Bush’s Desperate Gambit: Lofty Words, Continuing War and Occupation

Mark Solomon

Plummeting polls reveal that nearly two-thirds of the
public now believe that the US is in an Iraq quagmire.
Bush’s job rating has dropped to new lows; a tenacious
Iraqi resistance is growing; the Abu Ghraib prison
scandal has obliterated Bush’s last ditch rationale
(bringing human rights to Iraq) for going to war; a
movement to bring regime change at home in November is
gaining momentum.

In the face of all that, Bush and his advisors have
"rediscovered" the UN and have launched a public
relations campaign to stem the rapidly growing public
disquiet over an increasingly bloody and expensive war.

But the Bush group has again failed to offer an "exit
strategy" despite demands for a clear way out. Indeed,
it never had one because it never intended to leave
Iraq. Its central goal has been, and remains, to
establish up to fourteen permanent military bases in
that country, and to control its political and economic
development as a fulcrum for a US-Israeli alliance to
command the resources and the political direction of
the entire region.

Bush’s Latest Gambit

In his address last night before a ramrod military
audience, Bush laid out five steps which he claimed
added up to a clear and decisive strategy to bring
democracy and stability to Iraq and to ultimately end
the occupation.

Each of the five steps is fraudulent - promising a new
course, but delivering more of the same and in key
areas escalating the occupation, thus inviting more
carnage.

1) A "sovereign interim government" has been promised,
replete with a president, vice presidents and 26
ministers. This interim formation will be selected by
one person - UN official Lakhdar Brahami. Without
authenticity and moral authority derived from a
democratic election, this interim regime (whose
proposed members have yet to be revealed) will have no
more legitimacy than the present interim government.
Further, a resolution to be presented to the UN
security council (see below) detailing the
responsibilities and limits placed upon this group
reveals that in the most crucial areas it will be
severely constrained by US occupiers.

2) Bush for the first time announced that he would
increase, not decrease, US military forces in Iraq if
requested by his generals. He also promised an
expansion of "security areas" - most likely more
heavily fortified "green zones" secured by increased
military forces where military officers, civilian
intelligence personnel, and a few Iraqi acolytes are
shielded from the Iraqi population.

3) Bush made a plea for more international support,
including military forces and funds. But he offered
nothing tangible in terms of a measured and
unassailable plan to restore sovereignty to Iraq. On
the contrary, it can be anticipated that other
countries will be joining Spain in removing their
forces from that country.

4) Bush called for acceleration of the reconstruction
of Iraq. But predictably, nothing was said about
foreign capital grabbing Iraqi firms, or profiteering
by Halliburton and other Bush allies, or foisting
neoliberal "free markets" on Iraq’s fragile economy.

5) Bush promised national elections by "early 2005."
But the parameters of such an election will be set by
an appointed interim government with only a shadow of
sovereignty. Even if such an election came to pass, it
would take place under foreign occupation - with the
occupiers exercising financial and military muscle to
influence the outcome.

In addition to those stated objectives, Bush announced
that the horrific Abu Ghraib prison will be demolished
– after a new prison is built. The symbol of
humiliation and brutality may be destroyed, but not a
word was uttered about responsibility at the highest
levels for the crimes committed at Abu Ghraib and
elsewhere from Afghanistan to Guantanamo.

The Draft UN Resolution

Consistent with the points noted above in regard to
Bush’s speech:

1) The resolution affirms the presence of US-led forces
and sets no date for those forces to leave Iraq.

2) While the resolution promises "sovereignty" to the
new interim government, a Reuters dispatch yesterday
noted "the definition of ‘sovereignty’ is a contentious
issue." With no timetable for the withdrawal of US-led
forces, the resolution says that the new Iraqi
government can request a review of the disposition of
those forces after a year. But the review would take
place within the context of "an open-ended" mandate
whereby the Security Council with a US veto would be
the final authority on the removal of occupying forces.

3) The resolution contains no "opt out" clause that
would allow Iraqi forces to decline command by the US
military. Further, other foreign forces would remain
under US command.

4) The resolution permits "criminal immunity" whereby
US forces are immune from prosecution for war crimes
under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal
Court.

5) The draft resolution claims that Iraq would control
its oil revenues. But an "international advisory board"
dominated by Washington would remain in place. This
board audits accounts and assures investors that "their
money was being spent free of corruption."

6) At this point, the resolution apparently does
nothing to impede the boards and commissions under US
direction which control the granting of contracts, the
licensing of TV stations, as well as the Development
Fund for Iraq, which is a special account for all
proceeds from Iraq’s oil and gas sales and is
controlled by the current Coalition Provisional
Authority.

Bush’s desperate gambit in one sense is an
acknowledgment of the nearly universal opposition to
this disastrous war. But its flourishes and gestures
add up to more war, more occupation and the expansion
of the relentless lightning rod for resistance - US -
led military forces.

An end to the occupation (Spain showed how that’s done)
will finally provide the space, the resources, and the
inspiration for the Iraqi people to win self-
determination and build a democratic society. That
requires a concrete timetable for the removal of
foreign military forces, the introduction of UN and
Arab League-led authentic peacekeepers, the return of
Iraq’s resources to its people, an internationally
administered fund for reconstruction, and unambiguously
free elections. That is the surest road to peace and
justice. It is also the very opposite of what Bush now
proposes.

[Mark Solomon is a National Co-Chair of the Committees
of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism]