The US and Britain are losing conforcing the Bush gang to reconsider their military priorities.
The total number of US and British soldiers who have died in Iraq since the start of May now exceeds the number who lost their lives during the invasion. Since the White House declared an end to the bombing, 64 US and 11 British troops have been killed by guerrilla attacks, not including the 82 US soldiers killed in 'non-combat incidents.'
This brings the total US troops killed to almost 300 since the war began, and 50 British. As Socialist Resistance goes to press the number is guaranteed to rise further.
Soldiers are now regularly raiding neighbourhoods under the pretext of the socalled 'war on terror.'
One operation in the north nicknamed 'operation Jimmy Hoffa' (after the late American union leader thought to have gangland connections) involved hundreds of troops raiding towns to the north and west of Baghdad.
But for every raid they make, more peo ple become involved in the resistance; this area has now become a battleground between troops and opposition forces.
In spite of Bush's insistence that the attacks are linked to Al Qaeda or other terrorist networks, most people know that the opposition is home-grown and a direct result of occupation and destruction of basic services such as water, electricity and jobs.
Basra in the south of the country, under Bros command. s seeing increased caces on Foods amose joc is to pur aom spontaneous -os of beccie demarcmg: Opposicion The Ame dide and rue para ry Shite populacon. One senior US official insists that the success of the occupation depends on senior Shites continuing to support the interim council, but this is creating tensions.
Whilst one section; the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution (SCIRI) has hoped their sheer size will give them influence (60 percent of the Iraqi population are Shia), the US is using any group with influence as a fig leaf for continued control of the country.
"Raise your arms if you want to get rid of the Americans..."
Whilst SCIRI has accepted places on the council, many younger Shi'ites have rejected it and instead are being attracted to direct action. In the city of Najaf young people are being pulled towards a popular militia known as the Mahdi (after the Shi'ite saviour), whose leader al-Sadr has organised demonstrations of thousands, and have vowed to lay down their lives against the oppressor.
The car bomb outside the Imam Ali Mosque in Najaf which killed over 90 people, including the leader of SCIRI Ayatollah Mohammed Bakr al-Hakim, is a sign of these tensions.
Although the US was quick to blame those who opposed the interim governing council, a possible reference to the leaders of the Mahdi, their fake concerns and condemnations are nothing short of hypocrisy since cis the divisions they have created mich produced the a borders
Supoorters and famis of ram pame
whatever the too of sumoon 5 u5 younger brocher s a member of the nter council) - and they did nothing to protect him. This fact alone drives a coach and horses through the idea that security is improving in Iraq, and can only undermine any view in Iraq that backing the US is a route to peace and democracy.
The attitude of young people in the country towards the occupation should be a warning to the Iraqi Communist Party (ICP) who have also accepted a place on the Interim Governing Council. The ICP have historically accepted popular front alliances with Saddam's regime, so it's no surprise they should have accepted a place on the council. Little information is forthcoming about them, except their justification for joining the council which was; 'the occupation is a fact." The interim council - made in the USA
The interim council is the plaything of the west, particularly administrator Paul Bremer, who seems to issue them with orders for more privatisation as a fait accompli.
The latest plan involves the privatisation of most industries. The new American way for dealing with the council reflects their concerns that unless they have a government that looks to be genuinely Iraqi, things will go from bad to worse for US big business there
Bremer is reported to have recently demanded that the council communicate secer we the haq people, exert more autort and strongly condemn the bombng or the UN heaoquarters Bremer has aso Die ter ta 55 bilion of investment will be needed to restore electricity supplies to pre-occapcion levels.
The council has no control whatsoever in awarding contracts to rebuild Iraq, and US multinational Halliburton is expected to make millions more than expected in contracts due to be awarded by the US army to maintain the oil fields. Even though some members of the council are making noises suggesting that the contracts should go to Iraqi businesses, a deal recently presented to them guarantees quick profits for western firms, coupled with a "get out quick" clause, ensuring their right to withdraw with no commitment to reinvest.
Even in neighbouring countries often friendly to the US, the council is looked on with deep suspicion. A recent tour by a council delegation to Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt failed to produce one single country willing to recognise the interim governing council.
Meanwhile, a Dubai based news channel has reported that a group of hooded armed men has threatened to kill council members and those who cooperate with them. "Death to spies and traitors... We will kill them before we kill the Americans." The gunmen said they belonged to Islamic jihad, the Organization of Muslim Youth and the Iraq Liberation Organization. Not made in the USA
Until the bombing of the UN headquarters, the US had demanded that they alone should keep control of all military, economic and political operations in Iraq. The worsening situation means they have been forced to contemplate other ways - even including the UN - to bring in a possible peacekeeping' force to bolster the 140,000 plus troops already there.
A section of the military are beginning to come to the conclusion that forces from other countries rather than more US troops are the key to pacifying Iraq - in itself an admission that where there are US troops resistance will swiftly follow.
General John P Abizaid said recently;
council delegation to Jordan, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Egypt failed to produce a single country willing to recognise
the interim governing council
..... .....
"You can't underestimate the public perception..about the percentage of the force being so heavily American." He is encouraging 'muslim allies' like Turkey and Pakistan to send troops in, whilst at the same time proposing to accelerate the training of a new Iraqi army.
The difficulty with this 'solution' is that any substantial UN presence alongside US troops in Iraq would act as an obstacle to Washington carrying through one of its key objectives in invading the country in the first place - which was to establish a strategic bridgehead giving the US the capacity to threaten military action against neighbouring states, including Saudi Arabia, Iran and Syria - if they appear to be stepping beyond the bounds of policies acceptable to Washington
Bush and Rumsfeld have never been able to admit publicly that this was an objective of war - and now find it difficult to explain to an increasingly sceptical domestic and world audience why US troops have to remain in sole charge of the floundering occupation.
Now one critical US military analyst, Edward Luttwark, has summed up the chaos by suggesting that: "The plan seems to be to have US taxpayers send aid faster than Iraqi gangs can steal it."
Rival Democrat politicians, who have searched around for some way to oppose Bush's line on Iraq while not opposing the war, are already making it clear that if they win the Presidential elections they will effectively pull out of the whole morass and hand over control the the UN.
With increasingly battle weary troops on the ground and their families at home becoming more critical of Bush's strategy space is opening up in the US itself for open criticism of Bush in the press.
One recent letter in the New York Times said; "Mr Bush can be seen dining with campaign contributors; later in the day he calls Iraq part of the global war on terror. Yet he is not sacrificing, not acting like a leader of a country at war....And he seems unable or unwilling to tell Americans why such a sacrifice is necessary"
page 5 of the scan
n0e September 2003 5