[L-I] The Iraqi Revolt and Our Tasks Today (FRSO)

THE IRAQI REVOLT AND OUR TASKS TODAY

Three critical developments have emerged in Iraq as a result of the 
battle of Fallujah, still raging as these points are drafted, and the 
sudden Shi'ite uprising in southern Iraq, spearheaded by the Mahdi 
Army of Moqtada al-Sadr

1-- The balance of power inside Iraq has shifted significantly 
against the occupation in military as well as political terms. The US 
efforts to assert control as the still vague turnover of 
"sovereignty" on June 30 approaches triggered a mass revolt. This 
revolt and the US military's use of Israeli-style retaliatory 
collective punishment strikes have galvanized a significant section 
of public opinion there against the occupation. Many Iraqis who had 
been privately dubious about the occupation have stepped up to take 
an active stand against the US.

The appearance of both organized and spontaneous armed units, a 
general strike which turned Baghdad into a ghost town for three days, 
unified Sunni/Shi'a relief efforts for devastated Fallujah, all 
showed intense popular anger-and US vulnerability. To repress the 
popular uprisings and regain control of contested areas, including 
both towns and highways, will require a heavier hand from US troops. 
This means thousands more dead and wounded Iraqis like the men, women 
and children who died in Fallujah. The result will be more anger and 
a stronger resistance-and with it a heightened anti-imperialism 
throughout the region, combined with a powerful sense of pan-Arab, 
pan-Islamic pride.

2-- The heavily-hyped "transition to Iraqi sovereignty" scheduled for 
June 30 is now exposed as a complete sham. As that date approached, 
the US Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), headed by American 
viceroy Paul Bremer, positioned itself to insure continued absolute 
control, even as it was about to be forced by intense Iraqi pressure 
to acknowledge a transitional government - a government likely to be 
heavily influenced by the revered Shi'ite Ayatollah, Ali al-Sistani, 
who has been demanding a US troop withdrawal effective July 1.

On March 25, Bremer declared that a UN resolution from last October 
provided "a legal basis for American troops to continue their 
military control over the security situation in Iraq," no matter what 
the "sovereign" government might want. And the new "sovereign" Iraqi 
army, he added, would remain under direct US military command. In 
short, there is no designated body to whom this mythical 
"sovereignty" will be turned over and no Iraqi military or police 
forces with the capability or will to act as agents of the new 
regime. Meanwhile, in ironic counterpoint, the US's "Coalition" 
members are advising all non-essential personnel to leave the country 
pronto. The June 30 "transfer" is seen in Iraq and around the world 
as little more than a public relations stunt, driven by the electoral 
needs of the Bush camp at home.

3-- The occupation cannot continue without a massive expansion of 
military forces. US forces are taking casualties at the highest rate 
of the whole war (and that's without including the uncounted toll 
among private military company [PMC] personnel--mercenaries--which 
may have been higher than among regular troops during the recent 
multi-focal eruption of combat). Coalition "partners" like the 
Ukraine and South Korea are scrambling to follow the lead of Spain 
and Honduras and get their troops headed for the exit. The Iraqi 
police stepped down or rallied to the armed opposition almost 
everywhere that fighting broke out. Two battalions of the new puppet 
Army (out of only four created so far) refused orders to join the 
vengeance strike against Fallujah.

US troop strength in country was supposed to be below 110,000 by the 
end of this month. Instead, Pentagon "Stop Loss" orders have deferred 
the scheduled discharges of almost 80,000 troops armed-forces-wide, 
effectively drafting them. Troops under Stop Loss and those still on 
their regular enlistments are facing indefinite extension of their 
deployment in theater. Many troops had finished their promised year 
of service in Iraq and were scheduled for immediate rotation back to 
the US, only to find themselves stationed back in Iraq for months to 
come. There are 134,000 US troops in country today, and a combination 
of Stop Loss, extension, redeployment of veteran stateside units to 
Iraq and more Guard and Reserve call-ups may drive that number up 
even further, if armed resistance takes hold in Shi'a areas. (This is 
in addition to deployment to other theaters like the ongoing 
re-occupation of Haiti and the push to commit additional troops to 
Colombia and the Philippines.) Every day that passes makes the 
reinstitution of the draft more likely if the occupation doesn't end 
soon.


Panic, the United Nations and World Public Opinion

Military history shows that one of the gravest developments in combat 
operations is losing the initiative and having one's operations 
reduced to reacting to the actions of the enemy, as opposed to 
forcing the enemy to react to one's own decisions. From the early 
days of the occupation, the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld crew has been on the 
defensive, politically and militarily, in Iraq. The current revolt 
has worsened the American military position by orders of magnitude.

In these desperate straits, with each new American plan evaporating 
before the heat of new contingencies, the Bush administration finds 
nowhere to turn but the United Nations. They hope that the UN can be 
persuaded to step in and somehow rescue the occupation for them. That 
rescue may cost them more than they are eager to pay. UN Envoy 
Lakhdar Brahimi has already made it clear that Bremer's carefully 
cultivated puppet Iraqi Governing Council will have to be thrown 
overboard before the June 30 deadline.

The US wants two things from the UN now. The first is a simple 
Security Council resolution legitimizing the occupation and the 
post-June 30 "sovereign" government in Iraq. This will make it 
possible to sign economic treaties and troop-basing agreements that 
will be binding on future Iraqi governments. The second is real 
help-troops, money, aid in "nation building," that is, a civil 
administration for the occupation.

Such help may not be forthcoming. Why would other countries want to 
put more troops in harm's way in Iraq, under US supreme command no 
less, when things are going so badly? The armed resistance has 
underlined this point by adopting the method of kidnapping 
foreigners-troops, mercenaries, media people, NGO employees, workers. 
Some have been released, but others have been killed, most remain 
captive and more are taken almost every day.

And Bush & Co. just can't seem to resist showing their contempt for 
the UN and world public opinion. At a time when the US stands 
indicted in the Arab world and globally for the brutal and unjust 
occupation of an Arab country, Bush just gave unqualified approval to 
Israeli Prime Minister Sharon's declaration that Israel will annex 
outright large sections of the occupied West Bank and further 
announced that the US does not recognize the right of Palestinians to 
return to their homes. There was American acquiescence to the 
assassination of the widely revered, paraplegic Hamas leader Ahmed 
Yassin, then to the follow-on assassination of his successor, Abdel 
Aziz Rantisi. Beyond the obvious fury this has produced in Arab 
countries, these positions are in direct violation of long-standing 
United Nations resolutions, resolutions the US has never before been 
willing to renounce openly, instead using its veto in the Security 
Council to shield Israel from censure.

Nevertheless, looking at the coming months, greatly increased UN 
involvement in the occupation is a very real possibility. This will 
require us to conduct a careful re-analysis. While many of the 
countries in the UN, and the UN bureaucracy itself, have sharp 
contradictions with the rulers of the US over the invasion and 
occupation of Iraq, the US remains the dominant power in the world 
and exerts massive influence inside the UN. Even if the Bush 
administration were forced to turn over the formal leadership of the 
occupation to the UN, it would likely remain in fact a predominantly 
US occupation. At the most basic level, where is the United Nations 
to find 100,000 plus combat troops to maintain the occupation? To ask 
the question is to answer it-from the 
US.                                            

New Conditions at Home

The new dynamic in Iraq and throughout the Middle East is giving rise 
to important developments here in the US, two of which are beginning 
to unfold hidden behind the smoke and fire of news from Iraq. 

For one thing, there is a split developing in the Democratic Party 
about what policy to take toward the war. John Kerry had been trying 
to run a low-key campaign with regard to the war, content not to say 
too much and just let Bush sink deeper in the quagmire. The 
escalation of Iraqi resistance means that is no longer an option. And 
Kerry and other Democrats are now opting to run as the ones who can 
win in Iraq. How? By being "smarter" than Bush, roping in the UN and 
other international support, and enlarging the US Army by two 
divisions (a process which would take a minimum of three years). This 
will not sit well with a section of Democratic Party politicians who 
see the war as a disaster to be forsaken as soon as politically 
possible. It will be even less popular among the energized base of 
anti-war activists who flocked to the party to support ABBA (Anybody 
But Bush Again) out of frustration after massive anti-war 
demonstrations failed to prevent or end this unjust and unjustifiable 
war.

The Dems will do their best to paper this difference over, because 
they smell victory in the Fall. If they can't, they know they could 
be looking at a rerun of the 1968 Nixon-Humphrey race, where the 
Democrats were unable to hold their anti-war base and lost.

Unfortunately for the Democratic Party, the second new development-a 
dramatic increase in the cost of the war--will thrust this schism 
into public view. The Bush administration is going to run out of 
money for Iraq much, much sooner than it anticipated, thanks to the 
increased resistance in Iraq. The $87 billion Congress appropriated 
last September to pay for Iraq for 2004 cannot begin to cover the 
costs of an occupation gone as sour as this one. Right now there are 
25,000 more troops in country than budgeted for. 20,000 mercenaries, 
at a conservatively estimated daily cost of 750 dollars apiece, by 
themselves make for a fifteen million dollar a day tab.  All those 
copters and tanks and APCs and hummers and convoy trucks in flames on 
the evening news? They have to be replaced. So do the munitions, 
food, fuel and other supplies they were carrying, burned-or 
appropriated by Iraqis in the vicinity. It's hard to say precisely 
when the administration and Congress will have to acknowledge that 
the checks are bouncing, but it's bound to be within the next few 
months, well before the November election. And Democratic politicians 
are going to have to decide, again, whether or not to vote for Bush's 
new multi-billion dollar appropriation. Talk on the Hill is already 
about $73 billion, and the Democratic Party leadership has begun to 
talk more and more like a War Party in anticipation of it.

Our Tasks

New developments in Iraq haven't created entirely new tasks but there 
are a few points to which we would like to direct the attention of 
activists. The lull many were expecting between the huge push to 
create the March 20 demos and the Democratic and Republican 
conventions just isn't going to happen. At the same time it's clear 
that just gearing up for another round of big generic No To War demos 
may be counter-productive. Locally-based organizing and education, 
not just cranking up the converted, will be key.

Because they are disoriented, big sections of the public are open to 
learning more about the background and nature of the invasion of Iraq 
and the closely related question of Palestine. We need to take 
advantage of this teachable moment to develop accessible literature, 
to do teach-ins, lots of them, and to target new audiences for both, 
especially in oppressed nationality communities whose own experience 
is mirrored in so many ways by this history.

We also have to be prepared for the eventuality of greater 
involvement by the UN in the occupation if the security situation can 
be improved, and be ready to analyze the particular forms which it 
takes. This does not mean targeting the UN as the main problem or 
breaking united fronts which have been built with people who favor UN 
intervention as a solution. It means keeping first things first: As 
long as Iraq is occupied, Iraqis will resist. The US military 
occupation, the prime cause of Iraq's suffering, must end. The people 
of Iraq are the ones who must determine their own destiny. We cannot 
build a broad mass movement against the occupation if we try to solve 
the ruling class's problems for them. Complex policy-wonk plans from 
the anti-war/anti-occupation movement about how to put in place a 
transition to genuine self-rule for the Iraqi people will be ignored 
by the administration and the UN and they will turn off ordinary 
people in the US who want this war over with-now.

The shock of the revolt and of the Bush administration putting Stop 
Loss and extension orders on troops who had literally only days to go 
in theater has produced a huge upswell of anger and desperation among 
military families, and all possible support should be given to 
Military Families Speak Out and others organizing this critical 
sector.

Now, before the campaign positions become fixed and Convention 
planning is finalized, is the time to put real pressure on Democratic 
Party politicians. Phone calls, faxes, emails, visits-let 'em know 
that there are some angry people out here who expect them to do more 
than promise to do a better job. Questions should be pointed: Will 
you push for the immediate withdrawal of US troops from Iraq? Will 
you vote for another $70 billion appropriation to pay for the 
continued occupation? Contact should be followed up by publicizing 
their responses and exposing those responses to public critique.

While we must continue to support the organizing of military 
families, veterans, and troops, we are also obligated to highlight 
the atrocities being committed by the US military in Iraq.  This is 
not as paradoxical as it seems.  So long as the public can delude 
itself into believing the US occupiers are merely surviving, or that 
they are somehow a benign force, the position that the US "needs to 
stay to prevent chaos" will be bolstered.  The My Lai massacre was a 
huge turning point during the Vietnam occupation, because it gave the 
lie to official "motives" for the war and simultaneously confronted 
the United States with the bloody reality for the occupied and the 
terrible transformation of the occupiers. To counter administration 
propaganda requires emphasizing US war crimes, like the destruction 
visited on Fallujah, and showing them to be systematic, frequent, and 
committed with the full knowledge of every level of command.  They 
are.

Last and by no means least, it's high time to step up organizing 
which emphasizes the cost of the war and connects it to the real 
economic suffering so many working class and oppressed nationality 
communities are suffering today. The attacks on basic programs like 
Section 8 housing aid and the drive to privatize much of government 
haven't slackened at all. This is doubly true where major attacks on 
state and local budgets are underway, like California. Work done now 
sets the stage for bigger campaigns when the emergency request for 
additional tens of billions comes before Congress within the next few 
months.


National Executive Committee
Freedom Road Socialist Organization
April 19, 2004

www.freedomroad.org


_______________________________________________
Leninist-International mailing list
[email protected]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international