|
Relations between US and Iraq government
at breaking point
2.11.2006
By James Cogan and Peter Symonds
|
|
|
|
November 2, 2006
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.
wsws org
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 