[Marxism] Hatred of the Occupation is greater than ever

[Dbachmozart@xxxxxxx]

Don't be fooled by the spin on  Iraq

The US is failing - and  hatred of the occupation greater than ever

Jonathan  Steele

04/13/05 "_The  Guardian_
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1458237,00.html) " - - Saddam 
Hussein's effigy was pulled down again in
Baghdad's Firdos Square at the weekend. But unlike the made-for-TV event  when 
US
troops first entered the Iraqi capital, the toppling of Saddam on  the
occupation's second anniversary was different. Instead of being done  by US 
marines with
a few dozen Iraqi bystanders, 300,000 Iraqis were on  hand. They threw down
effigies of Bush and Blair as well as the old  dictator, at a rally that did not
celebrate liberation but called for the  immediate departure of foreign
troops.

For most Iraqis, with  the exception of the Kurds, Washington's "liberation"
never was. Wounded  national pride was greater than relief at Saddam's
departure. Iraqis were  soon angered by the failure to get power and water 
supplies
repaired, the  brutality of US army tactics, and the disappearance of their
country's  precious oil revenues into inadequately supervised accounts, or 
handed
to  foreigners under contracts that produced no benefits for  Iraqis.

>From last autumn's disastrous attack on Falluja to  the huge increase in
detention without trial, the casualties go on rising.  After an amnesty last
summer, the numbers of "security detainees" have  gone up again and reached a
record 17,000.

The weekend's vast  protest shows that opposition is still growing, in spite
of US and British  government claims to have Iraqis' best interests at heart.
It was the  biggest demonstration since foreign troops invaded.

Equally  significantly, the marchers were mainly Shias, who poured in from
the  impoverished eastern suburb known as Sadr City. The Bush-Blair spin likes
to suggest that protest is confined to Sunnis, with the nod and wink that
these people are disgruntled former Saddam supporters or fundamentalists  linked
to al-Qaida, who therefore need not be treated as legitimate. The  fact that
the march was largely Shia and against Saddam as much as Bush  and Blair gives
the lie to that.

Some Sunnis attended the  march, urged to go there by the Association of
Muslim Scholars, which has  contacts with the armed resistance. This too was an
important sign.  Occupation officials consistently talk up the danger of civil
war, usually  as an argument for keeping troops in Iraq. It is a risk that
radicals in  both communities take seriously.

Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia  cleric who organised the latest march, recently
joined forces with the  National Foundation Congress, a group of Sunni and Shia
nationalists, to  affirm "the legitimate right of the Iraqi resistance to
defend their  country and its destiny" while "rejecting terrorism aimed at
innocent  Iraqis, institutions, public buildings and places of  worship".

The key issue, now as it has been since 2003, is  for the occupation to end
quickly. Only this will reduce the resistance  and give Iraqis a chance to live
normally. In a new line of spin - which  some commentators have taken to mean
that the US is preparing for a  pullout - US commanders claim the rate of
insurgent attacks is  down.

The figures are not independently monitored. Even if  true, they may be
temporary. Thirdly, they fly in the face of evidence  that suggests the US is
failing. Most of western Iraq is out of US  control. The city of Mosul could
explode at any moment. Ramadi is  practically a no-go area.

In any case, the US is only talking  of a possible reduction of a third of
its troops next year. This will  still leave 100,000. The US argues that a
complete withdrawal has to be  "conditions-related, not calendar-related" or, as
Blair puts it, there can  be no "artificial timetable". By that, they mean
Iraq's security forces  have to be strong enough to replace the Americans and
British, a totally  elastic marker.

That is surely the message that Donald  Rumsfeld, the US defence secretary,
is giving this week on his ninth trip  to Baghdad since April 2003. Whenever
there is an alleged transfer of  power to Iraqis, this time to a "government"
elected in a flawed poll,  Rumsfeld comes with instructions.

His public warning is for  Iraq's leaders not to make any changes in the army
and interior  ministries, or postpone the writing of a constitution. Behind
the scenes,  he is probably telling them not to ask for a withdrawal timetable,
and  sounding them out on the opposite. The US has indicated that it wants
permanent bases in Iraq, just as it does in Afghanistan - which is why the
joint Sadr-National Foundation Congress statement says the government  "will 
have
no right to ratify any agreement or treaty that might affect  Iraq's
sovereignty, the unity of its territory and the preservation of its  resources".

Poland has just announced it is pulling out of  Iraq at the end of the year,
just as Spain did last year. Italy is  wavering on the verge of a similar
decision. If Blair wants to regain the  trust he lost before the Iraq war, his
best approach would be to announce  the same by May 5. He would help Iraqis as
well as  himself.

j.steele@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Copyright: The  Guardian.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.  Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have  expressed a prior interest in 
receiving
the included information for  research and educational purposes. Information
Clearing House has no  affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this 
article
nor is  Information Clearing House endorsed or sponsored by the  originator.)
_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism