After the carnage, the US backs down; Irish anti-war activists must oppose this onslaught now

national | anti-war / imperialism | news report Saturday April 10, 2004 00:55 by Dominic Carroll - Clonakilty Against the War / Cork Anti-War Campaign

The decision of the US military to “suspend” its offensive operation in Fallujah (and possibly elsewhere) constitutes a serious setback for the occupier of Iraq (a military figure in Iraq, Colonel John Colman, has conceded that the US won’t regain Fallujah “any time soon”).

The ostensible reasons for the “unilateral ceasefire” is to allow civilians to leave their homes and, more importantly from the US point of view, to create an opportunity for a “political” resolution of the problem. But what exactly was the problem, and how can the US countenance a “political” solution? Didn’t the US attack Fallujah in order to flush out and kill the “insurgents” following the killing of the four US security guards, and to “pacify” the population? On the face of it, then, there would appear to be no solution acceptable to the US other than the elimination or surrender of the “insurgents” and evidence that the population is suitably chastised. If this is an accurate assessment, the unilateral ceasefire amounts to at least a climbdown and possibly a defeat, though it’s still too soon to be certain.

So why has the US developed cold feet in Fallujah? It would seem that the following factors may account for the latest development:
• The US expected a quick victory and this is patently not materialising. The credibility of the occupier as a military monolith is now in doubt in Iraq, in the US and across the world (North Korea, Syria and Iran are watching closely). Just as importantly in this election year, Bush’s credibility as a “war president” is also on the line.
• The US could sustain its offensive – it clearly doesn’t lack firepower – but the rising death toll on both sides has become problematic. Between forty and fifty-five US soldiers/marines have been killed since the offensive began (both in Fallujah and elsewhere, bringing the total of US military personnel killed in combat or during attacks since the so-called “end of hostilities” last year to 455, with 18,000 “medically evacuated”), and won’t stop at that. The death toll among Iraqis in this week-long offensive is now put at 750 (450 in Fallujah, 300 in Ramadi: Iraqi Body Count) and obviously set to rise way beyond this number. This isn’t a problem for the US but is increasingly problematic for Western governments given that Western populations abhor this carnage. Perhaps more importantly, the US offensive in Iraq is outraging Arab and Muslim populations in the Middle East and elsewhere, who perceive the uprising in Iraq as an Intifada and have quickly drawn a parallel with the brutality of the Israelis against the Palestinians.
• The US is now engaged in street warfare in at least seven Iraqi cities/towns. It is clearly overstretched and deeply concerned that the resistance to its occupation will grow in tandem with the anger felt by Iraqis. Its “unilateral ceasefire” can be seen as an attempt to stop the spread of the resistance, especially now that the resistance is showing signs that it may overcome various religious/ethnic divisions in order to become more effective. In Baghdad today, it’s reported that Sunni and Shia Muslims prayed together in Baghdad’s main mosque for the first time.
• If the uprising in Fallujah and elsewhere in Iraq is not quickly quelled – by force or persuasion – the US will need to bring in even more troops at a time when it is already inordinately dependent on National Guardsmen and relying on regular soldiers well past their rotation date. This will seriously affect Bush’s popularity among US voters in an election year.
• The increasing turmoil is weakening the so-called “Coalition” , with country after country losing the will to stay in Iraq.
• Even the puppet Iraqi Governing Council has qualms about the offensive: Reuters reports the following: “’We are seeing the liquidation of a whole city,” Governing Council member Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar told Al Jazeera television, saying he might resign to protest the treatment of Fallujah. A Shi’ite in the 25-member Council, Abdul Karim al-Mohammadawi, has already suspended his membership.’”
• The “handover of sovereignty” on June 30th will be even more seriously threatened if the US can’t bring stability to Iraq.

Time will tell what happens next, but prospects are grim. In the West, though, we need to do our part. Here in Ireland, now is the time to step up opposition to the occupation/war in Iraq, and to Ireland’s part in it. Bush will be here in three months’ time, and we will no doubt let him – and the world – know what we think of him. But that’s a long way off. Right now, all anti-war activists and organisations in Ireland should be finding ways of opposing the carnage in Iraq and Ireland’s complicity in this Bush’s horrendous adventure. For a start, a protest should be held outside the US embassy in Dublin as soon as is practicably possible. Other activity and actions are required, and I would hope that anti-war activists around Ireland take action now in solidarity with the Iraqi people bearing the brunt of this terrible onslaught and to affirm our total opposition to the occupation of Iraq.