Force imperialism out of Iraq
Ominously for imperialism, the uprising in Najaf shows no sign
of abating. Even more alarmingly for the occupation forces, there
are signs that the insurgency is spreading into the shia areas of
Baghdad, Basra and other southern Iraqi cities. The ‘coalition
of the willing’ is meeting the fierce resistance of those unwilling
to be ruled over by the imperialist metropoles and their local satraps.
Communists and democrats can only welcome this development.
Naturally, US imperialism was full of its usual arrogant bluster
when the Najaf insurgency erupted on August 5. The next day US military
forces said they were “on schedule” to “complete
victory”, claiming on August 6 that “300 of the enemy”
had been killed. In a similar vein, Iraqi interim government officials
said that the offensive against al-Sadr and his Mahdi army would
be pursued “to the final end” and that 1,000 Mahdi militiamen
had been “captured”. In what can only be a calculated
insult, al-Sadr’s Mahdi army was constantly described as “anti-Iraq
forces” by US military officers of the 11th Marine Expeditionary
Unit in a briefing to journalists on Friday night. The ‘pro-Iraq
forces’ of the US army would crush the ‘criminal’
insurgency in Najaf with ease - and anywhere else for that matter,
if need be.
|
Enjoy this article?
How about showing
us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a
substantial amount of money. Our only source for that financial
backing comes from people like you: readers and supporters of our
newspaper. You may not agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma,
but we know that 1000s of comrades appreciate our open, critical
and democratic press.
Click
here to find out how you can donate to the Summer Offensive
2004, our annual fundraising drive.
|
|
But, as we have witnessed, US might is not quite so mighty. Al-Sadr
has not budged from Najaf, despite being ‘ordered’ to
leave the city by the interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi (who,
it should be noted, courageously delivered his ultimatum by quickly
flying into Najaf under the protection of a full US military escort
- and then darting out again). Indeed, al-Sadr made a very public
show of defiance on August 8, by holding a press conference at the
Imam Ali shrine situated in the very heart of the old city. With
US marines barely a stone’s throw away, al-Sadr proclaimed:
“I am staying in Najaf and I will not leave. I am here as a
defender of Najaf. I will stay until the last drop of my blood is
spilled.” Hardly contrite. He went on to state: “I don’t
tell anyone to resist, but the Americans have created the resistance.
We don’t want anything more than independence, freedom and
democracy for our country.” Sadr also added that the numbers
of Mahdi fighters dead claimed by the US were “nothing but
lies” - only 36 of his militia had been killed.
There appears to be some veracity to Sadr’s words. Ghaith Abdul-Ahad,
a journalist for The Guardian, spent three days with the Mahdi army
in Najaf last week and said he saw only a dozen or so dead fighters.
Indeed, according to Abdul-Ahad, most of the casualties - whether
killed or injured - were civilian non-combatants who had been hit
by US mortar shells. No wonder the occupiers have since taken steps
to seal off Najaf and prevent any reporting of the truth. Interestingly,
Abdul-Ahad quotes a comment by Ahmad al-Shaibani, one of the militia’s
leading commanders: “We are more organised this time than we
were in May” (The Guardian August 9).
In some respects, the current onslaught by US forces against Najaf
is a ‘grudge match’. Al-Shaibani is referring, of course,
to the first major Mahdi/shia uprising against the imperialist occupation
which took place this year and marked a significant, and qualitative,
development in the nature of the anti-imperialist resistance - which
up until then had been mainly characterised by reactionary terrorist
atrocities with a distinctly sectarian-communalist streak. In late
March, however, we saw the US, with clumsy brutality, close down
al-Sadr’s newspaper, arrest his lieutenants and even openly
threaten to kill the troublesome cleric. Unsurprisingly, this marked
the point where the shia majority started to turn against the US
occupation forces - and this rebellion began to spread, even to
some sunni areas. Eventually a ceasefire was agreed, whereby Sadr
would order his militia to stop fighting and in turn the US military
would agree to keep out of an ‘exclusion zone’ in the
centre of Najaf.
Obviously, such a ‘dual power’ situation could not continue
for long - and US imperialism has decided that it has had enough
of al-Sadr and his forces. Frankly, we communists hope that US imperialism
gets a bloody hiding in Najaf - it has no right to be in that city
or indeed any other part of Iraq. We call for the immediate and
unconditional withdrawal of all imperialist forces from Iraq - preferably
clutching desperately to the skids of their helicopters.
Naturally, the actions in Najaf are not to be viewed in isolation.
The Iraqi government has stepped up the levels of repression - recently
announcing that the death penalty was to be re-introduced as part
of a raft of measures to “impose the rule of the law in Iraq”.
One of these other measures was the closing down, for a month, of
the Baghdad offices of the Arab TV news channel, al-Jazeera - whose
frank, and sometimes fearless, reporting of current events in Iraq
had long been a source of irritation, and anger, for the United
States. In the weasel words of Allawi, the decision to impose the
ban was taken “to protect the people of Iraq and the interests
of Iraq”.
This of course is an action resplendent with irony - as the free-thinking
al-Jazeera is the only TV news channel in the Arab world not subject
to strict state control and censorship. But, it seems, in order
to protect ‘democracy’ al-Jazeera had to be closed down
- thus amply demonstrating to the world the stunning hypocrisy of
the US’s global and never-ending ‘war on terrorism’.
Communists denounce the closing down of al-Jazeera and the re-introduction
of the death penalty in Iraq. We stand for free speech and the fullest
extension of democracy possible - whether that be in the UK or Iraq.
Crucially though, what do communists think of the likes of al-Sadr
and his Mahdi militia - do we support them or not?
From the perspective of the world revolution - which is always the
starting point of communists - it is clear that US imperialism is
the main enemy. Therefore it logically follows that we positively
call for the defeat of imperialism - which entails forcing the occupying
troops out of Iraq. It is surely nothing short of treachery to assign
any sort of ‘progressive’ or ‘democratic’ role
to imperialism in Iraq - or, for that matter, to any of its subcontractors
like the United Nations.
That is why we strongly disagree with the ‘even-handedness’
espoused by the comrades of the Worker-communist Party of Iraq,
who dismiss the Mahdi army as a “poorly organised gang”.
Indeed, the WCPI claims that the “vast majority of people see
this group as a criminal gang rather than a political group.”
As for the Alliance for Workers’ Liberty in Britain, it has
gone one step further: it actually veers towards the camp of imperialism.
Unfair? The AWL tells us: “The USA may be a greater evil in
the sense that it has such vast military power and potential to
intervene almost anywhere on the planet, supporting any kind of
hideous dictators that will accommodate their interests. But the
islamists are a greater evil in a different sense. For workers,
socialists and any oppositionists, every moment of public life is
potentially dangerous if they do not submit. For women every moment
of public and private life is potentially dangerous with the added
power of men in the family backed by sharia law.
“It is not only pointless; it is not moral to rate the evil
that we will choose as greater or lesser amongst these two. To choose
the ‘armed resistance’ as the lesser evil is to say that,
if the people of Iraq must suffer the risk of islamist rule, then
that is the price they pay for thwarting US imperialism in Iraq
to the benefit of anyone else threatened by the USA” (AWL website).
This advice - to treat al-Sadr/al-Mahdi and US imperialism as if
they were equal and opposite enemies of the working class - would
be nothing short of calamitous if actually put into practice in
Iraq. In current circumstances the imperialists are the main enemy,
not only on the planet as a whole, but concretely in Iraq too. Not
to recognise this is to ignore or belittle the palpable reality
of conquest and occupation.
But it is not a question of choosing the “lesser evil”
- as if working class and democratic forces must be reduced to mere
bit parts, forced to take sides between two reactionary forces.
Communists should seek to take the lead in the struggle to kick
the occupiers out of Iraq - to do otherwise would be to give the
islamists a virtual free hand when it comes to influencing and shaping
the burgeoning mass anti-imperialist movement. To do so implies
no illusions in the danger represented by the islamists, but we
do not rule out making temporary, conditional or purely episodic
alliances with such forces in the fight against the main enemy -
while being fully prepared to protect ourselves against attacks
from whatever quarter.
However, the fact is that the Sadrists are not a mere “poorly
organised” or “criminal gang”. They are more dangerous,
far more dangerous, than that. Through his ability to tap into and
harness the anger and frustration of the urban poor - young, unemployed
and declassed - al-Sadr is sinking social roots. That much is obvious.
A recent report in the New York Times, from Sadr city in the slums
of Baghdad, notes that his Mahdi army has “not only taken charge
of policing shia enclaves … but has also been aiding Iraqi
security forces in crackdowns against looters and kidnappers”
(August 8).
We read that in Baghdad al-Sadr and his followers - or at least
those who feel a broad affinity to his cause - have formed a religious,
Taliban-like Force for the Promotion of Virtue which targets off-licences
and prostitutes, through crude threats and intimidation - which
so far has led to the bombing of five alcohol stores in Baghdad’s
largely christian al-Ghadir district. But this does not demonstrate
that al-Sadr is an equal enemy or greater evil, compared to the
imperialists. It merely shows the weakness or absence of any other
alternative from below.
So the answer to the question is, no, we do not support al-Sadr
- we are for the forces of the working class. If communists and
democrats are not at the head of the national resistance movement
- armed or otherwise - then it is inevitable that the tide will
gather more and more in favour of the reactionary forces of political
islam. After all, they will be able to say that the reds are ducking
out of the struggle against the imperialist occupiers. That must
not be allowed to happen.
Eddie Ford
|
