------------------------- Via Workers World News Service Reprinted from the July 3, 2003 issue of Workers World newspaper -------------------------
TROOP MORALE PLUMMETS: TOP GENERAL CLLS IRAG A "QUAGMIRE" Rising U.S., British Casualties Revive Memories of Vietnam By Fred Goldstein The U.S. capitalist media has breathed not a word about recent criticism leveled by a prestigious Pentagon general against the Bush administration for the growing crisis in Iraq. It took the London Observer to publicize the critique of the occupation by retired Gen. William Nash. Nash is a veteran of the Vietnam War, of the Gulf War of 1991, was commander of U.S. forces in Bosnia and is presently United Nations Civil Affairs Administrator in Kosovo. He told the June 22 Observer that "the window of opportunity which occurred with the fall of Saddam was not seized in terms of establishing stability. "It is an endeavor which was not understood by the administration to begin with," said Nash. The U.S. "has failed to understand the mindset and attitudes of the Iraqi people and the depth of hostility towards the U.S. in much of the country." Thus, "we are now seeing the reemergence of a reasonably organized military opposition--small scale, but it could escalate." He continued: "You can't tell who is behind the latest rocket-propelled grenade. It could be a father whose daughter has been killed; it could be a political leader trying to gain a following or it could be a rump Saddam. Either way, they are starting to converge." Relating his Vietnam experience to the situation in Iraq, Nash said: "There are far more things that were different about Vietnam than there are similarities. Except perhaps the word 'quagmire.' Maybe that's the only thing that is the same." In his commentary, this general shows wisdom derived from experience. And his detachment is aided by looking at Iraq from the distance of Kosovo. At the same time he shows the inherent incapacity of the imperialist military to comprehend the fundamental and abiding antagonism between the oppressor and the oppressed which will ultimately bring down imperialism, despite all its technological prowess and military might. His wisdom is that Nash can recognize a quagmire early on when he sees one. He took the bull by the horns and used the dreaded "q" word. That is probably why interviews with him are out of bounds in the U.S. capitalist media for the moment--although, if the military situation continues along present lines, he may come into vogue. But where Nash exhibits the fundamentally flawed thinking of the ruling class and its imperialist military is in his assertion that the Bush administration missed its "window of opportunity" after the fall of Saddam. There never was a window of opportunity for the Pentagon to both invade Iraq and bring about stability. Colonial invasion and the destruction of national independence of a formerly oppressed people can never bring about "stability," because stability to the imperialists means subjugation. And subjugation brings about mass resistance. There never was a "window of opportunity" to bring "stability" to Vietnam after the U.S. ruling class took the decision to try to conquer and enslave the country by military force. And the same holds for Iraq. This is the type of delusion that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and the entire right-wing cabal in Washington promoted as they struggled to win over the population and the ruling class to back the invasion of Iraq. It is the classic ruling class syndrome of discounting the role of the masses. Given the proud, anti-colonial history of the Iraqi people--an armed people with hundreds of thousands in the active military--it was an extreme case of imperialist wishful thinking to project that the invading forces would be welcomed as liberators after a "surgical" removal of the regime. At a June 24 Pentagon briefing, the word "quagmire" was never uttered. Yet, the questions that permeated the media briefing session gave a sense of the deepening crisis and the fact that the Pentagon is caught in contradictions and losing control. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was pelted with questions about an attack on a convoy near the Syrian border a week earlier. The convoy and the village of Qaim near the Syrian border were attacked by AC-130 gunships, helicopters and a Predator drone. The region was sealed off by tanks and armored vehicles. A woman and her one-year-old child were killed in the village and an undisclosed number of people in the convoy were killed and wounded. The attack force crossed into Syrian territory, wounded three Syrian border guards, took five of them prisoner and refused to release them. The raid was carried out by special operations Task Force 20, an elite Pentagon unit. It was supposed to be targeting former Iraqi leadership. The raid was carried out on June 18, but the Pentagon only revealed it on June 23. The area is still sealed off. When asked if Iraqi leaders had been hit in the raid, Rumsfeld said no. When asked who was hit, he would not answer. Asked whether the rules of engagement allowed hot pursuit across the Syrian border, Rum sfeld again would not answer. Asked why the Syrian border guards were not returned to Syria, he said they were wounded, as if the Syrians were incapable of rendering medical treatment. Asked why it took so long to tell the world, Rumsfeld replied that it happened "far away from Baghdad" and that people were "busy." After about 10 minutes of evading the issue concerning the provocative violation of Syrian sovereignty, Rumsfeld muttered, "General Myers is ready for a question." Whereupon a reporter asked Gen. Richard Myers, chairperson of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, "You said that U.S. troops are having considerable success inside Iraq, yet in the past 24 hours there were 25 separate attacks on U.S. forces, six Brits were killed in two separate attacks down near Basra, and there was a rocket attack on the civilian mayor's office at Fallujah. That doesn't sound like success to me." (cnn.com, transcripts, June 24) Myers muttered something about being "careful of the snapshots you take" and that the "security situation is a little uneven in the country." What was unusual is that the customarily combative Rumsfeld let Myers swing in the breeze and never offered a word of rebuttal or defense. And with good reason. For the first time since May 1, when Bush declared the war essentially over, the resistance carried out a major operation in the Shiite south. Six British soldiers were killed and eight wounded in two separate incidents near the city of al Amarah, north of Basra. It was the largest number of casualties in any day since May 1. The six were killed in the police station in the town of al Kabar, while on a mission to train Iraqi police. Nearby, a "large number" of Iraqi forces (AP, June 24) opened fire on a British patrol with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and rifles. One soldier was wounded. When a rescue helicopter and tanks came to the rescue, seven soldiers on the helicopter were wounded. In addition to this major operation in the south, U.S. forces came under attack in the cities of Ramadi, Daura, Tikrit, Baiji, Fallujah, Baghdad, Hit, Khan Azad and other places. In Fallujah, the office of the U.S.- installed mayor was attacked. The attacks are being carried out in the very areas that have been the subject of U.S. raids. "For a week, thousands of troops have raided Baghdad, Tikrit, Fallujah, Ramadi, Thuluiya and other towns in central Iraq," wrote the June 22 Washington Post. And with each new raid, hatred of the U.S. grows and the social and political tensions in the country mount. Paul Bremer, U.S. administrator, is rapidly turning the occupation into a harsh dictatorship. Having dissolved Iraq's military, he has declared that the U.S. wants to form a new military of 40,000--one-tenth of the previously existing armed force. "A senior American official, Walter Slocombe," wrote the June 23 New York Times, "said the three-division force of light infantry would operate without an air force and would guard the country's borders and key installations." If anything clearly shows the U.S. plan to hold Iraq in subjection it is this thinly disguised attempt to create a puppet police force and deprive Iraq of any substantial armed forces. The Pentagon has plans to keep forces in the region, including access to four military bases. This would be the real power in Iraq. A country without a military to defend itself, particularly against imperialist aggression, is not a sovereign nation. The U.S. would never try to rebuild a genuine military force in Iraq for the simple reason that Washington fears that an independent Iraqi military would rapidly move to expel the occupation forces. Keeping Iraq in colonial bondage means destroying its military. That is why one of Bremer's first acts was to disband the Iraqi military. The soldiers were cut off without an income. They demonstrated at the Republican Palace, the occupation headquarters, demanding their pay. Two officers were shot dead by U.S. troops. Bremer's arrogantly defiant comment at the time was, "They were thrown out of work by something called the freedom of Iraq." But in the week since, under pressure from the U.S. military and Iraqi collaborators who were fearful of driving all 300,000 former soldiers into the arms of the resistance, Bremer has had to eat his words. Washington is now going to pay a stipend for an indefinite period to the former soldiers. Bremer has also issued repressive decrees. "Almost unnoticed outside Iraq," wrote the London Guardian of June 16, he "has issued a proclamation outlawing any 'gatherings, pronouncements, or publications' that call for the return of the Baath Party or for opposition to the U.S. occupation." Bremer cancelled a scheduled election for mayor in the Shiite city of Najaf. The election had been organized with the permission and encouragement of the local U.S. military commander. "We should have had this election," said a U.S. military officer in Najaf who asked not to be identified, according to the New York Times of June 22. "What are we telling them?" This is the "democracy" that the U.S. is bringing to Iraq. All this repression, raids and the brutalization of the Iraqi population is taking a heavy toll on the morale of the U.S. troops, who are being dragged into this reactionary quagmire. Many newspapers carried a syndicated photo of a soldier consoling another soldier after he had seen three Iraqi children injured by munitions. The story behind that photo has come out in a June 24 AP dispatch. "On a scorching afternoon, while on duty at an Army airfield, Sgt. David J. Borell was approached by an Iraqi who pleaded for help for his three children, burned when they set fire to a bag containing explosive powder left over from the war. "Borell immediately called for assistance. But the two Army doctors who arrived about an hour later refused to help the children because their injuries were not life-threatening and had not been inflicted by U.S. troops." Said Borell: "I have never seen in almost 14 years of Army experience anything so callous." When AP contacted the 3rd Corps Support Command, it received an e-mail back from the public affairs officer stating "our goal is for the Iraqis to use their own existing infrastructure and become self-sufficient, not dependent on U.S. forces for medical care." Such insensitive, colonial brutality by the U.S. high command is making enemies of the Iraqis and pushing the soldiers into a situation where they become either brutal or totally demoralized. The raids, the mistreatment of the people and the growing casualty rate among the soldiers is steadily leading to a deterioration of morale. "What are we getting into here?" asked a sergeant of the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division stationed north of Baghdad, according to the Washington Post of June 20. "The war is supposed to be over, but every day we hear of another soldier getting killed. Is it worth it? Saddam isn't in power any more. The locals want us to leave. Why are we still here?" This situation cries out for a world-wide protest to end the occupation and bring the troops home. This is the only real way to show solidarity with the heroic Iraqi resistance fighters and with the U.S. workers in uniform who are being forced by the Pentagon and the White House to become shock troops in a criminal war against the people of Iraq. What the soldiers need is jobs and a decent life at home, not an imperialist war abroad. And what the Iraqis need is to get the U.S. military off their backs so they can determine their own destiny. - END - (Copyright Workers World Service: Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this document, but changing it is not allowed. For more information contact Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011; via e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe wwnews- [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] Support the voice of resistance http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php) ------------------ This message is sent to you by Workers World News Service. To subscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, E-mail to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To switch to the DIGEST mode, E-mail to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Send administrative queries to <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
