working in Iraq listed 30 so-called
security incidents on Tuesday, including two mortar
strikes on US bases, nine attacks with roadside bombs
and several drive-by shootings.

At a news conference, General Sanchez attributed the
increase to a stepped-up US offensive in parts of
western Iraq dominated by Sunni Muslims.

With more soldiers on the streets, he said, there had
been more clashes with forces intent on evicting US
troops from Iraq.

As US casualties mount, Pentagon officials are rushing
new bomb- and sniper-detection equipment to Iraq.

Anthony Tether, chief of the Defence Advanced Research
Projects Agency, said most of the gear would be
dispatched to US forces in three to four months.

It will include:  A so-called virtual microphone (a
ground-based laser projected into the sky) that can be
used to listen for sniper fire across a city. The idea
is to rapidly direct forces to a sniper's location
once gunshots ring out.  A mobile electronic signals
locator that would alert military convoys to nearby
mobile phones or pagers, which can be used to set off
roadside bombs.  A portable electronic
English-to-Arabic and Arabic-to-English translator for
interrogations.

A total of 203 US forces have been killed in Iraq
since President George Bush declared the war in effect
over on May 1, including 104 in hostile fire.

After weeks of intensive lobbying, meanwhile, the Bush
Administration has lined up nearly $US8 billion ($11.3
billion) in advance pledges for a global conference on
Iraqi reconstruction that opened in Madrid yesterday.

That is one-seventh of the estimated $US56 billion
needed to help get Iraq back on its feet over four
years, $US20 billion of which is to come from US
taxpayers.

A number of countries - including France, Germany and
Russia - have ruled out pledges of support, in part to
protest against the continuing US occupation of Iraq.

US officials now hope the Persian Gulf states will
write large cheques to help build roads, schools,
factories and bridges in Iraq.

As officials gathered in Madrid, a prominent British
aid agency accused Iraq's US and British
administrators of failing to account for $US4 billion
to $US5 billion in oil revenue and other money that is
meant to go towards rebuilding the country. Christian
Aid said the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority
had not publicly detailed cash flows since ousting
Saddam Hussein in April.

A spokeswoman for the authority responded only that it
was committed to full accountability in its handling
of Iraqi funds and was complying with a United Nations
resolution obliging it to do so.

The Washington Post, Cox News, Hearst Newspapers,
Reuters


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.