Al-Zarqawi death changes nothing
Socialist Resistance in print2000sPaul ClarkeTranscribed or corrected by hand from the printed page.
With an unintended irony bordering on the delicious, US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that "Arguably over the last several years, no single person on this planet has had the blood of more innocent men, women and children on his hands". He was of course talking about Abu Musab al-Zarqawi who had just been killed, and not about himself. PAUL CLARKE reports.
"Given the nature of the terrorist networks, really a network of networks, the death of Zarqawi, while enormously important, will not mean the end of all violence in that country", said Rumsfeld.
The last bit is right, it most certainly will not mean an end of violence in Iraq. But the death of al-Zarqawi is not enormously important, because al-Zarqawi was a minor player in the (mainly Sunni) insurgency.
The United States massively exaggerated his importance in order to paint a picture of the Iraqi resistance as being dominated by al-Qaeda and consisting mainly of fundamentalist fanatics. Indeed al-Zarqawi was virtually invented by the United States.
Rumsfeld went on ".....let there be no doubt, the fact that he is dead is a significant victory in the battle against terrorism in that country, and I would say worldwide, because he had interests outside of Iraq. He was an integral part of the war on terror."
The last sentence is a Freudian slip. For the United States al-Zarqawi was an essential part of the "war on terror", even though he was just a bit player in the resistance.
George Bush Jr. introduced him to a world public in October 2002, as convenient demonstration that the resistance was dominated by al-Qaeda.
In fact al-Zarqawi was not at that point al-Qaeda's point man in Iraq, and he had to fight a sustained battle to get Osama bin Laden to give him the franchise, which did not happen until 2003.
Like bin Laden, al Zarqawi developed a symbiotic relationship with the US. His forces in Iraq consisted of a few diehard loyalists from his time in Afghanistan, plus a network he was able to gather around himself, precisely because of the publicity generated by the US and a willing media.
Insofar as al-Zarqawi did have in impact on the struggle in Iraq, it was an entirely negative and reactionary one.
When, in April 2004, the United States launched it first, murderous, attack on Falluja, massive solidarity was shown to the inhabitants of that Sunni town from all over Iraq, including the Shi'ite populations in the south, who queued in their hundreds to give blood.
For al-Zarqawi, al-Qaeda and the United States, a united anti-America, cross-confessional national resistance would be a disaster, with the danger of developing in a secular direction.
For al-Zarqawi there was a division between the anti-Crusader struggle against the US and 'jihad' proper, which involved a fight against the 'New Mongols' (a reference to the 13th century invasion of Arab lands by the Mongol ancestors of Ghengis Khan) – with the Shi'ites being identified with the invaders.
Al-Zarqawi was determined to fuse 'jihad' and the 'anti-Crusader struggle' which meant wrecking any nationalist unity.
While the United States debated the pros and cons of an alliance with the Shi'ite clergy, al Zarqawi launched a string of terrorist outrages and pioneered the 'tactic' of bombing Shi'ite civilians.
It was into this atmosphere of growing ethnic tension that America and the Shi'ite clergy were able to launch their new and deadly death squad strategy.
Last month more than 1200 people were killed in Baghdad. The majority of these are victims of two Shi'ite militias, the Badr brigades and the Mahdi army, which are operating a massive assassination programme against Sunnis. The Badr brigades are sponsored by the interior ministry, whose operatives are recruited from the Badr ranks.
What we have in Iraq now is a low-intensity civil war. It is easy for anyone who wants to deepen inter-confessional strife to carry out provocations which one community will blame on the other. A classic example is the bombing of the Al Askari Mosque in Samarra in February this year.
This holy Shi'ite shrine was bombed by people dressed like Interior ministry troops, in the black cars those people drive, who had no trouble navigating the curfew before or after the bombing.
The conclusion that millions drew in Iraq was that the bomber were in fact Interior ministry operatives – Shi'ites linked to the Badr brigades – and that the bombing was simply designed to stoke tensions between Shi'ites and Sunnis.
The death of al-Zarqawi is being portrayed in the media as a big victory for George Bush and Nuri al-Maliki, the America-selected prime minister. In fact, other than short-term publicity gains, al-Zarqawi's death isn't going to change anything about the situation on the ground.
Because the American know this, there is an inbuilt ambiguity in their statements. On the one hand killing al-Zarqawi is a big victory, but on the other hand not a lot will change.
US spokespeople are already speculating about who will be the 'next al-Zarqawi'. If there isn't one, he (it will be a he) will have to be invented.
In this way the global terror network can be portrayed as a hydra-headed monster, which must be ceaselessly and remorselessly fought – but with no end in sight for this unending war.
Because of the drift towards low intensity civil war, there is a significant debate about whether it is right to call for immediate withdrawal of US, British and other Western troops.
Lebanese academic Gilbert Achcar says: "The longer the U.S. troops stay in Iraq, the worse the situation becomes. The situation is continuously deteriorating: in the last weeks we have seen again new stages in this deterioration, which are really very worrying. For people to say 'Well, the U.S. troops should stay to prevent a civil war' is completely absurd.
"On the one hand, we are steadily moving toward that kind of civil war because of the presence of the U.S. troops, and the timeline here is quite, quite clear. On the other hand, Rumsfeld himself said, 'Well, if there is a civil war we won't intervene' –so what are US troops for in that country?
The truth is of course that the United States does not intend to leave Iraq. Today US troops have to patrol the streets, but eventually the plan is to consolidate them into four huge bases.
In the 1 May issue of Newsweek Michael Hirsh reported: "If you want an image of what America's long-term plans for Iraq look like, it's right here at Balad.
"Tucked away in a rural no man's land 43 miles north of Baghdad, this 15-square-mile mini-city of thousands of trailers and vehicle depots is one of four 'superbase' where the Pentagon plans to consolidate U.S. forces, taking them gradually from the front lines of the Iraq war….
"The shift is part of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plan to draw down US ground forces in Iraq significantly by the end of 2006. Pentagon planners hope that this partial withdrawal will, in turn, help take the edge off rising opposition to the war at home—long enough to secure Iraq's nascent democracy.
"But the vast base being built up at Balad is also hard evidence that, despite all the political debate in Washington about a quick U.S. pullout, the Pentagon is planning to stay in Iraq for a long time—at least a decade or so, according to military strategists".
Forget the bits about 'nascent democracy' or 'at least a decade'. The long-term plan is for more of the same – an American colonial protectorate indefinitely, but hopefully with a defeated insurgency.
The real reason is oil and the victims are the tens of thousands Iraqi dead, maimed and tortured for whom George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld care nothing.