The challenges to American militarism after defeat in Iraq

Source: New Socialist

The occupation of Iraq and challenges to US imperialism

by HAROLD LAVENDAR

Will the US empire be able to successfully dominate the globe in the future? Or are we witnessing a decline in US power as it is drawn deeper into the Iraqi quagmire?

Today the Pentagon controls the most expensive, most technologically advanced and most destructive military arsenal in the world and the Bush administration has accelerated the unilateral use of this power to effect regime change in Iraq.
The US conquest of Baghdad in spring 2003 was a high-water mark in US imperialism’s exercise of unlimited power. But little more than a year later, premature celebrations have given way to fretful sobriety.

A limited, but real, debate within US ruling circles questions what has gone wrong in Iraq and how to fix the problem. But both Republicans and Democrats share a commitment to US global domination, and neither support pulling out of Iraq. Thus the US election was never going to fundamentally change things.
The brief US triumph in Iraq masked military, political and economic problems for US imperialism.

The US has an overwhelming advantage in terms of weaponry and powers of destruction. However, US forces cannot control the situation in Iraq. Despite the massive deployment of troops there (approximately 160,000), many in the Pentagon feel that that number is too low to stabilize the situation.

During the war of conquest, US casualties (unlike Iraqi) were remarkably low. They have steadily mounted during the extended war of occupation. The US military lost many strategic advantages and is now engaged in a dangerous mission in a hostile land.

Some of the tactics used by armed insurgents in Iraq, such as suicide bombers, car bombs, kidnappings and executions (although highly unsettling) have been effective in shattering the illusions of a safe, secure and stable Iraq under benign US tutelage.

US occupation of Iraq has generated a powerful backlash, a mixture of nationalism and Islamic fundamentalism. The goals of much, if not all, of the emerging Iraqi opposition and insurgency are neither left nor secular. However, the armed revolt appears capable of inspiring large numbers of people with both the hatred and conviction to fight and die to resist US imperialism.
In response, Pentagon planners are preparing to escalate the war in Iraq after the US election. The current inability of the US military to surpress Iraqi resistance will require intensified use of military firepower and reinforcements. The number of troops in Iraq will probably be increased, while the threat of a renewed military draft hangs over US youth if this (and future wars) begin to suck up troops and lives.

The reality of occupation is beginning to sink in for the US government. To be able to win the war, the new administration in Washington will need to win political battles inside Iraq, internationally and within the US.

The US won the war in conquering Iraq. But during the period of military occupation, it lost the peace. This led to a shift in tactics. While employing brutal force to crush the insurgency, Washington is also now seeking to hide its controlling hand behind an Iraqi flag.

At the end of June, power was formally transferred to a new Iraqi government. A fresh pro-US face, Iyad Allawi, was brought in as interim prime minister. However, his authority has not been widely or popularly respected, and the insurgency is growing. The elections scheduled for January 2004 are supposed to make Iraq a “democratic country” and give credibility to the occupation. Meanwhile, Allawi is being paraded before the US congress and the UN as the savior of Iraqi “democracy.” However, he is not a big fan of democratic rights and, in fact, plans to utilize martial law to smash the growing insurgency.
As part of the “transfer of power,”⇣the US wants the Iraqi regime to take more responsibility for repression. However, to date the policy has not succeeded. Some 100,000 security and police recruits are being trained, with efforts to double that by the end of 2005. But fighting capacity remains low and recruits for future state repression and terror are themselves subjected to terror tactics. As a result, there is no security to reconstruct and reorient the economy. The oil industry, with which the US expects to finance the new regime, is in disrepair and regularly sabotaged.

Since the US occupation and the beginning of the Allawi regime, living conditions in Iraq have dramatically worsened. Basic services such as electricity have not been fully re-established. Unemployment has soared dramatically under the occupation, prices have risen and, for the large majority, living standards have declined and become much more precarious. This mass despair, in turn, is a fertile recruiting ground for armed groups and religious fundamentalists. All the ingredients are present for an intense power struggle and a descent into further violence and civil war which will impede US aspirations in the region.
John Kerry correctly pointed out that Bush’s “more of the same” would not resolve the situation in Iraq. Dismissing Bush’s coalition of the willing, Kerry pointed out that the US is currently taking 90 per cent of coalition casualties and paying 90 per cent of the costs. However, Kerry’s solution to rebuild US alliances, further involve the UN and get others to share the burden of Iraq was as illusory as Bush’s stay-the-course rhetoric.

Quick, decisive victory in Iraq would have enabled the US to leverage its military superiority and willingness to use force into political domination. The US would get the reconstruction contracts, the dominant position in a neoliberal opening of the Middle East, secure oil supplies and leverage to break OPEC’s ability to control prices, etc. And it would be better positioned to strong-arm other nations in trade negotiations. Whether the US can still accomplish these things remains to be seen.
But as the US becomes entrapped in Iraq, most countries are increasingly reluctant to come to the US’s aid. Bush has been campaigning hard for the forgiveness of the Iraqi foreign debt. It is a blatant attempt to transfer war costs from the US to other nations. France and Germany, acting out of their own self-interest, refused.

The number of countries willing to send troops, furthermore, is shrinking. Involvement in an expanding war means casualties. Meanwhile there is no security for a UN or international relief agency presence and kidnappings are mounting, which discourages relief efforts.

Underlying the reluctance to support the US occupation is politics.

The global anti-war movement reached unprecedented size prior to the war. Although it lost some momentum during the war, it has helped to question the war and shape public opinion around the world, which has opposed the war. Unless mass perception changes, very few countries are likely to step up to the plate.

Take Canada. The Liberals have acted on corporate pressure to improve relations with the US. Examples include military deployments in Afghanistan and Haiti, tightened national security and immigration and refugee policy, plans to boost the military, moves towards joining US weaponization of space and Paul Martin’s promotion of UN forces for humanitarian interventions. Regardless of Canada’s attempt to align itself with US interests, sending Canadian troops to Iraq is not in the cards.

But Bush will continue to wage war. Iraq is a highly strategic countrywith huge oil reserves. Oil is a vital commodity in the global economy. The American ruling class is unlikely to walk away voluntarily.

The Pentagon is far from defeated if it enjoys the active or passive support of a sizable majority of the US population for its war efforts. This is not impossible if the politics of fear prevail. Concern for homeland against the forces of darkness, if unchallenged, could feed racism, xenophobia, support for aggression abroad and increased repression at home.

Only the re-emergence of an independent and mobilized anti-war movement in the US can prevent the US from becoming more deeply embroiled in this war.

The current over-extension of US power may bring some temporary comfort to others. It does make it less likely Bush will jump to invade other countries in the Middle East or intervene directly in Latin America. And there could be further resistance to trade blocs dominated by US corporate interests, from the FTAA to the WTO.

However, the problems of the world are not reducible to the excessive power of US imperialism. Without the emergence and strengthening of alternatives to global capital nothing will change for the better. The existence of rival centers of power, such as a more assertive and independently-minded European Union, does not guarantee a peaceful world. Previous struggles for dominance among imperialist powers led to World Wars I and II.
The budding shift in the world situation may present new opportunities but also dangers. ★

Harold Lavender is an editor of New Socialist magazine.