Bush
Calls For Permanent US Military Occupation Of Iraq
By Barry Grey
14 September, 2007
WSWS.org
President
Bush’s nationally televised speech, delivered Thursday evening
from the Oval Office, was the low point of a week of lies and absurdities
designed to justify the United States’ bloody colonial war in
Iraq. The ugly farce began with the congressional testimony Monday and
Tuesday of Gen. David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, and US
Ambassador Ryan Crocker.
Bush cited their fraudulent
assessment of the “success” of the military “surge”
to outline a perspective for continuing the American occupation of Iraq
and transforming the country into a permanent American protectorate,
whose vast oil resources will be exploited by US oil companies, and
whose territory will be used as a staging ground for military attacks
on Iran and a strategic base for American domination of the Middle East.
Bush was, as usual, shameless
in his piling up of lie upon lie, beginning with his portrayal of a
gradual reduction in the 30,000 additional combat troops sent to Iraq
in the military escalation he announced last January as a “new
phase” in the war that could see a significant decline in fighting
and troop levels. As is well known, the phasing out of the surge is
dictated by the lack of additional forces to replace troops whose tours
of duty will be coming to an end.
Once again, Bush portrayed
the US occupation as a struggle for “freedom” against “terrorists
and extremists,” denying that the real enemy of US imperialism
is the broad mass of the Iraqi people, who form the backbone of the
popular resistance to the hated American occupiers.
The surge, he said, was aimed
at “securing the Iraqi population” and bridging “sectarian
divides.” In fact, recent studies have shown that the number of
Iraqis fleeing their homes has doubled since the surge began, and the
country has become far more polarized along sectarian lines, with ethnic
cleansing of neighborhoods in Baghdad and elsewhere proceeding at an
accelerated pace.
Bush spoke of peace and security
breaking out in regions, such as Anbar and Diyala, which have been “cleared”—a
euphemism for bloody repression and military violence. He gave an absurd
picture of an almost idyllic Baghdad, with schools and markets reopening
and sectarian violence receding. In fact, large parts of Baghdad have
been turned into virtual concentration camps, enclosed by high concrete
walls, patrolled by US armored vehicles, and kept under permanent curfew.
The so-called “security”
of the Iraqi people has taken the form of tens of thousands of additional
people rousted from their homes and thrown into prisons. So hellish
is the situation that a recent poll of Iraqis reported 79 percent favoring
the withdrawal of US troops and 59 percent supporting violent attacks
against them.
Bush again warned that the
withdrawal of American troops would result in a “humanitarian
nightmare,” an apt description of the social destruction and human
horror that US is perpetrating every day it remains in the country.
At times Bush’s pronouncements
seemed delirious, as when he thanked the “36 nations who have
troops on the ground in Iraq.”
Perhaps the greatest absurdity
is the claim, made by Petraeus and Crocker and repeated by Bush, that
Sunni Anbar province proves the success of the surge and vindicates
the US strategy in Iraq. In fact, the US has achieved a fragile peace
with Sunni sheiks in the province by bribing them with tens of millions
of dollars in “reconstruction” funds.
If anything, the turn to
an alliance with Sunni forces is more a sign of desperation and perplexity
than of strategic foresight. Less than a year ago, US strategy in Iraq
was based on an alliance with Shia sectarian forces, who continue to
dominate the puppet government in Baghdad. When that policy collapsed,
the US turned to its opposite, laying the basis for a further division
of the country along sectarian lines and an intensification of civil
warfare.
Just how stable the US position
in Anbar really is was demonstrated by the assassination only hours
before Bush’s speech of the Sunni sheik who had led the tribal
leaders aligned with the US, and with whom Bush had met ten days previously.
The heart of Bush’s
speech was an allusion to the perspective of permanent US military and
political control over Iraq. Iraqi leaders, Bush said, “understand
that their success will require US political, economic and security
engagement that extends beyond my presidency. These Iraqi leaders have
asked for an enduring relationship with America.”
The speech was punctuated
by threats against Iran, pointing to the growing danger that the war
cabal in Washington will expand the conflict, with incalculable and
tragic consequences. Bush spoke of “Iranian-backed militants”
and “the destructive ambitions of Iran,” and declared that
the “efforts by Iran and Syria to undermine [the Iraqi] government
must end.”
The fact that Bush feels
himself in a position to even make such a speech is due, above all,
to the cowardice and complicity of the Democratic Party. Ten months
after congressional elections in which the electorate voted against
the Bush administration and the war and brought the Democratic Party
into power in both houses of Congress, troop levels are substantially
higher and all talk within the political establishment of an early end
to the war has virtually ceased.
In his speech, Bush made
a calculated appeal to the Democrats, knowing that their opposition
to the war is fraudulent and that sections of the congressional Democrats
are looking for a way to back the administration. Addressing “members
of the United States Congress,” he said, “Let us come together
on a policy of strength in the Middle East. I thank you for providing
crucial funds and resources for our military. And I ask you to join
me in supporting the recommendations General Petraeus has made and the
troop levels he has asked for.”
In the Democratic response,
Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed failed to even mention the November 2006
elections. He spoke of “redefining” and “changing”
the US mission in Iraq, not ending it. This is in line with the decision
of the Democratic congressional leadership to drop any demand for deadlines
or timetables for withdrawing troops.
As one CNN commentator aptly
noted, the actual difference between the Bush administration and the
Democrats comes down to whether troop levels by the end of the current
administration should be 130,000 or 100,000.
The Democratic Party, which
provided Bush with the votes he needed for congressional authorization
of the war, has supported every request for war funding, and is preparing
to support another $190 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Democrats have worked deliberately and systematically since gaining
control of Congress to divert, contain and exhaust popular opposition
to the war.
On the eve of Bush’s
speech, the Democratic-controlled Senate Appropriations Committee approved
a $459.6 billion Pentagon funding bill, including a $40 billion increase
in military programs. Combined with the $190 billion in supplemental
war funds, the total military budget for the new fiscal year will be
$650 billion—an 11 percent increase over current levels and, in
real terms, far higher than total defense spending at the height of
the Vietnam War.
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights
Comment
Policy
Digg
it! And spread the word!
Here is a unique chance to help this article to be read by thousands
of people more. You just Digg it, and it will appear in the home page
of Digg.com and thousands more will read it. Digg is nothing but an
vote, the article with most votes will go to the top of the page. So,
as you read just give a digg and help thousands more to read this article.