The Iraqi Accordance Front announced on July 25 that it would suspend its membership in the Iraqi government headed by U.S. puppet Nouri al-Maliki. The Front is comprised of three organizations claiming to represent Iraq’s Arab Sunni population. Vice President Tariq al-Hashemi’s Islamic Party is a member of the Front.
The IAF has six Cabinet seats and holds 44 of the 275 seats in parliament. It gave al-Maliki a week to meet its
|
This is the latest incident in a long series of boycotts of legislative sessions and cabinet posts by various forces in the so-called coalition government, including repeated boycotts by forces affiliated with Muqtada al-Sadr.
The persistent instability of Iraq’s government reconfirms the utter failure of the occupying forces in putting together a government that can be portrayed as representative of the Iraqi people.
In Washington, Bush’s critics in the ruling elite continually bemoan the lack of urgency seen among the Iraqi politicians. They often call for Bush to pressure the Iraqi government to meet the 18 benchmarks that Washington has set for measuring its progress.
But the Iraqi government’s problem is not lack of urgency, but lack of legitimacy.
With Iraq under the complete military and political control of the United States, the Iraqi government controls very little. The sole purpose of the Iraqi government is to create the false image that Iraqis are running Iraq and that the United States is just there to help.
But with the vast majority of the Iraqi population opposed to the occupation—many of them engaged in active resistance, or providing support to the resistance or sympathizing with it, the Iraqi government is put in an impossible position.
The political life of these Iraqi officials in holding on to nominal power is only as long as their willingness to collaborate with the occupying forces. That, more than any other factor, precludes them from representing the overwhelmingly anti-occupation Iraqis and having any legitimacy among them.
These politicians are forced to carry the dictates of their American bosses while appeasing their supposed constituencies. Their failure to reach a workable deal with each other is a reflection of this conundrum, not their failure to understand the seriousness or the urgency of the situation.
As much as the Bush administration attempts to prop up this government as legitimate, the relation between Washington and Baghdad can hardly be understood as one of mutual respect.
Following reports of disputes between Gen. Petraeus, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, and al-Maliki, Iraq’s prime minister, Petraeus acknowledged having expressed his “full range of emotions” at times with al-Maliki. Military commanders do not express “their full range of emotions” at leaders of other sovereign nations unless that leader happens to be under the command of the foreign military.
Unity on the goal of domination
In Washington, the political elites face a different conundrum.
On the one hand, they are faced with the overwhelming opposition of the American people to the continued occupation of Iraq. On the other hand, corporate capital—their real constituency—is unwilling to relinquish its designs for the control of Iraq, a component of its plans for the control of the Middle East.
The mid-term congressional elections in November 2006 signaled a clear vote against the continuation of the Iraq war. But the Democratic victory in both houses of Congress has not delivered on any of its anti-war promises. Not only have the Democrats failed to end the Iraq war, they have failed to prevent its escalation.
Recent statements by Gen. Petraeus and U.S. ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker have provided a preview of the progress report that they will deliver to the U.S. Congress in September.
They will ask Congress to give them more time—along with $10 billion a
|
The Democrats will undertake various diplomatic maneuvers to express their “opposition.” However, there is little doubt that the military will get the requested funding, no matter what symbolic strings may be attached.
It may appear as if congressional opposition to the war is mounting a serious effort to end the war. But a closer look reveals that the topic of congressional debate is not really the withdrawal of troops but redeployment—withdrawal of combat troops, setting conditions for the Iraqi puppet government or bringing some troops home in August 2008 or 2009, if all goes well.
None of this debate has anything to do with ending the occupation and bringing the troops home now. The goal of controlling the resources of Iraq is not just on Bush’s agenda, it is on the agenda of all the representatives of the ruling class that occupy Congress, although some advocate different tactics.
Many members of Congress continuously talk about ending the war in an effort to create the false hope among the U.S. population that something is being done to end the war.
One piece of evidence signaling the U.S. ruling class’s real intentions is the construction of the U.S. Embassy in Iraq, now almost completed.
The 104-acre compound contains 21 structures. It is the largest embassy ever built in the world by any country, with an area larger than Vatican City.
Embassies typically perform the function of facilitating the relationship between two countries. It is clear, however, that this embassy will serve a special function—as the operations center for the governance of Iraq by the United States.
The continued upgrading of the long-term U.S. military capacity in Iraq also reveals that the ruling class has no intentions of leaving Iraq on its own.
The Balad Air Base, located north of Baghdad, is “the busiest aerial port in DOD (Department of Defense),” according to Col. Dave Reynolds, a mission support commander.
Made possible by the upgrade of Balad, U.S. aircraft dropped 437 bombs and missiles on the people of Iraq during the first six months of 2007, compared to 86 in all of 2006.
The U.S. ruling class will not voluntarily give up its designs for a recolonized Iraq.
The only thing that can force it to end the occupation is the continued resistance of Iraqis and the conversion of anti-war sentiment in the United States into a surge of anti-war activism and resistance.
