11.08.2004

Force imperialism out of Iraq

Working class forces in Iraq must take the lead, argues Eddie Ford

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.

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.