Since January US forces in Iraq have been implementing the new “surge” policy that was agreed by the White House towards the end of last year. 21,500 additional troops and tougher rules of engagement were, argued the Bush administration, to resolve the security crisis in Iraq, put an end to the insurgency and bolster the authority of the Iraqi government.
The White House is now over five months into its policy and final troop reinforcements were due to be in place by June. The timetable of the surge has grown from six months to over a year. The new total of US troops will be 200,000 by January 2008 – up from the current level of 168,00 and equal in size to the original invasion force.
Civil War?
The Bush administration used the mounting sectarian conflict in Iraq last year as a chief pretext for intensifying the war effort in the name of ‘bringing security’ to Iraq. This was always an act of great hypocrisy given the United States had a policy of cultivating sectarian divisions in Iraq from the very outset of its occupation. The governing council it established in 2003 was Iraq’s first ever sectarian government, with those taking up seats in the pro-occupation administration required to define themselves on sectarian lines – thus, not on ideological or political lines. Even the representative of the Iraqi Communist Party was only allowed to join as one of the twelve Shi’a members.
By dividing Iraqis on ethnic-religious lines the US hoped to play different factions off against one another and militate against the emergence of a unified anti-occupation movement. There were plenty of exiled Iraqi political organisations willing to play this sectarian game, while at the same time terrorist organisations, such as the Al-Qaeda cells, carried out sectarian attacks on civilians. The effect was to cement sectarian divisions as Sunni and Shi’a militias were increasingly drawn into tit for tat killings, which reached their high point at the end of last year. In short, while the US created the sectarian divisions it is now using them to legitimise intensifying its war with the Iraqi insurgency.
The insurgency against the occupying forces has remained intense reflected in the stubbornly high levels of US military casualties – continuing the trends set towards the end of 2006. Between January and May 2007 on average 88 US soldiers were killed per month, compared to 59 per month in the same period last year. A recent BBC/USA Today poll showed that seven out of 10 Shias and almost all Sunnis say the US military presence makes security worse. More than half the population considered attacks on coalition forces “acceptable”.
One of the chief targets of the American surge was Moqtada Al-Sadr and his Mahdi army. The US claimed Mahdi army death squads were carrying out much of the sectarian killings. It seems certain that elements the Mahdi army were indeed carrying out such attacks, given the tit-for-tat killings between Sunni and Shia militiamen, but Al-Sadr has more than once stressed the need for all Iraqi’s to unite. Despite his opposition to the occupation Al-Sadr has ordered his forces underground and to avoid confrontation with the US forces. On Friday 25th May Al-Sadr re-appeared and claimed to have been in talks with moderate Sunni forces to unite against the American occupation and for a “democratic Iraq.” This reflects Al-Sadr’s on-off attitude to the resistance – he led the big uprisings against the occupation in Fallujah in 2004 only to strike a deal with the US and put his representatives into their puppet government. The problem for al-Sadr is that he wants to be in both, government and resistance, and in a sense he is. The problem for the US occupiers is that they can only preserve the facade of an Iraqi government with the support of the Shia islamists but on the other hand they want to exclude Iranian influence and above all al-Sadr and his army.
The sick Iraqi government
The new aggressive US policy is not only intensifying the conflict with the insurgents but has also led to ruptures with the Iraqi government. With the withdrawal not only of Al-Sadr’s ministers but also the smaller Al-Fadhila Party, the government is increasingly isolated even amongst its supposed Shi’a base of support. Even Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has attempted to demonstrate his independence from the US by opposing the building of the wall in al-Adhamiya. Indeed, he “ordered” it to be stopped but this naturally only demonstrated his complete impotence and weakness. On all other aspects of the surge however – the increased troop numbers, tougher rules of engagement on the ground, etc – Maliki has shown himself to be an obedient servant of US interests.
The problem that Maliki and the government have is that they express the interests of many of the factional militias, linked to sectarian and tribal forces that have at times been in outright conflict with occupation, or at least colluding with those that are. Testament to this is the 144 members of the Iraqi parliament who signed a motion calling for the US to withdraw.
Defeat US imperialism
The US is throwing extra troops at fighting the insurgency but has few firm allies left in Iraq. Al-Maliki may be loyal to them and his personal interests are now bound up with those of the US but the tribal, religious and ethnic groups he rests upon are fragmenting and increasingly opposed to the US occupation.
A defeat for US imperialism would be a victory for all those fighting its economic and military domination. At the same time it is clear the resistance faces an acute crisis of leadership. The rival Islamist movements demand privileges for their sects in a confessional state. Arab and Kurdish nationalists demand privileges for their minorities. Neither can unite the majority of the working people of Iraq, against the exploiting classes and imperialism. That is why Iraqi workers and the poor must build their own party – one that fights to turn the struggle for the liberation of Iraq towards a workers revolution against capital. It is only by coming to the head of the popular struggle against imperialism that socialists can win the masses to the programme of socialist revolution.