The New War Against The New Iraq
By Dan Lieberman
05 April, 2007
Countercurrents.org
It's a new war. United States president George W. Bush was correct on May 1, 2003, the day he landed on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier, and essentially declared the end of the war against Saddam Hussein's hapless Iraq. The ending of the first Bush war begat other wars; a Civil War of Sunnis against Shiites, an extended war of Al-Qaeda against the U.S. and Iraq, a possible war of western nations against Iran, and President Bush's surge, which is an euphemism for a new U.S. war against the new Iraqi nation.Start of a New War
The U.S. military campaign to overthrow Saddam Hussein accomplished its objectives. Civil campaigns for creation of an Iraq constitution and formation of a provisional Iraq government by democratic election did occur. Fine! Let's go home! U.S. forces did not go home, and any campaign after victory is a new campaign. The new campaign did not start until the installation of the new Iraq government. The violence at that time had Iraqis, who refused to fight for Hussein, willing to fight against America's occupation and its attempt to dominate the cradle of civilization. The initial insurrection has grown into several simultaneous full-scale wars, all equally serious. One of these is disguised by rhetorical use of the word ‘surge.’ Nevertheless, it is a war against the interim Al-Maliki government and the new Iraqi nation.
U.S. forces are fighting with Iraq military and against Iraq military, with Iraq security and against Iraq security, with friends of the Iraq government and against friends of the Iraq government. Bush's legions can't tell friends from enemies and are fighting with and against almost the entire Iraq population outside of Kurdish territory. By changing its operations from tactical to strategic, from defensive to all-out offensive, and by focusing on Baghdad, the U.S. started a new war against the Iraqi presidents' leading constituency and, in effect, against the Al-Maliki government. U.S. forces have attacked Shiite militias friendly to the government and antagonistic to Sunni insurgents. The U.S. has prepared to implement a new military occupation in Sadr City.
Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, son of one of Saddam Hussein's principal opponents and a wavering ally of Iraq president al-Maliki, instructed his followers to "rise up in support of the Iraqi resistance.” Followers haven't followed the leader's orders, although reports demonstrate the new war is principally against those who are anti-American and easily influenced by Iran, even if they might be pro-government. The military operations indirectly assist the government's principal antagonists, the insurgent Sunnis.
Surge' cuts killings in Baghdad, Jonathan V. Last, The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 28: On March 6, coordinated car bombs in the Babil province city of Hillah killed more than 115 and wounded about 200 Shiite pilgrims. The same day, 300 al-Qaeda fighters stormed a prison in Mosul, freeing 140 suspected terrorists held there. Diyala province, in particular, has become a refuge for insurgents; Petraeus has deployed an additional 700 U.S. troops there to prevent al-Qaeda from taking root.
On March 4, U.S. and Iraqi forces began cleaning out Sadr City, the Baghdad stronghold of Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. Sadr has gone into hiding in Iran, and the action was mostly peaceful. Originally, the Baghdad Security Plan had called for 35 to 40 joint security stations, mini-HQs in Baghdad neighborhoods to be manned by coalition and Iraqi troops. After the first 20 were established, the results were so good that Petraeus increased the ultimate goal to 70 such stations.
70 Killed in Wave of Revenge in Northern Iraq, by ALISSA J. RUBIN NYT
March 29, 2007: BAGHDAD, March 28 — One of the bloodiest chapters in Iraq’s sectarian strife unfolded over the past two days in the northern city of Tal Afar where gunmen, some of them apparently police officers, participated in the revenge killings of scores of Sunnis in the aftermath of a huge double suicide bombing in a Shiite area.The new war against the new Iraq duplicates some of the worst features of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Beyond Saddam
The illegality of the U.S. war has been well recognized and is now being well expressed. Shock waves rumbled through Washington when Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah uttered words that surprised the Bush administration:
By HASSAN M. FATTAH. NYT, March 29, 2007
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia, March 28 — King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia told Arab leaders on Wednesday that the American occupation of Iraq was illegal and warned that unless Arab governments settled their differences, foreign powers like the United States would continue to dictate the region’s politics.
Illegal was one adjective for Saddam Hussein's authoritarian regime. A comparison between the Bush/Maliki Iraq and Hussein's Iraq shows close resemblances, with each regime having beneficial characteristics not in the other. Apparently, the U.S. invasion has replaced tyrannical features with similar tyrannical features.
Sectarian Violence was limited in HUSSEIN'S IRAQ.
Sectarian Violence is massive in BUSH/MALIKI IRAQ.
Opponents were killed in HUSSEIN'S IRAQ, but killings stopped in last years.
Opponents are killed in BUSH/MALIKI IRAQ, and killings haven't stopped.Opponents were imprisoned in HUSSEIN'S IRAQ, but imprisonments stopped in last years.
Opponents are imprisoned in BUSH/MALIKI IRAQ, and imprisonments haven't stopped.
Al Qaeda Terrorism was non-existent in HUSSEIN'S IRAQ.
Al Qaeda Terrorism is great in BUSH/MALIKI IRAQ.Freedom was nil in HUSSEIN'S IRAQ.
Freedom is appreciable in BUSH/MALIKI IRAQ.
Order characterized HUSSEIN'S IRAQ.Order is missing in BUSH/MALIKI IRAQ.
It's inconclusive to state that Iraq's political or social life has improved. It's conclusive that Iraq's economic life has not improved. Iraq's Crude Oil Production (~2.2M barrels/day), which is a major part of its gross domestic product, is much below the peak pre-Gulf War figure (3.5M barrels/day) and less than its production before the U.S. invasion (3M barrels/day).
Despite the mayhem, the reduced oil production, and the tyrannical features, the Bush administration doesn't see fault in its policies towards Iraq. It's all the fault of the Iraqis.Blaming the Victims
The United States and Israel have a common attribute - shifting their violations of others to blaming the victims. According to the U.S. government it was Saddam Hussein's fault that the U.S. believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. It was Saddam's fault that the U.S. believed he was prepared to use the weapons he didn't have with the delivery systems he didn't have. It was Saddam's fault that Iraq had to be invaded.
It is now the al-Maliki government's fault that Al Qaeda terrorists, who weren't in Iraq before the U.S. invaded, freely roam Iraq's alleys and valleys. The present Iraq government, installed by the U.S., is ungrateful for the freedom given to them and is apathetic in resolving an insurgency that the U.S. invasion caused, and which U.S. military power could not suppress. Perhaps George W. Bush should listen to Shada Hassoun sing Baghdaaaaad, and to an Iraqi's opinion that Shada Hassoun, who is Moroccan with Iraq ancestry, "is doing all the things that all the Iraqi girls cannot do now; singing, dancing, being free. She is representing freedom."
The New War Against the New Iraq
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, U.S. forces drove straight North to Baghdad. Hostilities ended after the capture of Iraq's capital. Shift to 2007 and U.S. forces are battling throughout the Iraqi nation, from Mosul in the north to south of Baghdad and to the western frontier with Syria. A different war at a different time and with different antagonists. The majority of Democrats in the U.S. Congress have sought an acceptable means for terminating the present war. Don't they have it?
The 2002 Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq agreed to give President Bush to use armed force in a previous war.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.The "continuing threat" by defenseless Iraq, which never existed, now exists less then never. All relevant UN Security Resolutions, which were already enforced, have been re-enforced. So, what's the problem? No joint resolution authorizes the present war. Senator Kennedy, ask for a new resolution for a new war and watch it fail.
It's difficult to accept that the United States, with the world's leading universities, scholars, political pundits, historians, and pervasive media did not have authoritative voices to inform congress that toppling Saddam Hussein would lead to a Civil War. The U.S. government must have known the tragedy that awaited Iraq and that lessons of history would apply to Iraq’s future. Certainly, the U.S. realized Iraq had the potential to be the leading power in the Middle East and a countervailing force to United States and Israel dominance, and incorporated those considerations in its plans. Certainly, the Bush government realized that a Shiite majority would gain power and greatly strengthen Iran's influence in the Middle East. Many high government officials in the Bush administration knew that the war against Saddam Hussein would lead to an eventual war against Iraq and that the destruction of the Saddam Hussein regime would lead to the destruction of Iraq.
Dan Lieberman is editor of Alternative Insight, a web-based monthly commentary.
He has authored many articles on foreign and domestic policy.
Dan receives e-mails at: [email protected]
Click here to comment
on this article
Get CC HeadlinesOn your Desk Top