[Marxism] RE: Explosion in Iraq Mosque

["Calvin Broadbent" <calvinbroadbent@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here is my thoughts on Marv's consideration of the terrorist attack in Iraq:

> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2004 15:53:23 -0500
> From: "Marvin Gandall" <marvgandall@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [Marxism] RE:Explosion in Iraq Mosque
> To: "Activists and scholars in Marxist tradition"
>         <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Message-ID:
>         <00c601c4022a$bc277140$6401a8c0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Content-Type: text/plain;       charset="Windows-1252"
>
> Calvin Broadbent wrote (March 4, 2000 10.44 a.m.):
>
> ?Do you believe then that the attack was al qaeda, even though they have
> denied it, and was designed to increase anti-american feeling? I am not
> sure that if the Americans were involved that their strategy has
> backfired. There is a prevalent racist demonology of Iraq, like there is
> in Haiti and elsewhere, which suggests that Iraqis can't govern
> themselves, and that there needs to be an iron fist to keep their ethnic
> and religious squabbles under control. Would America not love to play
> the role of Leviathan in Iraq? Furthermore, it is easy for the US
> government, and the British, to say that they were right to invade (to
> get rid of Saddam) and right to occupy
> (to keep anarchy from reigning).?
> ???????????????????????????????????????????
> Reply: I don't know if it was Islamic fundamentalists, but the fact that
> the attacks were carried out by multiple suicide bombers makes me think
> that perhaps it was. It would be difficult for secular nationalists to
> recruit suicide bombers, and they normally shun the tactic. If it were a
> US operation, I would expect the CIA to use car bombs, which they could
> then blame on "Baathist bitter enders". And, as mentioned previously,
> because the bombings fan anti-American rather than anti-Sunni feelings
> among the Shias, this serves the interests of the resistance, not the
> US. I?m not surprised, given that Shia civilians were targetted, that no
> one has claimed credit for the attacks.

Secular nationalist suicide bombers- haven't the PFLP in Palestine been
suicide bombers? I don't see that suicide bombing is necessarily a
consequence of Islamist ideology. The CIA did not usedf car bombs in its
decimation of the Nicaraguan population, but hired right-wing terrorists.
Some Shi'ites in Iraq have blamed Sunni Baathists. I am not surprised either
that no one has claimed credit for the attack, especially given the possible
culprits.




> In a more general sense, I can't agree that the US wants to, or can
> indefinitely, "play the role of Leviathan in Iraq". Its purpose for
> invading, apart from seeking to demonstrate its power to the world, was
> to gain control of Iraq's oil and secure the country as a strategic
> regional base -- but through the medium of a client Iraqi government,
> rather than directly. These concrete economic and military objectives
> and indirect mode of control are what drives US foreign policy, rather
> than racism or an arrogant desire to dominate for domination's sake,
> although these undertones are always there. If the Americans felt they
> could pull their troops out tomorrow and still have their interests
> protected by a stable IGC-type government, they'd do so without
> hesitation, IMO.

I would never suggest that racism or arrogance is what is driving the
occupation. I am just saying that one of the more popular justificatory
tactics used by occupying regimes is to deny the natives any ability to
govern themselves. This facade is likely to be used in Iraq, possibly as
much as in Haiti and elsewhere. I agree that the Americans might like to
pull their troops out tomorrow- although a permanent American military
presence in Iraq might also be quite desirable for the reason you mentioned-
long-term military domination of the region and the likelihood of further
imperialist war on sovereign arab countries.

> Calvin wrote:
>
> ?Is the Sunni resistance really what is preventing America from
> repairing the infrastructure? Certainly British Petroleum (BP) has made
> massive profits since last April- clearly the oil is flowing alright for
> them. What jobs do the occupiers intend to create? Is the resistance
> solely of a Sunni religious composition??
> ??????????????????????????????????????????????-
> Reply: You make a good point about BP. As you suggest, oil has started
> to flow again and the occupation authorities claim production (2.5 mbd)
> is nearly back to pre-invasion levels, which is still well below
> capacity, but much better than what it was. They're making the same
> claim for electricity generation. But there is still massive
> unemployment, which the US was hoping to reverse mainly through a
> firesale of Iraqi assets to foreign investors. That hasn't yet
> materialized, partly because of widespread Iraqi nationalist sentiment
> which has prevented the selloff - for now - but also because many
> foreign firms are reluctant to invest until they are certain the country
> is secured. In some cases, they?ve had difficulty getting insurance
> coverage and are worried about the risk to their employees in the
> present unstable climate. So the insurgency is, IMO, still inhibiting
> the postwar reconstruction, although maybe the pace of the latter is
> picking up. The US is counting on billions of US taxpayer dollars
> allocated by congress to pick up the private sector slack

I think this is wide of the mark. What makes you think America wishes to or
rather intends to create jobs in Iraq? America has deliberately barred most
foreign investors from trading Iraq's resources. It has given the most
meagre financial contracts to local Iraqi firms, whilst it, and Britain, has
made like bandits with contracts to the likes of Hailburton. See this quote
from the Middle East report:

UN Security Council Resolution 1483, passed in late May (2003), confirmed
that much of this work (reconstruction) will be financed by Iraqi oil
revenue, and conducted by multinational corporations chosen by the US and
Britain. To date, all of the contracts, charted below, have been awarded by
USAID, the US Army Corps of Engineers or the US Department of State. Most
scrutiny of the Iraq reconstruction process, including the ongoing General
Accounting Office inquiry ordered up by Congress, has focused on its
suspicious lack of competitive bidding -- as exemplified by the early award
to Dick Cheney's former company Halliburton.

Elizabeth Rosenberg, Adam Horowitz and Anthony Alessandrini, "Iraq
Reconstruction Tracker," Middle-East Report, 2003


-The very last thing America wants is an organised Iraqi workforce- as
evinced by its brutal crackdown on union protests, etc. Check this out from
the report of an International Labour Organisation delegation to Geneva late
last June (its in the marxmail archives):

Among other things, here is what the delegation learned:

- Since George W. Bush declared an end to the war in Iraq in April,
unemployment among Iraqi workers has reached 70%, facing many families with
hunger and dislocation. The U.S. Occupation Authority, moreover, has frozen
Iraqi wages for most workers at $60/month, while at the same time
eliminating bonuses, profit sharing, and subsidies for food and housing,
causing a sharp cut in the income and already deficient standard of living
of those Iraqi workers still employed.

- Since April, Iraqi workers have begun to reorganize their trade union
movement, seeking a better standard of living, and to preserve their jobs
and workplaces. At this time, however, none of the main unions in formation
have been legally recognized by the U.S. Occupation Authority.

- Shockingly, the U.S. Occupation Authority has continued to enforce a law
issued by Saddam Hussein in 1987 prohibiting unions and collective
bargaining in the public sector and state enterprises where most Iraqis
work.

- The emerging trade union movement in Iraq is extremely concerned that the
U.S. Occupation Authority has announced its intention to privatize the
factories, refineries, mines and other state enterprises, selling them off
to private owners despite the fact that these enterprises belong to the
Iraqi people, not to the United States. The U.S. Occupation Authority, in
fact, has just issued a new decree, Public Order 39, allowing 100% foreign
ownership of Iraqi businesses and the repatriation of profits.

- The Iraqi trade union movement fears the privatization of Iraqi workplaces
will result in the massive layoff of Iraqi workers, at a time when
unemployment is already at crisis levels. The union movement is most
concerned that the U.S. Occupation Authority is in effect making it illegal
for Iraqi unions and workers to organize at the workplace to oppose
privatization or have any voice at all in the future of their own jobs.

-As for the prevention of a valid Iraqi Governing Body by resistance attacks
on security forces, etc., this is what the NY Times had to say in July last
year:

Iraqi political figures who have been involved in negotiations said that the
process was speeded by the deteriorating security situation in Iraq and
mounting American casualties from daily attacks on allied forces. That had
created a sense of urgency within the Bush administration to create a
credible Iraqi governing body that could help counter the negative image of
foreign occupation that is being exploited by the remnants of Mr. Hussein's
forces.

Patrick E. Tyler, "Iraqis Set to Form an Interim Council With Wide Power,"
New York Times, 11 July, 2003

> My understanding, which is probably yours as well, is there are dozens
> of small Iraqi resistance organizations, with the Islamist
> fundamentalists one wing and secular nationalists the other, many of
> them Baathists but not necessarily Saddamists. Most operate in Baghdad
> and the adjoining Sunni triangle, where they seem to have strong support
> from Iraqi townspeople and farmers who have borne the brunt of the
> American occupation.

All Iraqis have borne the brunt of the occupation, not least the
long-suffering Shi'a majority, concetrated in the South of Iraq outside the
'Sunni Triangle'. Your analysis seems to echo the Bush line that it is
Ba'athist remnants who are organising resistance to the occupation. What
about the mass pan-muslim protests that took place in Iraq not so long ago
there? I think further terrorist atrocities like the one the other day will
only serve to legitimate American stay in Iraq and might lead to the
commitment of more American troops (something Rumsfeld has not ruled out),
and maybe even occupation under UN auspices, which would be disastrous. At
the same time, as you suggest, this might indeed leave America and Britain
in a quagmire in Iraq, facing increased opposition from the Iraqi people.
Sectarian violence is very much a double-edged sword for occupiers.

> ?Thanks for your replies Marv- I think it is an important discussion.
> Cheers?
>
> Agree. Same back to you, Calvin.
>
> This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
> http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo


_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism