|
Bush calls for permanent US military occupation of Iraq
By Barry Grey
09/14/07 "WSW" --- President Bush’s nationally televised speech,
delivered Thursday evening from the Oval Office, was the low
point of a week of lies and absurdities designed to justify the
United States’ bloody colonial war in Iraq. The ugly farce began
with the congressional testimony Monday and Tuesday of Gen.
David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and US Ambassador
Ryan Crocker.
Bush cited their fraudulent assessment of the “success” of the
military “surge” to outline a perspective for continuing the
American occupation of Iraq and transforming the country into a
permanent American protectorate, whose vast oil resources will
be exploited by US oil companies, and whose territory will be
used as a staging ground for military attacks on Iran and a
strategic base for American domination of the Middle East.
Bush was, as usual, shameless in his piling up of lie upon lie,
beginning with his portrayal of a gradual reduction in the
30,000 additional combat troops sent to Iraq in the military
escalation he announced last January as a “new phase” in the war
that could see a significant decline in fighting and troop
levels. As is well known, the phasing out of the surge is
dictated by the lack of additional forces to replace troops
whose tours of duty will be coming to an end.
Once again, Bush portrayed the US occupation as a struggle for
“freedom” against “terrorists and extremists,” denying that the
real enemy of US imperialism is the broad mass of the Iraqi
people, who form the backbone of the popular resistance to the
hated American occupiers.
The surge, he said, was aimed at “securing the Iraqi population”
and bridging “sectarian divides.” In fact, recent studies have
shown that the number of Iraqis fleeing their homes has doubled
since the surge began, and the country has become far more
polarized along sectarian lines, with ethnic cleansing of
neighborhoods in Baghdad and elsewhere proceeding at an
accelerated pace.
Bush spoke of peace and security breaking out in regions, such
as Anbar and Diyala, which have been “cleared”—a euphemism for
bloody repression and military violence. He gave an absurd
picture of an almost idyllic Baghdad, with schools and markets
reopening and sectarian violence receding. In fact, large parts
of Baghdad have been turned into virtual concentration camps,
enclosed by high concrete walls, patrolled by US armored
vehicles, and kept under permanent curfew.
The so-called “security” of the Iraqi people has taken the form
of tens of thousands of additional people rousted from their
homes and thrown into prisons. So hellish is the situation that
a recent poll of Iraqis reported 79 percent favoring the
withdrawal of US troops and 59 percent supporting violent
attacks against them.
Bush again warned that the withdrawal of American troops would
result in a “humanitarian nightmare,” an apt description of the
social destruction and human horror that US is perpetrating
every day it remains in the country.
At times Bush’s pronouncements seemed delirious, as when he
thanked the “36 nations who have troops on the ground in Iraq.”
Perhaps the greatest absurdity is the claim, made by Petraeus
and Crocker and repeated by Bush, that Sunni Anbar province
proves the success of the surge and vindicates the US strategy
in Iraq. In fact, the US has achieved a fragile peace with Sunni
sheiks in the province by bribing them with tens of millions of
dollars in “reconstruction” funds.
If anything, the turn to an alliance with Sunni forces is more a
sign of desperation and perplexity than of strategic foresight.
Less than a year ago, US strategy in Iraq was based on an
alliance with Shia sectarian forces, who continue to dominate
the puppet government in Baghdad. When that policy collapsed,
the US turned to its opposite, laying the basis for a further
division of the country along sectarian lines and an
intensification of civil warfare.
Just how stable the US position in Anbar really is was
demonstrated by the assassination only hours before Bush’s
speech of the Sunni sheik who had led the tribal leaders aligned
with the US, and with whom Bush had met ten days previously.
The heart of Bush’s speech was an allusion to the perspective of
permanent US military and political control over Iraq. Iraqi
leaders, Bush said, “understand that their success will require
US political, economic and security engagement that extends
beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have asked for an
enduring relationship with America.”
The speech was punctuated by threats against Iran, pointing to
the growing danger that the war cabal in Washington will expand
the conflict, with incalculable and tragic consequences. Bush
spoke of “Iranian-backed militants” and “the destructive
ambitions of Iran,” and declared that the “efforts by Iran and
Syria to undermine [the Iraqi] government must end.”
The fact that Bush feels himself in a position to even make such
a speech is due, above all, to the cowardice and complicity of
the Democratic Party. Ten months after congressional elections
in which the electorate voted against the Bush administration
and the war and brought the Democratic Party into power in both
houses of Congress, troop levels are substantially higher and
all talk within the political establishment of an early end to
the war has virtually ceased.
In his speech, Bush made a calculated appeal to the Democrats,
knowing that their opposition to the war is fraudulent and that
sections of the congressional Democrats are looking for a way to
back the administration. Addressing “members of the United
States Congress,” he said, “Let us come together on a policy of
strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing crucial
funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join me
in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and
the troop levels he has asked for.”
In the Democratic response, Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed
failed to even mention the November 2006 elections. He spoke of
“redefining” and “changing” the US mission in Iraq, not ending
it. This is in line with the decision of the Democratic
congressional leadership to drop any demand for deadlines or
timetables for withdrawing troops.
As one CNN commentator aptly noted, the actual difference
between the Bush administration and the Democrats comes down to
whether troop levels by the end of the current administration
should be 130,000 or 100,000.
The Democratic Party, which provided Bush with the votes he
needed for congressional authorization of the war, has supported
every request for war funding, and is preparing to support
another $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The
Democrats have worked deliberately and systematically since
gaining control of Congress to divert, contain and exhaust
popular opposition to the war.
On the eve of Bush’s speech, the Democratic-controlled Senate
Appropriations Committee approved a $459.6 billion Pentagon
funding bill, including a $40 billion increase in military
programs. Combined with the $190 billion in supplemental war
funds, the total military budget for the new fiscal year will be
$650 billion—an 11 percent increase over current levels and, in
real terms, far higher than total defense spending at the height
of the Vietnam War.
Copyright 1998-2007 - World Socialist Web Site
Click
on "comments" below to
read or post comments
Comment
Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We
encourage engaging, diverse and
meaningful commentary. Do not
include personal information such
as names, addresses, phone
numbers and emails. Comments
falling outside our guidelines
– those including personal
attacks and profanity – are
not permitted.
See our complete
Comment
Policy and
use
this link to notify us if you
have concerns about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and
remove any inappropriate
postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
