The fires beneath the ashes still burned and have burst into flames. On the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, 20 March, the US and British governments gave the impression of victory. Labour Foreign Secretary David Miliband said, ‘I think the war itself was a remarkable victory… building the peace has been more difficult but indications over the last year or two have been more encouraging about change’. President Bush told US forces that the ‘surge’ had ‘opened the door to a major strategic victory in the broader war on terrorism’. Three days later four US soldiers were blown up, bringing the death toll for US soldiers in Iraq to 4,000. On 25 March the Iraqi army attacked the Shia population’s biggest militia, the Mehdi Army, in Basra, unleashing clashes from Basra to Baghdad as the militia fought back. Four days into the fighting the Mehdi Army still commanded much of Basra. Mortars and rockets fired from Baghdad’s Shia neighbourhoods struck the Green Zone containing the US embassy and Iraqi government. US General Petraeus accused Iran of supplying the weapons and Baghdad was placed under a three day curfew. If this is ‘victory’ what would defeat look like? Jim Craven and Trevor Rayne report.
Prime Minister Al Maliki supervised the attack after gaining US permission for the assault. RAF and USAF planes bombed Mehdi Army positions. The Basra region holds 70% of Iraq’s known oil reserves and provides 90% of state revenues. Basra is strategically located next to Iran and for US supply-routes from Kuwait. The Mehdi Army and its leader, Moqtada Al Sadr, are supported by the poorest of the Shia people. In 2004 they fought the invaders at Najaf, but last August Al Sadr declared a ceasefire. Tens of thousands of Al Sadr’s supporters marched in Baghdad on 27 March demanding the overthrow of the puppet government. President Bush declared the battle against the militia ‘a defining moment’ for Iraq (yet another!). This assault could rebound heavily against the invaders and their placemen.
Imperialists retreat
The stark fact is that with a rapidly deepening economic crisis, the imperialists can no longer afford an interminable ‘war against terrorism’. Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz told the congressional Joint Economic Committee that the long-term costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, including such as health care for veterans, would be more than $3 trillion for the US alone and a similar amount for other countries.
Imperialism has been forced to reduce its ambitions in Iraq to securing military bases and oil. In a revealing phrase last December General Petraeus described Iraq as being ‘close to a sustainable level of violence’. This January, President Bush signed a statement that he would not be bound by clauses in the defence appropriation bill prohibiting funds being used to establish permanent US bases in Iraq or exercising control of Iraqi oil.
The imperialists cannot afford to admit defeat in Iraq as this would undermine the US strategy of global hegemony through military might; a power on which British imperialism relies to defend its own international interests. So, although US forces are being reduced, there will be at least 10,000 more US troops in Iraq this summer than before the ‘surge’.
A key development reducing the violence in Iraq, allowing the claims that the ‘surge’ was working, is coming undone. Sections of the Al Sawah or Awakening Movement, drawn from former Sunni resistance fighters, are turning against their new US paymasters because nothing has changed for the better; Sunnis are still being killed by Shia-dominated police. Abu Marouf, a leader of 13,000 members of the Awakening Movement who belonged to the 1920 Revolution Brigade and the Islamic Army said: ‘If the Americans think they can use us to crush Al Qaeda and then push us to one side they are mistaken. If there is no change in three months there will be war again.’
Turkey’s February invasion of Iraq highlighted dilemmas facing the imperialist occupation. Turkey attacked Kurdish (PKK) guerrillas. The PKK have fought a long national liberation struggle against the Turkish state for the rights of all Kurds. Turkey’s ultimate aim, however, was to deter the prospect of an autonomous Kurdish state in northern Iraq. Turkish forces withdrew a week after their incursion, but their government made clear that the invasion set a precedent to intervene whenever it sees fit. The Turkish bourgeoisie fears that a viable Kurdish authority in northern Iraq will encourage Kurds in Turkey, Iran and Syria to increase their fight for sovereignty.
Turkey is an important US ally. It has NATO’s second largest forces and is at the hub of oil pipelines from the Caspian Basin and Central Asia. Turkey’s support would be crucial to a US attack on Iran. The US provided intelligence for Turkey’s invasion of Iraq, but was nervous about the consequences; US Defence Secretary Gates said he hoped the Turks would ‘wrap this thing up as soon as they can’. The Kurdish region is the only part of Iraq that has been relatively stable and favourable to the imperialist occupation, but the Kurdish Regional Government is becoming impatient and signing oil contracts in defiance of the Iraqi government.
Every move the invaders make is being turned against them. Every ally may suddenly turn into a foe. It is an old lesson that is being scorched into the imperialists’ brain: you will not put out the fire with fire.
New slaughter planned in Afghanistan
British forces are planning a new onslaught in southern Afghanistan in an attempt to inflict a decisive defeat on those resisting the occupation of their country. President Bush also wants US troops to join Pakistani forces in operations against supporters and bases of the resistance fighters along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border and to conduct air strikes within Pakistan.
The offensive comes at a time of mounting problems for US, British and Canadian troops responsible for the bulk of the fighting. Some in the imperialist military have recently admitted that they are losing the war and that a military victory may not be possible. Ex-US General Dan McNeil estimated that: ‘If proper US military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, the US would need 400,000 troops to defeat the resistance.’ Currently the imperialists have 66,000 troops in Afghanistan. Over-stretched and battered on the ground, the invaders have resorted to air power. In 2007 they launched 3,572 air strikes, twice the number of the previous year and 20 times 2005’s total.
Last autumn Labour Defence Secretary Des Browne admitted the war in Afghanistan ‘could last decades’. When the present wave of British troops was being despatched, the then Defence Secretary John Reid would have had us believe it was a peace-keeping mission and that he could foresee the forces returning within a few months without a shot being fired. In the year from August 2006 alone, British troops fired nearly four million bullets and 25,000 rounds of artillery. Over 6,000 Afghans were killed by the occupiers in 2007.
This January, the Commons Defence Select Committee said the performance of British forces was deteriorating, with insufficient rest time and an increase in early departure for tours of duty. The Committee said urgent steps should be taken to reduce the burden. But army recruitment remains well below target, particularly among ethnic minorities. Britain’s cost of the wars on Afghanistan and Iraq doubled last year to £3.5 billion
Imperialist rivalries
So why are the imperialists planning a new offensive? The reason is more political than military. For over a year the US and Britain have been pleading with other NATO states to send more troops and equipment to Afghanistan and to deploy their troops in the battle zones of the south. Canada threatened to withdraw its troops unless NATO responded. France and Germany have persistently refused; they see no advantage in getting dragged further into a war that would provide them with few advantages. It suits their purpose to give token support while withholding effective means by which the US could grab the spoils.
In February, Germany rejected US demands to use their 3,200 troops in northern Afghanistan to replace 2,200 US troops due to be withdrawn from combat zones this autumn. German spokespeople described the demands as ‘impertinent’ and ‘fantastic cheek’. At the NATO Security Conference a few days later, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates demanded ‘a fair distribution of the burden’ and said ‘a two-tiered alliance’ in which some fought actively and others ‘had the luxury of opting for stability and civilian operations’ would destroy NATO. Germany agreed to a small increase in troop numbers and to extend their field of operations, but not to the battlefields. France’s offer to send 1,000 troops to relieve US forces in the east was accompanied by what one British commentator described as ‘outrageous demands’.
Russia has taken advantage of divisions in NATO to counter the US, which has challenged Russia by planning missile bases in Eastern Europe and manipulating the independence of Kosovo. Former President Putin believed that the US is using the war in Afghanistan to put down roots in Central Asia, to control pipelines from the Caspian Basin and to surround Russia and China with military bases. He wants Germany to withdraw all its troops from Afghanistan. According to opinion polls, more than half the German population agrees.
The US and Britain believe that by asserting themselves in Afghanistan, divisions within NATO will be settled by facts on the ground. They hope they can stop France, Germany and other imperialist rivals profiting politically from their present problems and end prospects of greater co-operation between Russia and Western Europe.
When the imperialist offensive fails, the crisis within NATO and inter-imperialist rivalry will intensify. They will only leave, however, when they are forced out by the Afghan people. As a statement from the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan points out, ‘After seven years, there is no peace, human rights, democracy or reconstruction in Afghanistan. The destitution and suffering of our people is increasing every day … We believe that if the troops leave Afghanistan, our people will become more free and come out of their current puzzlement and doubts … Afghanistan’s freedom can only be achieved by the Afghan people themselves.’
Prince Harry’s ‘normal’ service
Prince Harry’s ten-week tour, serving his grandmother’s forces in Helmand, helped make the tragedy in Afghanistan a media spectacle. One newspaper website encouraged us to ‘Watch Prince Harry fighting in Helmand’, alongside the latest goals from the Premier League. The site did not carry the latest report on Afghanistan from the UN Development Fund, which states that life expectancy and literacy continue to fall, while malnutrition increases. One in six children die before their first birthday, half the population lives below the poverty line and hundreds of thousands of Afghan people have been displaced from their homes.
Prince Harry quipped: ‘It’s very nice to be a sort of normal person for once. This is about as normal as I am going to get.’ For a member of an imperialist ruling class it is ‘normal’ to occupy someone else’s country by force and to direct 1,000lb bombs on to their villages, (Harry acted as an air strike controller); something similar is a centuries-old tradition.
Unfortunately for Harry, he has been withdrawn from Afghanistan and is refused permission to serve in Iraq. He will just have to content himself with making friends with fascist dictators, as his great uncle did, or going to fancy dress parties as a Nazi, which we know he enjoys.
FRFI 202 April / May 2008
