Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
Keep CounterPunch ad free. Support our annual fund drive today!

Iraq Now



Great news!! The Iraqis will be running their own country by June 2004. Once again, the mission will be accomplished. It must be time to celebrate. George Bush can be elected president and continue his holy mission to make the world a safer place. Yay! As the saying goes, if you believe this, then there’s a bridge I know of that’s for sale.

This latest pronouncement from the Bush administration regarding the situation in Iraq is not only insulting to Americans, it illustrates to the world that the US continues to operate on the assumption that the Iraqi people are either stupid or naive. If the US policy isn’t based on this assumption, then why the hell does it continue to insult their intelligence? After all, even a cursory glance of history shows that the US is extremely unlikely (like it ain’t gonna’ happen) to allow a truly independent Iraq to exist any time soon. Those headlines about Iraqi transfer of power are just one more strand in the web of deception that Washington has spun to maintain its war over there.

Besides the fact that the so-called transfer is timed to occur during the stretch run in the US presidential race, there is other, more ominous fine print in administration statements regarding the change in faces scheduled to take place in Baghdad next summer. Foremost among that fine print is the insistence that the US military is not going anywhere. It is staying put. In fact, according to Bush and Rumsfeld, the troops could well be there for many more years, with their numbers increased. Even if the nominal command of those troops shifts to another body (say the UN or NATO), the fact remains that it is the US military that will be propping up the new Iraqi “government.”

If this is the case, then what would a transfer of power from the occupation authority to an Iraqi council really mean? One need only look to America’s other current war to get a glimpse at the answer to this question. You know-Afghanistan-where the women were freed from religious extremist persecution and everybody’s safe and living a nice comfortable life thanks to the bombardment of their country for a few weeks by the US Air Force. Afghanistan-where democracy flourishes and peace is prevalent, thanks to those wonderful folks in the US Special Forces. Yeh, Afghanistan-where the US soldiers are greeted with flowers and feasts and never have to use their weapons. Anyhow, you get my point: no matter what some Iraqis might hope, the “transfer of power” being promised to them by the United States is a sham. It will mean very little on the ground, except in that it could pave the way for a civil war as those who want the US out wage war against those who throw their lot in with the Americans.

Speaking of the latter, check out who is on record as looking forward to the transfer: Ahmed Chalabi and Jalal Talabani. Both of these men are beholden to the US and its military and intelligence agencies for their prominence in post-Saddam Iraq. Although they have differences with the US (mostly over who gets what portion of the monies involved in Iraq’s post-invasion reality), these men and the groups they represent owe their continued existence to CIA and Pentagon funds. Consequently, they see the metamorphosis from an overt occupation authority to a proxy US government with Iraqi faces to be to their benefit. This is because they stand a very good chance of being powerful figures in that puppet regime.

Let’s go back further though. Before Afghanistan to Vietnam. While not a model that Washington likes to point to, there are some parallels between that country’s history and the governing structure being proposed for Iraq. After taking over the war against the liberation forces from the French in the mid-1950s, the US set up a proxy regime in the southern half of Vietnam and created the country of South Vietnam. Populated largely by Catholics beholden to the imperial powers, the South Vietnamese government existed solely because it was propped up by American money and its military. Any elections that it won-elections that were vain attempts by the US to provide the regime some legitimacy in the world-were rigged by the CIA and its cohorts and made very little difference to the insurgency against it or the population that supported that insurgency. These insurgents were popular among the population and existed in true guerrilla fashion like “fish in the sea.”

In short, the scenario in South Vietnam looked like this: the US proxy regime in Saigon was composed of Vietnamese with financial, cultural and sociological ties to the west (France, then the United States). These individuals served at the whim of the leadership in DC, which is why the CIA allowed/assisted in the coup that killed South Vietnamese president Diem in 1963, when he refused to follow the US game plan for the region. In addition, the regime itself existed only because of the incredible amounts of money pumped into it by US taxpayers. As for the South Vietnamese military (ARVN), some of its members were anti-communist zealots committed to fighting the liberation forces and their communist supporters, but most of them were just men looking for a paycheck. Consequently, they left most of the fighting up to the Americans. In the end, it was the ARVN’s lack of will that contributed to the victory of the insurgency as much as the US withdrawal of its ground forces did. It can be reasonably argued that the Saigon government was doomed to failure from the start even if the US had done more than it did. Most of the southern Vietnamese people never saw it as their legitimate representative no matter who was at its head and it suffered from infiltration by the resistance throughout its tenure. The US, in its arrogance, truly believed that it could overcome not only the odds it faced from its puppet regime, but also generations of Vietnamese resistance to foreign invaders. Suffice it to say that Washington misjudged.

Let’s get back to Iraq in late 2003. The US occupation is (literally) under fire and risks losing its support even amongst those sectors of society that initially supported its presence. Simultaneously, the insurgent forces are becoming bolder and more deadly. In addition, their support amongst the civilian population continues to grow; especially now as US forces become more indiscriminate in their attacks and more civilians become casualties. Billions of US dollars are being spent to maintain the occupation and things just seem to get worse. So, what is Washington’s solution? Change the face of the occupation. Put Iraqis beholden to the US in positions of nominal power while retaining actual control of the regime. Hold elections where the results are ensured to maintain US control of the country and call the whole show a democracy. Create a national army made up of some fierce supporters of the US-built regime and thousands of Iraqis who just need a paycheck. Meanwhile, keep the US military in country and let them do the real fighting against the insurgency-an insurgency that functions like “fish in the sea.” Of course, the continued US military presence will be at the “invitation” of the new “Made in the USA” regime. Despite the fact that this regime would exist at the behest of the US, some of its members might actually start pushing for their independence from Washington. If this happens, they could meet the same fate as Mr. Diem did in November 1963. Eventually, if history is any indicator, there will be some level of civil conflict between those Iraqis who depend on the US for their survival and health, and those Iraqis who want the US in all its forms out of their country. Then, the US would find itself in a familiar role fighting indigenous peoples for control of their country by claiming that the US is supporting the genuine government.

What this means in human terms is simple: more death, more destruction, and more despair. What it means in political terms is harder to predict. If the US managed somehow to defeat the insurgency, it might give Washington a few years of unchallenged domination of the Middle East. If the US is defeated by the insurgency and withdraws from the region it might mean a whole new round of popular insurgency. Or, if those people in the US opposed to the US war on Iraq made it their goal, they could mount a popular movement against the worsening situation and force a US withdrawal, thereby allowing the Iraqis the chance to truly determine their own destiny.

RON JACOBS is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground.

He can be reached at:


Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at:

More articles by:

2016 Fund Drive
Smart. Fierce. Uncompromised. Support CounterPunch Now!

  • cp-store
  • donate paypal

CounterPunch Magazine


October 27, 2016
Matthew Stevenson
Sex and the Presidential City
Jim Kavanagh
Tom Hayden’s Haunting
CJ Hopkins
The Pathologization of Dissent
Mike Merryman-Lotze
The Inherent Violence of Israel’s Gaza Blockade
Robert Fisk
Is Yemen Too Much for the World to Take?
Shamus Cooke
Stopping Hillary’s Coming War on Syria
Jan Oberg
Security Politics and the Closing of the Open Society
Ramzy Baroud
The War on UNESCO: Al-Aqsa Mosque is Palestinian and East Jerusalem is Illegally Occupied
Colin Todhunter
Lower Yields and Agropoisons: What is the Point of GM Mustard in India?
Norman Pollack
The Election: Does It Matter Who Wins?
Nyla Ali Khan
The Political and Cultural Richness of Kashmiriyat
Barbara Nimri Aziz
“It’s Only a Car!”
October 26, 2016
John W. Whitehead
A Deep State of Mind: America’s Shadow Government and Its Silent Coup
Eric Draitser
Dear Liberals: Trump is Right
Anthony Tarrant
On the Unbearable Lightness of Whiteness
Mark Weisbrot
The Most Dangerous Place in the World: US Pours in Money, as Blood Flows in Honduras
Chris Welzenbach
The Establishment and the Chattering Hack: a Response to Nicholas Lemann
Luke O'Brien
The Churchill Thing: Some Big Words About Trump and Some Other Chap
Sabia Rigby
In the “Jungle:” Report from the Refugee Camp in Calais, France
Linn Washington Jr.
Pot Decriminalization Yields $9-million in Savings for Philadelphia
Pepe Escobar
“America has lost” in the Philippines
Pauline Murphy
Political Feminism: the Legacy of Victoria Woodhull
Lizzie Maldonado
The Burdens of World War III
David Swanson
Slavery Was Abolished
Thomas Mountain
Preventing Cultural Genocide with the Mother Tongue Policy in Eritrea
Colin Todhunter
Agrochemicals And The Cesspool Of Corruption: Dr. Mason Writes To The US EPA
October 25, 2016
David Swanson
Halloween Is Coming, Vladimir Putin Isn’t
Hiroyuki Hamada
Fear Laundering: an Elaborate Psychological Diversion and Bid for Power
Priti Gulati Cox
President Obama: Before the Empire Falls, Free Leonard Peltier and Mumia Abu-Jamal
Kathy Deacon
Plus ça Change: Regime Change 1917-1920
Robin Goodman
Appetite for Destruction: America’s War Against Itself
Richard Moser
On Power, Privilege, and Passage: a Letter to My Nephew
Rev. William Alberts
The Epicenter of the Moral Universe is Our Common Humanity, Not Religion
Dan Bacher
Inspector General says Reclamation Wasted $32.2 Million on Klamath irrigators
David Mattson
A Recipe for Killing: the “Trust Us” Argument of State Grizzly Bear Managers
Derek Royden
The Tragedy in Yemen
Ralph Nader
Breaking Through Power: It’s Easier Than We Think
Norman Pollack
Centrist Fascism: Lurching Forward
Guillermo R. Gil
Cell to Cell Communication: On How to Become Governor of Puerto Rico
Mateo Pimentel
You, Me, and the Trolley Make Three
Cathy Breen
“Today Is One of the Heaviest Days of My Life”
October 24, 2016
John Steppling
The Unwoke: Sleepwalking into the Nightmare
Oscar Ortega
Clinton’s Troubling Silence on the Dakota Access Pipeline
Patrick Cockburn
Aleppo vs. Mosul: Media Biases
John Grant
Humanizing Our Militarized Border