Keeping Iraq in flames (22 October 2004)

Published in Labour Left Briefing (November 2004)

Glen Rangwala explains how the Black Watch is being sent to act as lookout guards whilst the US prepares for crimes in Falluja.

On 14th October - in the middle of the three day period between George Casey, commander of US forces in Iraq, asking his British counterpart Bill Rollo to deploy a battle group to cover for the departing American forces close to Baghdad, and the Ministry of Defence confirming to journalists that it had drawn up contingency plans for this purpose - US forces cut off all water and electricity to the city of Falluja. The US had used this tactic at the start of its assaults over recent months on Najaf, Tal Afar and Samarra, causing grave suffering to their civilian populations. As the US became confident that the British would cover for them, it could gear up for a second full-blooded assault on Falluja.

Deliberately cutting off basic supplies to a civilian population is as abhorrent as it is illegal. The additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions specifically forbids a state to "render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population". It adds that the prohibition applies to "drinking water installations and supplies and irrigation works" - the very items now cut off by the US action - and that it applies "whatever the motive" may be in conducting the operation. The statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) classifies "depriving [civilians] of objects indispensable to their survival" as a war crime. Handily for George Bush, the US is a party to neither the additional protocol nor the ICC. But the UK is party to both of them, so it recognises that actions such as those taken by US forces to be a violation of international humanitarian law. In effect, the Black Watch is being sent to act as the lookout guards whilst the US forces commit their crimes in Falluja.

The Prime Minister is once again providing the only serious international backing for George Bush's strategy in Iraq: the "blood price" for the alliance, as he once called it, without mentioning that the blood would be overwhelmingly that of Iraqi civilians and now probably that of Scottish soldiers. On the same day that the British Ministry of Defence crossed its Rubicon, with a negative answer inconceivable from that point onwards, the prime minister of Poland - second only to Britain in providing Bush with allied troops in Iraq – told his parliament he would start pulling his country's troops out within three months. The Polish deployment has been deeply disliked in that country, and unlike in Britain, the government finally responded to popular sentiment. Prime Minister Belka's announcement would have significantly damaged President Bush's claims to be leading a "Coalition", if the British government hadn't chipped in on that day to help. Blair may be standing firmly by Bush, but that stand enables the US to pursue its strategy of massive escalation inside Iraq.

From the official perspective, the daily bombings and impending assault on Falluja are part of the preparations for the elections in January. The argument for this has been that since Falluja is not currently under the control of the unelected Iraqi government, it could not take part in the elections until the alliance of militias currently in control of it is subdued first. This argument is wholly implausible. US forces don't need to be able to roam Falluja's streets for credible elections to occur. There is no reason why elections couldn't have taken place even if the militias were still in charge of the city: Falluja's leaders have sent negotiators to coordinate the continuing provision of food rations to the city's population and to try to defuse the crisis. The US may have been able to negotiate a deal that would allow voting to occur there under mutually agreed forms of supervision. Instead of striking a bargain, US troops arrested Khaled al-Jumaili, the chief negotiator from Falluja, on 15th October. Two days before his arrest, Jumaili told the press that he reached a number of agreements with the Iraqi government, including that a unit under the Iraqi government's control could take on the primary security role in Falluja. As in the run up to the war, the US government appears unwilling to take "yes" for an answer.

The effect of US military action will be that no slate opposed to the presence of US troops in Iraq can be organised in time for the January elections. Across the cities and towns of western Iraq, disgust for the actions of US troops will lead to a largescale boycott. Many will ally themselves with militia groups in the continuing military conflict and will be forbidden to stand as candidates in the elections. Even those who do participate from the regions under siege will be unable to travel around those regions to win support. As a result, the same illegitimate groupings that currently serve US interests in Iraq will be returned to power. And the conflict and the immense suffering, tragically, will continue.

Author: Glen Rangwala

Back to the Index of Writings
To contact, email from here