|
WSWS
: News &
Analysis : Middle
East : Iraq
More US troops to Kuwait, as Bush moves to escalate the war
in Iraq
By Joe Kay
30 December 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
The Pentagon announced December 27 that it will send 3,500
additional US soldiers to Kuwait in January, a clear step toward
the increase in American combat troops and escalation of the war
in Iraq that President Bush is expected to announce early in the
new year.
On Thursday, Bush met with top administration officials, including
Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, Marine Corps General Peter Pace, to discuss preparations
for a renewed military offensive.
The New York Times reported on Friday that a surge
of between 17,000 and 20,000 troops was discussed, to be achieved
by moving into Iraq the new troops in Kuwait, delaying the departure
of two Marine regiments, and speeding up the deployment of several
Army brigades.
The troops would be used to clear neighborhoods and to
conduct other operations to regain control of the capital,
the Times reported, citing Pentagon officials.
This can only mean a vast increase in violence and killing,
intended to reassert American control of areas in the capital
where mass opposition to the US occupation is concentrated. This
clearing operation will likely be focused on the impoverished
Shia slum of Sadr City, which is controlled by militias associated
with the Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
On December 27, Sahib al-Amiri, a top aide to Sadr, was killed
by US troops in Najaf in an operation that bears all the hallmarks
of a targeted assassination. After fleeing to the roof of his
home, Amiri was shot four times, once in the head, by American
soldiers.
The move was likely intended to scuttle negotiations between
Sadr and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for the return of Sadr
loyalists to active participation in the Maliki government. Allies
of Sadr withdrew from the government last month to protest Malikis
decision to meet with President Bush in Jordan.
While an increase in troop strength in Iraq is being billed
as a temporary surge, what is being planned is a long-term
operation. This was made clear by two of the figures most closely
associated with the plan, Frederick Kagan of the right-wing American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) and retired general Jack Keane. The
two co-authored an AEI report issued earlier this month that calls
for an increase of at least 30,000 US combat troops and a massive
escalation of military violence aimed at exterminating the anti-American
resistance. Keane was among the military experts who met with
Bush this month to discuss options for increasing troops.
In an opinion piece published in the Washington Post
on December 27, Kagan and Keane argued that bringing security
to Baghdad . . . is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000
combat troops lasting 18 months or so. What is needed, they
wrote, is a traditional counterinsurgency mission
which would reverse a history of half-measures. They
added, The only surge option that makes sense
is both long and large.
An estimated 655,000 Iraqis have been killed as a result of
the American invasion and occupation, and Iraqi society has been
devastated. But this, according to Keane and Kagan, is the product
of half-measures.
In planning the military escalation, Bush is able to count
on the support of the Democratic Party. Democratic Senator Joseph
Lieberman, a strident advocate of a major troop increase, wrote
an opinion piece published in the New York Times Friday
entitled Why We Need More Troops in Iraq.
Lieberman declared that failure in Iraq would be a strategic
and moral catastrophe. He argued that the crisis of the
occupation is the predictable consequence of the failure
to ensure basic security and, equally important, of a conscious
strategy by al-Qaeda and Iran, which have systematically aimed
to undermine Iraqs fragile political center.
The phrase failure to ensure basic security is
coded language for not deploying from the outset a sufficient
number of troops to drown Iraqi opposition to the occupation in
blood. This is a criticism that has been frequently raised by
Democratic leaders against the Bush administration and his ousted
defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
Liebermans emphasis on the role of Iran reflects the
aim within sections of the political establishment, including
the Bush administration, to combine an increase in troop strength
in Iraq with an escalation of military preparations against Iran.
Other leading Democrats, including Senator Hillary Clinton
and incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, have indicated
they will support such an increase as long as it can be sold as
a first step toward eventually drawing down US forces in the future.
A few leading Democrats have come out in opposition to an increase
of troops, most prominently the incoming chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, Joseph Biden. On Tuesday, Biden declared
that an increase in troops was the absolute wrong strategy,
while making clear his general support for the Iraq occupation.
Bidens position reflects concern within sections of the
military and political establishment that an increase in the number
of US troops in Iraq will only intensify the crisis of the occupation
and increase opposition to the war both in Iraq and the United
States.
The Democrats have already rejected any measures that could
force the administration to begin drawing down troops, including
a cut-off of funding for the war. Biden repeated this position
on Tuesday, arguing that theres nothing the United
States Congress can do by a piece of legislation to alter the
conduct of a war that a president decides to pursue.
Sections of the military brass have resisted a surge
out of concern for the enormous strains that have been placed
on the American military. Earlier this month, the Bush administration
announced that it would support a permanent increase in the size
of the military in order to address this problem, a proposal that
has been championed by the Democratic Party.
The move to escalate repression in Iraq is part of a broader
policy of intensifying militarist violence throughout the world.
Recent days have seen stepped up provocations against Iran as
well as the launching of a proxy war in Somalia that has the potential
of evolving into a regional conflict throughout North Africa.
The Bush administration, with the open support of sections
of the Democratic Party and the acquiescence of the rest, isin
the name of democracydirectly flouting the will
of the American people, who are massively opposed to the war in
Iraq. The utter fraud of the governments democratic pretensions
abroad is demonstrated by its contempt for democratic public opinion
at home.
Recent polls show that the option of sending more troops to
Iraq is supported by only 11 percent of the population, while
a clear majority supports a withdrawal of US forces.
The mid-term elections in November, which ended Republican
control of both the House of Representatives and the Senate, were
a popular repudiation of the Bush administration and the Iraq
war. It is clear, however, that elections will not bring an end
to the war or the policies of neo-colonialism and militarism of
which it is a part so long as political life in the US continues
to be monopolized by two parties of the US corporate-financial
elite.
See Also:
A legal farce: Iraqi court confirms Saddam
Husseins death sentence
[27 December 2006]
US Marines charged in Haditha massacre
of Iraqi civilians
[23 December 2006]
Year-end press conference: Bush sets
stage for major escalation in Iraq
[21 December 2006]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |