18.11.2004
Shattered Fallujah now faces typhoid epidemic
However, this latest act of savagery, having appeared on television screens worldwide, is yet another embarrassment for US authorities and has provoked much morally indignant talk about the ‘laws of war’ and ‘rules of engagement’ - but only as they apply to individual soldiers. It is considered perfectly acceptable to blitz a whole city, killing its inhabitants by the hundred, if not thousand. A particularly supine reporter on Sky News referred to this latest incident as the (potentially) unacceptable actions of a particular “maverick” (November 16). He went on to inform us that in general “US marines are proud to return Fallujah to its people”. Just how much the citizens of Fallujah will appreciate their bombed-out houses, bullet-ridden mosques and dead relatives is not hard to imagine. This really is an election campaign to die for. The low value placed on life, particularly that of a dehumanised enemy, is a common feature of war. The ‘laws of war’ and ‘rules of engagement’ did not stop US soldiers throwing Viet Cong prisoners out of helicopters or forcing Coca Cola bottles into the vaginas of young Vietnamese girls. Neither, for that matter, did it stop the British army taking human heads as booty in Malaya in the 1950s. However, we need to focus on the main crime of which these incidents in Iraq are just symptoms: imperialist invasion and occupation to install and legitimise a compliant regime through ‘free’ elections. Iraqis who resist are to be ‘pacified’: that is, bombed, shot and terrorised into compliance. The US military commander in Iraq, Lieutenant-General John Sattler, has announced that there will be an investigation into the shooting of the unarmed man (and also now the possible role of marines in the deaths of three other men in the mosque). He says: “We follow the law of armed conflict and we hold ourselves to a high standard of accountability.” How good of him to deal with individual marines who overstep the mark of good ol’ American decency, whilst he carries on with his ‘pacification’ bombing of Fallujah residents, and whilst his forces counter small arms fire by obliterating the building they believe it is coming from, regardless of who may be in it. And let us not forget the general’s sensitive policy of denying Red Crescent humanitarian aid entry into the city. We can only guess at the fate of citizens who remained in Fallujah. Aid agencies talk of a disastrous situation in the no-go zone. Bodies left to rot in the street, no water, gas or electricity and no food supplies. A massive increase in cases of typhoid is also expected. Of the 250,000 occupants most are thought to have fled prior to the main bombardments. Estimates of how many remain vary between 30,000 and 50,000, but some put it as high as 100,000. Whatever the figure, we can be certain that civilian deaths will greatly exceed those of invading troops. The first task for the marines was, of course, the seizure of the general hospital to prevent “insurgent propaganda” about civilian deaths. Bringing back memories of Saddam Hussein’s crazily optimistic minister of information, puppet government spokesmen claim just 20 civilian casualties and no deaths! They also say that aid workers cannot possibly know the situation in the city because they have not been there. Despite the attempts to sanitise this war people cannot fail to see the destruction on their TV screens, even though the commentary is almost entirely subservient to US policy. US forces claim to have killed over 1,600 and captured over 1,000 insurgents. While, as I write, marines have been “in control” of the city for several days, the bombardment continues and there are still pockets of resistance mainly in the southern part of the city. However, it seems that, along with civilians, large numbers of fighters may have left earlier. The attacks on Fallujah have been answered by the stepping up of insurgency in other Iraqi cities and towns - most notably in Mosul, but also around Baghdad and the northern oil refinery towns. Some analysts think that the Iraqi resistance is much better organised and more inventive than expected and that they are attempting to stretch the Americans by constantly shifting and fighting on widely dispersed fronts. In Mosul fighters captured all the city’s police stations last week and, amidst reports that some police officers defected to the resistance, the Mosul chief of police has been sacked. For weeks prior to the attacks on Fallujah we saw briefings from US authorities about a chaotic rag-bag of anti-Iraqi kidnappers, assassins and foreign terrorists supposedly numbering in the hundreds. Now projections are upwards of 20,000 well funded, sophisticated and determined Iraqi fighters. Time magazine reporter Michael Ware, unlike other western reporters ‘embedded’ with the marines, has instead been accompanying a group of jihadis. In an interview with ABC radio he gave anecdotal evidence of popular support for them. He also claimed that up to 20 former Ba’athist military leaders had seamlessly adapted to an islamist way of life. He told of an argument he overheard between a jihadi and a nationalist fighter. The nationalist was opposed to bombs and suicide attacks that might harm innocent Iraqi civilians. The islamist apparently said, “I would kill 10 Iraqis to get one American”, to which the nationalist responded, “But what are we fighting for?” Unfortunately, it seems leadership of the resistance is being left to mainly reactionary forces. Apart from the Iraqi Islamic Party, which left the puppet government of Allawi in protest at attacks on Fallujah, other stooge members remain silent and will inevitably stand condemned in the eyes of ordinary Iraqis. Care International worker Margaret Hussan has been killed by people describing themselves only as “an armed islamic group”. She was murdered despite extensive appeals from Arab and muslim leaders, George Galloway, her Iraqi husband, and Iraqis who paid tribute to her 30 years of charity work, opposition to sanctions, the invasion and occupation. Even Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, leader of the group responsible for the beheading of Kevin Bigley, appealed for her release. This reactionary act has helped to shift the focus away from what the occupation forces are doing and indeed helps to justify and alibi their fake crusade against terrorists and for ‘democracy’. Those of a more conspiratorial bent might even wonder whether this anonymous group is in the pay of the CIA, so neatly does it serve the propaganda interests of US imperialism. I do not think so. It is more a reflection of the lack of progressive and working class content to the struggle against imperialism.
A gift to the invaders