Page 2 of 2 SPEAKING
FREELY On fighting losing
battles By Pham Binh
operation were complete failures because
of a shortage of Iraqi collaborator units. More
fundamentally, the resistance and the population
cannot be separated - one cannot be "cleared"
while the other remains. That's why the only
ground the US can hold in Iraq is the ground
beneath the feet of its soldiers.
So what
impact will the surge have? Before we can answer
that, we have to understand that the surge is not
just about troop
levels. US imperialism itself
is surging in the Middle East. This becomes clear
when we look at the totality of the situation.
Bush has finally come around to the
reality that the US military is not large enough
to fulfill the ambitions of the ruling class. He
has ordered Gates to draw up plans to expand the
ranks of the military by tens of thousands every
year for the next two to four years. He will
undoubtedly get the support of the new Democratic
Congress, whose enthusiasm for US world domination
is matched only by the Republican incompetence in
maintaining it. [7]
Today, US forces are
stationed in large bases on the outskirts of large
population centers. Bush's new plan would mean
more invasive, aggressive tactics by US forces and
the prolonged occupation of Baghdad's densely
populated neighborhoods. Given that a majority of
both Sunnis and Shi'ites support attacks on
occupation forces, this is a recipe for tremendous
and pointless bloodshed.
To win the Battle
of the Bulge in Baghdad, Bush is replacing his top
commander in Iraq, General George W Casey Jr, with
Lieutenant-General David H Petraeus. Casey was an
advocate of Bush's earlier strategy of getting
Iraqi troops to do the dirty work of fighting the
resistance while (very) slowly withdrawing US
forces. On the other hand, Petraeus advocates
using brute US force to smash the resistance and
let Iraqi collaborator forces mop up later.
Bush is also replacing General John P
Abizaid, who heads Central Command, the nerve
center for US forces in the Middle East, with
Admiral William Fallon, head of Pacific Command.
The admiral's appointment points to the
last element in US imperialism's surge: the navy.
Last autumn, two minesweepers, two mine-hunters, a
cruiser and a submarine were ordered to be ready
to deploy by October 1, while the chief of naval
operations ordered an update on plans to blockade
two Iranian ports in the Persian Gulf. [8] Last
month, the Eisenhower carrier strike group, which
includes three escort ships and an attack
submarine, entered the Persian Gulf and will be
joined by the US carrier Stennis and two British
mine-hunters this month.
This buildup is
clearly aimed at Iran, which might try to block
oil shipments in the Strait of Hormuz if its
nuclear facilities are attacked by the US. The
effects of the naval surge are already being felt
in Somalia, where 31 civilians have been killed by
air strikes launched from the decks of the
Eisenhower aimed at "al-Qaeda" (translation:
Islamist anti-US militias). [9]
In the
face of this escalation, congressional Democrats
stand united - united against cutting off funding
for the war, that is. They want what Bush wants:
permanent bases and a pro-US government in Iraq.
But they have the same problem he does: they have
no realistic strategy for achieving these war
aims, but they cannot afford defeat at the hands
of the resistance either. This is why Nancy
Pelosi, the new Speaker of the House of
Representatives, has promised "intense scrutiny"
of, rather than opposition to, the new war plan.
Translation: please don't screw it up this time,
Mr President.
Congressional Democrats can
be sorted on a spectrum of capitulation - with
Senator Ted Kennedy making an ineffective threat
to pass legislation barring funding for a surge at
one end [10] and Senator Joe Biden claiming that
Congress can do nothing at the other.
So
while the Democrats make excuses, tens of
thousands will be marching in the streets of
Washington on January 27 in an anti-war campaign
to demand that the Democrats live up to the
expectations of the people who voted them into
power by ending the war now.
Notes [1] Simon Tisald,
"US plans last big push in Iraq", The Guardian,
November 16, 2006. [2] "Iraqi marchers break
through US roadblocks to bring aid to Fallujah",
Agence France-Presse, April 8, 2004. [3]
"President addresses the nation in prime time
press conference", Office of the Press Secretary,
April 13, 2004. [4] Michael Hirsh and John
Barry, "The Salvador Option: Pentagon may put
Special Forces-led assassination or kidnapping
teams in Iraq", Newsweek, January 14, 2005.
[5] "National Strategy for Victory in Iraq",
November 30, 2005. [6] John Burns, "US says
violence in Baghdad rises, foiling campaign", New
York Times, October 20, 2006. [7] Peter Baker,
"US not winning war in Iraq, Bush says for 1st
time: President plans to expand army, marine corps
to cope with strain of multiple deployments",
Washington Post, December 20, 2006. [8]
Michael Duffy, "What a war with Iran would look
like", Time, September 17, 2006. [9] Salad
Duhul, "Copters attack Somalia militant suspects",
Associated Press, January 9, 2007. [10]
Ineffective because it will definitely not pass in
Congress and because Bush has demonstrated that
legality means nothing in the "war on terror".
Furthermore, the Democrats have made clear they
have no intention of holding him accountable for
any of his illegal actions.
Pham
Binh is editor of Traveling Soldier and a
recent graduate of Hunter College, New York
City.
(Copyright 2007 Traveling
Soldier.)
Speaking Freely is an Asia
Times Online feature that allows guest writers to
have their say. Please click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
