FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Downward Spiral in Iraq

 

In recent weeks, the Pentagon has reiterated several times that it plans to reassign some 5000 to 10,000 US troops from their current combat roles in Iraq. According to their press releases, these troops will no longer be involved in combat but will be used instead to train Iraqi troops. What exactly does this mean? Will these US troops no longer be involved in fighting? Are they hanging up their weapons for power point presentations?

Not exactly.

In reality, this reassignment is little more than a change in terminology. You know, kind of like when your boss gives you a new title that doesn’t involve more money or more free time, just more work. In short, these troops will be killing and dying just like before, only now they’ll be doing it under the guise of instruction. The aim of this exercise is to create the pretense that Iraqis are taking over more of the combat in Iraq, thereby allowing the war makers in DC greater leeway in terms of withdrawal and redeployment.

For the Pentagon and other war makers, the ideal situation in Iraq would be this: the training of Iraqi troops will create a situation in the not too distant future whereby Iraqis can take over the most deadly missions, with US troops providing air and ground cover. Under this scenario, it will be the Iraqis taking most of the bullets, although if Vietnam is any indication, there will still be a lot of US casualties, since US troops will still be involved in combat. In the less than ideal scenario, these US advisors will be advising in name only and will in actuality still be doing most of the fighting. Obviously, which scenario plays out depends a lot on how representative the US-installed government is considered to be by the Iraqi people.

Once again, if Vietnam is any indication-and it seems to be in terms of the broader strategy being employed by the US-the Iraqi government will not be able to address the hopes and concerns of the Iraqis because of its reliance on Washington and the insurgency will become broader and even more deadly. Then, the only role that the advisors will have will be to protect their own and consequently involve themselves in the day-to-day combat in the country.

In his 2005 State of the Union address, George Bush hinted at a US exit strategy from Iraq. It’s not like he said that US troops would be back home by June or even December of this year. He did, however, seem to express the hope that the so-called elections of January 30, 2005 would somehow translate into some kind of honorable way to extricate most US troops from that country. Meanwhile, from the other side of his mouth, Mr. Bush restated that US troops would not be tied to a timetable, even if asked to provide one by the new political leaders in Baghdad. In fact, the only way the US will remove its troops from Iraq is if the people of the United States insist on it to such an extent that the people in Congress have no choice but to respond to our demands.

Right now, with many US residents fooled by the mainstream media’s presentation of the Iraqi election as being fair and representative, the war party has some time to figure out what to do next. One assumes that Bush and his Congress hope that the boasts of their man Allawi regarding the defeat of the insurgency pan out. If they did, then the US military could pull back to its system of bases in Iraq and wait for their next orders to attack. Somehow, I don’t think this is likely to happen. If previous patterns of the insurgents are any indication (and I admit one can’t honestly tell from where I sit), they are not going away and will probably begin their battle sooner rather than later.

Additionally, if the patterns of the US occupation continue, the new National Assembly will soon realize how little power it actually has, especially if it tries to establish its legitimacy outside of the parameters set by the occupation authorities. This realization will cause some of its members to throw their lot in with the occupiers. It will cause others-in fact, probably most of its members-to reject the occupation to varying degrees.

As for the general population, if they perceive that their votes were a waste of their time and energy because their electricity still doesn’t work and US troops are still breaking into their houses and arresting and killing their menfolk and whoever else gets in their way, one can expect a general radicalization. Popular demonstrations against the occupation will increase in size and frequency and the armed insurgency will grow. This time around it wouldn’t be limited to one particular segment of the populace like it seems to be today (albeit a substantial segment).

Military advisors won’t be able to step away from the combat very much should this happen. Instead, they will find themselves trying to motivate the Iraqi forces under their command and, at the least, keep those troops from either quitting or joining the other side. Should Iraq spiral downward into civil war, US advisers won’t be doing much advising either. They’ll be too busy fighting.

Whether the lines divide along religious and ethnic differences or solely around the question of those who support the US-installed regime and those who don’t, any outbreak of civil war will be violent and bloody. Since Washington has so much invested in the country and their military operations there already, the world can be pretty certain that an Iraqi civil war would mean greater US involvement, not less. After all, that oil and all it portends is still there and Washington has no intention of letting anybody have it unless they give them the go-ahead.

RON JACOBS is author of The Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground, which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs’ essay on Big Bill Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch’s new collection on music, art and sex, Serpents in the Garden. He can be reached at: rjacobs@zoo.uvm.edu

More articles by:

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem.  He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will Their Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
Louis Proyect
Moore’s “Fahrenheit 11/9”: Entertaining Film, Crappy Politics
Ramzy Baroud
Why Israel Demolishes: Khan Al-Ahmar as Representation of Greater Genocide
Ben Dangl
The Zapatistas’ Dignified Rage: Revolutionary Theories and Anticapitalist Dreams of Subcommandante Marcos
Ron Jacobs
Faith, Madness, or Death
Bill Glahn
Crime Comes Knocking
Terry Heaton
Pat Robertson’s Hurricane “Miracle”
Dave Lindorff
In Montgomery County PA, It’s Often a Jury of White People
Louis Yako
From Citizens to Customers: the Corporate Customer Service Culture in America 
William Boardman
The Shame of Dianne Feinstein, the Courage of Christine Blasey Ford 
Ernie Niemi
Logging and Climate Change: Oregon is Appalachia and Timber is Our Coal
Jessicah Pierre
Nike Says “Believe in Something,” But Can It Sacrifice Something, Too?
Paul Fitzgerald - Elizabeth Gould
Weaponized Dreams? The Curious Case of Robert Moss
Olivia Alperstein
An Environmental 9/11: the EPA’s Gutting of Methane Regulations
Ted Rall
Why Christine Ford vs. Brett Kavanaugh is a Train Wreck You Can’t Look Away From
Lauren Regan
The Day the Valves Turned: Defending the Pipeline Protesters
Ralph Nader
Questions, Questions Where are the Answers?
Binoy Kampmark
Deplatforming Germaine Greer
Raouf Halaby
It Should Not Be A He Said She Said Verdict
Robert Koehler
The Accusation That Wouldn’t Go Away
Jim Hightower
Amazon is Making Workers Tweet About How Great It is to Work There
Robby Sherwin
Rabbi, Rabbi, Where For Art Thou Rabbi?
Vern Loomis
Has Something Evil This Way Come?
Steve Baggarly
Disarm Trident Walk Ends in Georgia
Graham Peebles
Priorities of the Time: Peace
Michael Doliner
The Department of Demonization
David Yearsley
Bollocks to Brexit: the Plumber Sings
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail