| |
|
|
|
A war without end (17 June 2005)
Published in Labour Left Briefing (July 2005)
Glen Rangwala looks at how the US war in Iraq keeps creating more enemies.
In the six weeks since Iraq’s new government was
formed, its military forces under the direction of US ‘advisers’
have been engaged in the sort of brutal purges of internal dissidents
that would have brought international revulsion, condemnation and war
crimes accusations had they occurred during the last decade of the Saddam
regime. Life in Iraq now seems to be dominated by one military operation after another.
Each begins with the same tired mottos of rooting out the insurgency,
capturing yet another of the seemingly innumerable aides of Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi, and restoring governmental control over supposedly anarchic
areas. Each ends with a greater sense of hostility, an extensive trail
of destruction, and the areas at issue sliding quickly back into the hands
of insurgents.
Operation Lightning, which began in late May, saw 40,000
soldiers and militiamen storming through Baghdad’s districts
and maintaining a system of 675 urban checkpoints to close down the city’s
life for over two weeks. It was preceded by Operation Matador against
the town of al-Qa’im on the Syrian border, which US spokesmen
claimed killed at least 125 insurgents, although the status of those killed
has not been independently confirmed. Operation New Market was launched
later south of the same town. These were followed by a largescale assault
– Operation Advancing Warriors – on the northern towns of Mosul and Tal Afar.
The latter was subject to one of the bloodiest assaults of the occupation
in September 2004, when the population was driven
out after a prolonged siege that cut off electricity and water to its
inhabitants. The new authorities installed by the Americans collapsed
within months.
The most recent military expedition, Operation Spear,
involves US planes
dropping 500 lb bombs in Iraq’s
western province of al-Anbar, whilst Iraqi troops go from town to town
in an attempt to establish their control. They are following much the
same route that Operation River Blitz took in February. At that time,
they claimed they were “breaking the back” of the insurgency
once and for all. Four months later, after the US-installed governor was
kidnapped and killed, and as the towns were recaptured by insurgents,
the US-led forces were on the march once again.
Although many of the military assaults have Iraqi troops
– many of them in effect seconded from the militias of sectarian
political parties that were built up in exile – on the front line,
the US exert
full control over them. US trainers prepare and supply Iraqi battalions, and American advisers
in counterinsurgency accompany and often direct them in their military
operations. The CIA office in Iraq still
has direct control over the domestic intelligence service, and has not
even handed over its files to the new Iraqi government – despite
all the talk from US politicians about Iraq now
running itself. The planning, actions and tactics used by the Iraqi forces
remain firmly within US control, although their operations now rarely include American casualties.
What has changed, however, is the political impact of
the brutality used to crush the insurgency. When US troops practised torture in Abu Ghraib or mass murder
in Falluja, even US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had to battle to
save his job. Earlier this year, after
a detailed investigation, Human Rights Watch reported how Iraqi security
forces treated detainees: “routine beatings to the body using cables,
hosepipes and other implements; …. kicking, slapping and punching;
prolonged suspension from the wrists with the hands tied behind the back;
electric shocks to sensitive parts of the body, including the earlobes
and genitals; and being kept blindfolded and/or handcuffed continuously
for several days.” Even though these forces were under the de facto
command of Americans, the report sank without trace in the US. There are certainly political advantages to recruiting Iraqis to
torture on your behalf. A New York Times investigation in May showed
how US personnel in detention facilities would leave the room whilst prisoners
were beaten so that they could not be implicated in the practice; they
would return straight after.
The desire to take US personnel out of the front line
of military assaults has meant that building up the Iraqi army has become
the chief funding priority. The money apportioned to the rebuilding of
Iraq is
now being spent largely on building up Iraq’s
military. An official at Iraq’s
public works ministry, responsible for water treatment works and electricity
supplies, told the BBC in April that 70% of the money originally allocated
to his ministry has now been diverted to military spending. “We are
crippled because we don't have enough funding,” he said. “Last
year we started 15 new water treatment plants all over Iraq. This
year we don't have the funds to build new ones.” Touted by Tony Blair
before the war as a state that would use its resources for the benefit
of its people, Iraq’s budget is instead dominated by military spending more than
ever before.
Some think that this emphasis on building a strong military
to take on the insurgency will bring peace to Iraq. They
should instead listen to Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, spokesman for
the US military
body tasked with training the Iraqi security forces. He told a US news
agency in June that, far from crushing the insurgency, the onslaughts
seem to be having the opposite effect, as those whose relatives have been
killed in the US-led attacks then join the fighters. The insurgency doesn’t
seem to be running out of new recruits, he claimed. “We can’t
kill them all,” Wellman said. “When I kill one I create three.”
|
|
|