© 2008 Eric Margolis

Archives > August 02, 2005

IS THERE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE IRAQI TUNNEL?

NEW YORK - The Bush Administration continues to talk tough about Iraq, but recent statements by senior officials are giving the impression that the White House may be considering – or at least giving the impression it is considering - phased troop withdrawals.

US commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, recently told reporters `fairly substantial’ US troops withdrawals could begin next spring.

Right on cue, Iraq’s US-installed interim prime minister, Ibrahim Jafari, said Iraqis had `a great desire’ to see US forces depart as soon as possible.

Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld popped up in Baghdad to urge squabbling Iraqi politicians to agree on a constitution that the US hopes will produce a viable national government. This might allow the US to withdraw some troops from Iraq, pleasing voters at home and lessening strains on seriously over-stretched US active and reserve forces.

The Bush Administration has read America’s political tea leaves: it sees mounting domestic opposition to what is increasingly seen as a failed war. Republicans worry the debacle in Iraq and rising US casualties may hurt them severely in 2008 elections even though the true number of US casualties is being concealed from the public.

While the White House floats trial balloons about troop reductions, the Pentagon continues developing its strategic plan for Iraq that calls for four major air bases from which US airmobile, rapid-reaction units and air power will permanently control Iraq and the entire oil-rich Mideast.

This US Iraq garrison would intervene only in the event of serious unrest in the region, including attempts to overthrow pro-US regimes. Imperial Britain followed the same strategy in Iraq.

Some 200,000 US-led Iraqi `sepoys(native troops)’ and police will keep order in urban areas, backed by a powerful secret police.

But this strategic plan depends on the Pentagon’s ability to field reliable Iraqi security forces to defend the US-guided regime, maintain internal order, and safeguard the pumping and export of oil. Otherwise, even a partial US withdrawal will be impossible.

Vice President Dick Cheney’s recent claims that Iraqi resistance forces were in their last throes are absurd, yet another alarming example of how dangerously detached from reality the administration’s strongman has become. Not content with creating the Iraq disaster, Cheney and his Israel-centric neocon allies are hard at work engineering an attack on Iran.

In fact, Iraqi resistance forces are growing in numbers and combat effectiveness.

We are watching the continuation of Saddam’s much-derided Mother of All Battles. When Saddam saw US invasion was inevitable, his Baath Party distributing huge quantities of arms and munitions, and created thousands of weapons caches around the country. Entire Republican Guard divisions and commando units were ordered to melt away before the US advance and begin guerilla war. That is why US forces rolled almost effortlessly into Baghdad and other major Iraqi cities.

Today, the resistance numbers some 30,000 full-time fighters and around 200,000 active members, not the 20,000 claimed by the White House, and has at least 3 million supporters. US forces in Iraq number around 135,000. 20th century colonial wars have shown an occupying power needs a 10:1 troop superiority to defeat insurgents. The US even lacks adequate guards to control the 15,000 Iraqi prisoners – don’t call them 1political prisoners ’ - it now holds.

Iraq’s former intelligence services have gone underground. They have totally infiltrated the US-led Iraqi regime and all its security forces. As in Vietnam, every US military operation is telegraphed well in advance to the resistance by its double agents serving Americans as translators, drivers, guides, coolies, and soldiers.

As anti-war sentiment grows in America, Iraqis serving the US occupation are hedging their bets by collaborating with the resistance – a pattern common to all recent colonial wars. Those Sunni Iraqis who collaborated with the foreign occupation will likely end up as refugees in the United States, just as happened to Meos from Indochina and harkis from French Algeria.

Iraqis don’t enlist in the inept, US-run army or police from patriotism. Iraq suffers 70% unemployment. They are mostly brutal, unreliable, combat-adverse mercenaries who serve to feed their families, not fight A recent leaked Pentagon report confirms this fact. Claims by the Pentagon it has over 70,000 Iraqis in combat units are nonsense. US military reports show only 1,700 combat effective. The rest are herded into battle by US officers.

The regime’s only effective Iraqi units are death squads composed of former Baath regime toughs, outcasts, and released criminals. These bands of thugs closely resemble the US-backed death squads this writer observed during the civil war in El Salvador.

Under present circumstances, US efforts to get Iraqis to fight and die to defend the US-run Baghdad regime will be even less successful than was `Vietnamization’ in the 1970’s. In Vietnam, a number of elite South Vietnamese divisions fought courageously and effectively to support the Saigon government.
No one in Iraq is fighting to defend the Iraqi regime. Shia and Kurdish militias guard their own fiefs, not Baghdad. That job is left to the Americans and at least 30,000 armed mercenaries called `private contractors’ deployed to Iraq by the US and Britain.


In fact, Iraqi regime forces appear to be falling apart faster than they can be mobilized. Deadly suicide attacks on their ranks are accelerating this process.

Iraqization shows no sign of working. This means US forces will have to remain indefinitely in Iraqi to prop up the isolated, embattled pro-American regime – just what’s happening in that other failed war, Afghanistan.

George Bush’s two wars now cost US $6.5-7 billion monthly – about the same cost as the Vietnam War. Growing numbers of Republican moderates want out of Iraq. But neoconservatives are determined to hold onto Iraq and the Mideast at all costs.

Few in Washington are ready yet to face the alternative to continued occupation: declare victory, retreat, and leave Iraq to its own devices.


Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2005

Posted by Eric Margolis on August 2, 2005 02:12 PM
Comments:

Eric scores another hit for truth. The resistance has the Amercians where they want them — on the ground in Iraq. Things will only get worse for the Americans and average Iraqi. Bush, the self-styled “War President”. Only he could take over the 2nd largest oil reserves in the mid-east and have the price of oil go up. or declare victory and then lose a war. He did, however, succeed in hood-winking a trusting and, let’s face it, largely uncaring population into an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. George has just about used up all the good karma is predessors stored.

Posted by ghawley at August 3, 2005 09:54 PM

Margolis is a sharp edged commentary on American’s in Iraq. Yankees (and Brits) in Iraq deserve derision because they came 10,000 miles around the earth to interfere in a very foreign soveriegn country. They did it because they wanted the oil contracts locked up lock term with a friendly, pro-american regime. As a pretext they propagated suggestive lies to me and you about terrorism links and uranium and nerve gas. Even though US/UK are family to Canada, the Republican Party Imperials lied to us all and subverted US democracy . Now US stormtroopers are raiding foreign living-rooms in the middle of the night. They reap what they’ ve sown.

Posted by Ron Burke at August 4, 2005 10:46 AM

I think it is overly optimistic to think that the US is considering pulling out of Iraq. Margolis knows as well as anyone how long the US has had military forces in Afghanistan, and we continue to be a major presence there. The same will be the case in Iraq. Military (read: occupational) forces will have a major presence in Iraq for the forseeable future, and then some.

Posted by KrumbledKookie at August 4, 2005 02:31 PM

Mr. Margolis has again hit the spot. He is correct when he says that in general, there is no rosy picture to the war of Iraq. However, I do have to somewhat disagree with him about the US having permanent bases in Iraq. You see, there is a man named Ayotollah al Sistani in Iraq. He is Iraq’s most revered cleric and Shittes around the world listen to every word he says. This cleric is not very fond of the United States (he has yet to meet a single US diplomat), he does not accept Israel (he calls Israel the 1967 fiend), and he has received much help from Iran and so therefore, he is very close to this anti-American nation. The point I am trying to stress is that the United States will not be able to have permanent military bases in Iraq because al Sistani will not allow it.

As for an American attack against Iran, that would be the last thing that the Americans would want to do. As of right now, Iran wants to see Iraq stabilized with a strict Shitte Islamic government. Iran has snuck in tens of thousands of agents to make sure that happens. And these same agents can turn Iraq into a living hell for American troops. On top of that, al Sistani will not be very pleased if there is an attack against Iran and he could very well order the Americans out of Iraq. And if the the Americans don’t leave, then the world will see the true meaning of “holy war.”

Posted by crazyinsane105 at August 8, 2005 10:15 PM

Canada is nearly finished its 12-year mission to Bosnia and is preparing for a similar 10- to 20-year reconstruction mission in Afghanistan that will be its largest ongoing mission with thousands of troops. It makes me laugh when I hear that people believe that the nearby US mission in Iraq will end soon. Without first preparing Iraq for their withdrawal in such a way as to permit self-determined constitutional government and personal security for at least most of the population and that same democratic government, it will be one more tragedy caused by the attention deficit disordered West. Tear apart a (admittedly brutal) government and think it can be replaced in 2 or 3 years with “freedom”? Ludicrous! … unless the point wasn’t really freedom and democracy … I guess we’ll see - I still hold onto my shred of faith.

Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at August 15, 2005 01:18 PM

Hey every1
How itz goin? seems rumpus and rear.well i just wanna say whatever is goin on in the mideast is for the sake of an illusion isreal real rampant regime.which has become fascit regime after including christian crusaders.Well christian clergy Pat Rat recently stated that we ought to be killed to Vee-Pee=Chavez;who has has a blatant batein (talks)against US.assas-him well not a bad idea one none can suppose from you besides ‘American Assasinations’
well why dont address your own country rulers like Elliott Abrams who took aggressive/atrocities against mainstream christian church cohorts and Human Rights ORGies.
like Amnesty International,which awarded Nobel Peace Price in 1977.but Mr.Elliott Enmity keep busy him to fulfil his New world order plan?’portions.well Clergy Pat Rat why dont you give ‘fatwa’ agaisnt these fascist folks.who have been an (acme 4u)ame-juju-jewish lawyer in US adopted by Bully Bush just cause to take care of New world order plan under the supervision of U.S-Backed regime/govt.whose aim/acme to merely suppress to arab-muslims in order to loot and plunder their rich-oil-fields.Is he your real rat from an illusion is-real?..””’

Posted by Salamscion at September 26, 2005 05:32 PM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?