HIGH STAKES IN IRAQ POLL
Socialist Resistance in print2000sPhil HearseTranscribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.
In his inaugural speech, George Bush warned that those who opposed his version of 'democracy', would be "burned by the fires of freedom".
Exactly what this meant was shown last November when hundreds of civilians were burned by the fires of napalm and phosphorous shells in the wrecked city of Fallujah.
The Fallujah attack, and the attempts to crush the resistance in the other cities of the 'Sunni triangle' was a desperate attempt to bring some semblance of order so that the January 30 election could take place. Predictably the Fallujah assault, which cost the Marine Corps 80 dead and scores more wounded and maimed, failed in all its main objectives.
Those who have visited the wrecked city say that there are only 70 or so new graves in the "martyrs cemetery"; US claims of 1700 fighters killed are wishful thinking. Most of the fighters had left the city, leaving only a small group to fight a rearguard battle in which they would inevitably die. The only 'success' of the operation was to warn other cities: this is what will happen to you if you support the resistance.
The election (taking place as this article is written) is, technically to elect a constituent assembly for the whole of Iraq and a Kurdish regional assembly in the north, and was imposed on the United States by mass Shia mobilisations in the spring of 2004.
The main movers of these demonstrations were the senior Shia clergy led by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. Sistani calculated that such elections would give political forces close to him a clear victory.
However, once the US proconsul Paul Bremer agreed to the election, it became integrated into the US pacification strategy. Now the US wants to use the elections to show that 'democracy' is being created.
This is an extremely high-risk strategy for Bush and his allies. They are calculating that an eventual Shia-dominated government will co-exist with continued US occupation, and will tolerate US domination of decisions about reconstruction and the oil industry.
They are probably also guessing that a Shia-dominated government can be used as a 'divide and rule' tactic against the Sunni areas where the armed revolt is strongest.
It is true that al-Sistani has resisted Shia attempts to get him to issue a 'fatwa' against the US occupation. Indeed he instructed the Shia faithful not to resist the US invasion. And he was extremely co-operative when the US army tried to put down the 'Mahdi Army' of dissent Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr in the southern city of Najaf last spring.
Al-Sistani left the country for 'medical treatment' abroad, avoiding having to take a position on the marine incursions into Najaf, which were helpfully trying to crush a potential rival in the Shia community.
However US calculations underestimate a number of things. First, to put it mildly al-Sistani is close to the Iranian clergy; indeed he has spent a lot of time in exile and speaks Arabic with an Iranian accent. This creates dangers in the light of the growing conflict between Iran and the US over the former's nuclear programme.
Even if, as vice-president Dick Cheney has hinted, the US used its Israeli satrap to strike at Iranian nuclear targets, the Bush regime runs an enormous risk that Iran will use its influence to strike back against it in Iraq – not to mention the minor detail that Iran can send fighters into Iraq any time it chooses; indeed it probably already has numerous political and even military cadres working with the Iraqi Shia factions.
Then again, whatever the outcome of the elections and whatever government eventually emerges, al-Sistani cannot be relied upon to keep the Shia masses in order. For one thing, many of them hate the Grand Ayatollah for supporting Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, while their Shia sons were being slaughtered by Iran's revolutionary guards in the desert battles. Iraqi nationalism doesn't stop at the borders of the Sunni triangle.
All reports indicate that the overwhelming majority of Shias, whether they are enthusiastic about the election or not, are implacably opposed to the US occupation of the country. That is exactly where all US calculations falter.
In the West, the mainstream media talks blithely about the US (and Britain) seeking a 'way out' of Iraq. Even right-wing commentators in the US are saying 'establish democracy and then
lets get out'. There is absolutely nil chance of any such thing happening.
Of course the US wants to get it soldiers out of having to patrol the streets – the toll of dead and injured is getting way uncomfortable from the point of view of civilian morale back home.
It wants the new Iraqi army and police force to take the rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs, but it also plans twelve huge military bases housing thousands of troops and hundreds of planes in perpetuity.
Iraq will thus be 'independent', but will be directly be overseen by US politicians, the US military and US business people. The most powerful person in the country will be the US ambassador. Iraqi oil and its disposition will have a US veto, and the US will use its military assets in Iraq to oversee events in the Middle East and Western Asia region as a whole.
Whatever the immediate outcome of the election, however many people vote, and however much the election is distorted by the undoubtedly high turnout by middle class exiles in Europe and the US, the basic contradiction remains.
US and British occupation will continue to be resisted by the big majority of Shia and Sunni populations; and this will continue to spontaneously recreate the conditions for national unity and solidarity, whatever the attempts by the US (aided by religious sectarians) to divide and rule.