The Bill for Bush’s Wars is Coming Due But Prospects Continue for More U.S. Adventures

by Gerry Foley / November 2008

The Obama administration is going to have to face the truth about Iraq. Both of the major candidates for president, in different ways, claimed that the resistance had been defeated. In fact, although armed attacks on the U.S. Army and its Iraqi client forces have diminished perceptibly, they continue to exact a high cost. Nor has the United States achieved any of its basic objectives in Iraq.

The armed resistance has faltered essentially because of its internal contradictions, its sectarian divisions, the irrationalism and ruthlessness of al-Qaeda, and the political ambitions of some of the leaders. But the fundamental political impasse of the U.S. occupation is becoming more and more difficult to ignore.

In fact, even if the U.S. had won a military victory, that would not mean that it had achieved its objective of imposing its will on Iraq. In virtually every colonial war since World War II, the colonial power has demonstrated its military superiority only to be forced to withdraw subsequently because it could not afford economically to maintain its occupation of the country it tried to dominate.

The U.S. also cannot continue to afford to spend $10 billion a month to sustain its occupation of Iraq. And despite Barack Obama''s hopeful references to all the money in the pockets of the Iraqi government, it is not going to fund the U.S. occupation of its country either or repay any of its costs.

Moreover, in its twilight hours, the Bush administration was expanding its wars in the Middle East, and Obama, ostensibly the more dovish of the candidates, has been trying to straddle the fence of jingoism by promising to move toward withdrawal from Iraq while pointing toward an expansion of the Afghanistan war into Pakistan, a country far larger than Iraq.

A columnist for the Philadelphia Daily News, whose column was reprinted in the Nov. 3 Miami Herald, warned that the U.S. public has been distracted from the threat of expanding war by the hubbub of the campaign over domestic policies: "While we were out, U.S. missiles and drone planes launched attacks across the Afghanistan border into Pakistan. On Oct. 26, U.S. helicopters landed in Syria and fired on what may or may not have been a military target, killing eight people, including what may or may not have been enemy combatants.

"In other words, the Bush administration seems to be backing out of the White House with its guns blazing, and neither of the men who will inherit this apparently escalating war has said a word."

The U.S. political defeat in Iraq is highlighted by the reluctance of its local clients to accept a security treaty that would open the way for the U.S. military to dominate the country for an indefinite period.

The Washington Post of Oct. 30 reported: "A senior Iraqi political leader [Massoud Barzani, chief of the Kurdistan regional government] said yesterday he is 'doubtful' that a bilateral agreement authorizing U.S. forces to remain in Iraq after the end of the year would be approved by the Iraqi cabinet and parliament." Symptomatically, Barzani said that the Iraqi politicians really wanted to the U.S. forces to remain but were afraid to say so because they feared a popular revolt against them.

The fact is that the Iraqi politicians currently in office have been shored up by U.S. power, and they do not know what will happen when it is removed. But at the same time, they know that the occupation is hated, and they do not dare to appear to be supporting its continuation. That is the index of the U.S. political defeat.

The Oct. 30 Washington Post article went on to note: "The Iraqis have made several key demands, including granting Iraq more legal authority over U.S. troops accused of crimes; hardening a tentative 2011 departure date for American troops; and allowing Iraqi inspection of U.S. military shipments. After a controversial raid by U.S. forces into Syrian territory last weekend, the Iraqis also want an explicit ban on the United States staging attacks from Iraq into neighboring countries."

(An Oct. 29 AP dispatch reported that Iraqi politicians are demanding the right to unilaterally revoke the security treaty if the U.S. launches an attack on any neighboring country from Iraqi territory.)

The Washington Post article pointed out: "The Bush administration has repeatedly said that the current draft of the agreement is the furthest that the United States is willing to go. 'The bar to any revisions is very high,' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

"Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said the administration would listen to the Iraqi concerns but is reluctant to reopen negotiations. Instead, he said, the goal is to finalize the agreement before the end of the year.

"'Otherwise, our guys are sitting there illegally,' Morrell said. 'The risk you run then is that the gains that have been made at great costs … will start to unravel.'"

And what will happen if the "gains start to unravel"? Administration spokespersons are saying that opposition to the security treaty is being fueled by Iranian government influence. That is probably exaggerated and self-serving. But it does point to another political defeat of U.S. imperialism.

U.S. policymakers say that their greatest enemy in the Middle East is Iran. That is undoubtedly true. But the influence of the Iranian rulers on the dominant Shiite politicians in Iraq is obvious, and the U.S. has been unable to stop a steady rapprochement between the Iraqi Shiite government and Iran.

The essential ally of the U.S. occupation, the right-wing Shiite cleric Ali al-Sistani, has announced that he is determined that any treaty must recognize Iraqi sovereignty. If he opposes the security treaty, the overwhelming bulk of the Shiite politicians will have no choice but to come out against it.

The radical Shiite leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, has already organized huge demonstrations against any deal that would allow the U.S. to maintain its dominance of the country. In fact, a major factor in the decline in armed attacks on U.S. forces has been al-Sadr's decision to shift from armed opposition to political methods. What would happen if he were pushed back into active resistance?

The incoming U.S. administration is going to have to choose between accepting what is in fact a very costly political defeat or an even more costly escalation of imperialist adventures in the region. In any case, U.S. imperialism will be significantly weakened. But it is hardly likely to go quietly.

In the context of the deepening world economic crisis, U.S. capitalism is going to have to fight harder to maintain its dominance, although it now may do so more deviously. Whatever price U.S. capitalism is forced to pay, it will also exact a terrible cost from the American people and from its victims in other countries.

It is vital that American public opinion, which has been alerted by the exposure of the Bush administration's false claims about Iraq and the useless cost of the war made in their name, increase the pressure against the new crimes the new administration will inevitably commit.