Relations
Between US And Iraq Government At Breaking Point
By James Cogan &
Peter Symonds
03 November 2006
World
Socialist Web
Tensions
between the US and Iraqi governments further intensified this week.
In an unprecedented action, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki issued
a press release on Tuesday afternoon stating that he had “ordered”
the US military to end the cordon it had maintained around Sadr City
for close to seven days, ostensibly as part of a search for an American
soldier who was allegedly abducted by Shiite militants. Sadr City is
the stronghold of the Shiite movement headed by cleric Moqtada al-Sadr
and its Madhi Army militia.
There appears to be little
doubt that Maliki issued his statement without notifying the American
occupation forces beforehand. The New York Times reported that US officials
maintained “hours of silence on the matter” before finally
declaring that the order was a joint US-Iraqi decision between Maliki,
US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and General George Casey. Earlier, however,
a US military spokesman could not conceal his surprise when questioned
by the Times. He said American commanders had the press release and
were “reviewing how best to address these concerns”.
Maliki declared the order
was necessary to “open roads and ease traffic”. The real
reason is the extreme level of tension that is building up in Iraq’s
Shiite population. For months now, the Bush administration has been
making constant demands that the Maliki government, which is dominated
by the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) coalition of Shiite parties, sanction
a bloody assault on Sadr City to “disarm” the Mahdi Army.
Maliki has repeatedly refused to do so.
The Sadrist movement is the
largest faction within the UIA. An attack against it would shatter the
coalition and seriously undermine the government. Moreover, the Mahdi
Army has popular support among the Shiite masses, who, after enduring
decades of repression at the hands of the Baathist regime, consider
it essential to maintain an armed force that is independent of any government
in Baghdad. In Sadr City, the militia is viewed as the only reliable
means of defence against both Sunni extremists and US occupation forces,
whose presence is bitterly opposed by the predominantly working class
and poor population of the district.
As a consequence of Maliki’s
refusal to turn on the Sadrists, the US and Iraqi media is rife with
speculation that the Bush administration is plotting a coup to install
some form of military junta, which would give the green light for an
offensive against the Shiite militia. In the streets of Sadr City and
other largely Shiite cities, such as Najaf, Kufa, Karbala, Amarah and
Basra, US actions have provoked fierce opposition.
The US roadblocks and checkpoints
thrown up over every major route in and out of Sadr City last week had
raised tensions to a fever-pitch. On Monday, reflecting the pressure
from below for an open challenge to the actions of the US military,
Moqtada al-Sadr issued a statement threatening that “if this siege
continues for long, we will resort to actions which I will have no choice
but to take”. He denounced Iraqi members of parliament for their
silence.
On Tuesday, the seventh day
of the “siege”, the Sadrist movement declared an indefinite
general strike in protest. The entire suburb of 2.5 million people shut
down, with militiamen openly patrolling the streets. Maliki’s
intervention reflected deep concern within the government that a strike
movement would rapidly snowball as Iraqis vented their anger against
the occupation and appalling social conditions. A Sadrist spokesman,
Jalil Nouri, told Associated Press: “If they had not lifted the
siege, our strike would have spread to the rest of Baghdad tomorrow
and the whole of Iraq the next day.”
Maliki’s actions have
fuelled the debate in Washington over the future of his government.
There is a growing consensus in the Bush administration, the media and
among Republicans and Democrats that the Shiite-dominated government
is not a viable means for realising US ambitions in Iraq. All the empty
talk about “democracy” in Iraq has been shelved amid intense
frustration at Maliki’s failure to follow US dictates for reconciliation
with the Sunni elites and a crack down on Shiite militias.
Leading Democrat Senator
Hillary Clinton denounced the Maliki government in a speech to the Council
on Foreign Relations on Tuesday for failing to create the conditions
for a political settlement. “American credibility is held hostage
by an Iraqi government that will not fulfil its pledge to seek a political
resolution of the rights and roles of the Sunni minority and to determine
how oil revenue is allocated,” she said.
There is a growing recognition
in Washington that the Iraqi government is incapable of implementing
the type of “political settlement” being proposed by the
US. To reach a “reconciliation” with the “Sunni minority”
means handing back to the former Baathist elites at least some of the
power they enjoyed under the regime of Saddam Hussein. Above all, it
means reversing plans for significant regional autonomy to the Kurdish
north and Shiite south, including control over the huge oil reserves
in those areas.
For the Shiite parties, these
plans are anathema. Even if the Shiite leaders reached a power-sharing
accommodation with their Sunni counterparts to end the insurgency, there
is no guarantee that masses of ordinary working people would accept
such a deal. The reinstallation of Baathist generals, police and bureaucrats
into positions of power to suppress opposition to the US occupation
would inevitably generate widespread anger and hostility. That is why
calls for “reconciliation” go hand in hand with US demands
for a bloody settling of accounts with the Mahdi Army and its working
class base in Sadr City.
The Maliki government also
creates difficulties for Washington’s broader plans in the Middle
East. All the ruling Shiite parties have close connections to Iran,
which is the target of US plans for “regime change”. Any
US aggression against Tehran would provoke opposition among the Shiite
masses in Iraq, leading to further instability and confrontations with
the US-led occupation. Former US secretary of state James Baker, who
heads the top-level Iraqi Study Group examining options in Iraq, has
proposed enlisting Iranian support for a settlement in Iraq. But there
is no guarantee that the Bush administration could or would attempt
such a deal.
Clinton’s comments
reflect bipartisan agreement that the regime in Baghdad has to go. As
she told the Council of Foreign Affairs: “In political terms,
we have finally reached the point of complete absurdity. The [US] administration
announces that it will propose timetables or benchmarks, and the Iraqi
prime minister denounces them.” This statement amounts to a pledge
in advance of Democrat support for any move to oust Maliki.
It would not be the first
time that US imperialism has removed one of its own puppets. Yesterday
marked the 43rd anniversary of the US-backed coup against South Vietnamese
President Ngo Dinh Diem. While completely loyal to Washington, Diem’s
autocratic methods had provoked popular opposition and undermined US
efforts to strengthen the South Vietnamese army in the civil war against
the National Liberation Front.
On November 1, 1963, rebel
army units marched on the presidential palace in Saigon. Diem, who escaped,
rang the US ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, and was reassured that the
US had no hand in the coup. A few hours later, Diem surrendered, only
to be shot dead along with his notorious brother Ngo Dinh Nhu and replaced
by a junta.
Now there is an increasingly
open discussion in US ruling circles of the type of regime required
in Baghdad. Dispensing with the nominally elected Maliki government
and a turn to sections of the Baathist elite can only mean one thing:
the establishment of a US-backed junta resting on the security forces
and state bureaucracy. Such a formation would not be dissimilar from
the Hussein dictatorship, from which the US claimed to be “liberating”
the Iraqi people.
Considering US options in
Iraq, Eliot Cohen wrote in the Wall Street Journal on October 20 that
the “most plausible” was “a coup which we quietly
endorse”. Cohen is associated with the American Enterprise Institute,
the right-wing thinktank that promoted the invasion of Iraq as the first
step to “democracy” throughout the Middle East. He has now
concluded that “a junta of military modernisers might be the only
hope of a country whose democratic culture is weak, whose politicians
are either corrupt or incapable”.
Despite Bush’s reassurances
of support to Maliki, the open breach between the US administration
and the Iraqi government has been evident for weeks. In the midst of
this standoff, US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley arrived unannounced
in Baghdad for discussions with Maliki. Hadley clearly delivered a message
to the prime minister that changes were required. But the choice of
the national security adviser as messenger raises questions about to
whom else he spoke and what plans were discussed.
In Baghdad, discussion of
“regime change” is even more open. The New York Times commented
in an article on Tuesday: “Iraqi newspapers have adopted the theme
of a government change, speculating on the possible composition of a
‘national salvation government’, backed by the United States,
that would wrest power from the Shiite alliance that chose Mr Maliki
for prime minister. Iraqi officials have said that Mr Maliki has been
deeply shaken by rumours that he might be forced from office by year’s
end.”
The corollary of any coup
against Maliki would be a bloody crackdown against anti-US opposition,
particularly the Shiite masses of Sadr City.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights