[Peace-discuss] The situation in Iraq

[C. G. Estabrook]

  ZNet | Iraq
  The Occupation
  by Milan Rai
  UK Watch
  November 09, 2005

The following is an exclusive interview with long-time 
activist and writer Milan Rai. Milan is the author of 'War 
Plan Iraq' and 'Regime Unchanged' and a leading member of 
Justice Not Vengeance (http://www.j-n-v.org ). He is an 
advisor to UKWatch and a contributor to the UKWatch blog.

UKWatch: The situation in Iraq appears to deteriorate by the 
day. The USAF have been carrying out bombing raids on Iraqi 
cities, and insurgent attacks occur just about everywhere 
outside of Anglo/American bases. Robert Fisk recently 
commented that Iraq is the most dangerous conflict there has 
ever been for journalists to cover. Some commentators argue 
that the "coalition" has already lost the war and that it is 
now a question of when the British and Americans withdraw 
rather than if. What is your reading of the current situation?

Milan Rai: I don't believe that the US/UK have already lost 
the war. They may well lose the war, and be driven out by 
the scale of violence and chaos, but we are some way away 
from that right now.

As various people have pointed out, success for insurgencies 
mostly consists of not being defeated and crushed. By that 
score the many-stranded insurgency is currently successful. 
It doesn't follow that it will continue to be successful, or 
that the occupation forces are being 'defeated'.

What seems to be happening is that the actions of the 
occupation forces, and in particular the reckless 
pre-emptive violence of the US troops (under orders to 
eliminate any potential threat to their personal security), 
are steadily increasing the level of hatred and violence. At 
the same time there is growing sectarian and inter-ethnic 
violence, partly as a result of the policies of the 
occupation (using Kurdish guerrillas to assault Sunni cities 
like Fallujah, for example), and a very very high level of 
violent crime (which the occupation forces are unable to 
control).

The current human, political and economic cost to the United 
States and Britain of the occupation is just about 
sustainable for the foreseeable future. So (ignoring 
possible pressure for change at home) we have three possible 
futures: go on like this for the next few years; a sharp 
rise in violence forcing the occupation forces out; or a 
decisive blow to the insurgency leading to a sharp reduction 
in violence, and a dramatic reduction in US/UK forces (what 
some people call an 'exit strategy' and what Donald Rumsfeld 
and Condoleeza Rice call a 'victory strategy').

What's most likely out of those three options? At the 
moment, probably option 1: go on like this for the 
foreseeable future, with some political gains for the Iraqi 
people, growing discord, and unremitting violence. Hell.

UKW: It is commonly argued by many press comentators that 
while the invasion may well have been wrong to withdraw 
troops now would be to subject the Iraqi population to the 
insurgents, who have certainly carried out many horrendous 
atrocities. What is your response? Should troops withdraw?

MR: Let's distinguish first between the various kinds of 
insurgents and the different kinds of 'foreign troops' who 
might be in Iraq.

Within the 'resistance', there is a division between the 
al-Qaeda element and the rest, and then divisions between 
other kinds of Islam-oriented militants, Ba'athists, 
non-Ba'athist nationalists, vendetta-pursuers, and so on. If 
all foreign forces were removed from Iraq, I think that 
there would almost certainly be an escalation in ordinary 
violent crime -- which is checked to a certain degree by the 
occupation and collaborator forces -- and a very serious 
risk of sectarian and ethnic violence on the scale of 
full-scale civil war.

There would also be an attempt by the al-Qaeda elements to 
take control of the country along the lines of the Taliban 
takeover of Afghanistan. Would that be successful? Probably 
not, but the attempt would heighten the level of chaos and 
violence.

Should troops withdraw?

Well, it is clear that US forces are part of the problem 
rather than part of the solution. British forces, by their 
direct and indirect support of US forces, because of their 
growing tendency to imitate the US approach, and through 
their own rather sordid record of abuse in southern Iraq, 
are also part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Iraq has not got a chance of a decent, viable society 
without withdrawal of these forces.

On the other hand, Iraq may well need the presence of 
unbiased security forces, an international security presence 
in the country that is entirely free of US control.

My own feeling (following to a large extent the thinking of 
Iraq expert Juan Cole) is that the least damaging way 
forward for Iraq is the total withdrawal of US/UK forces in 
a staged manner over several months, and their simultaneous 
replacement by UN forces (perhaps drawn from the Islamic 
Conference countries, from the Arab world, or from the 
uncontaminated countries of the EU).

I stress that this is a replacement strategy. When the idea 
of UN forces is raised in mainstream discussion, it is 
generally in terms of a subordinate UN presence within a 
framework of continuing US control. This is a 'figleaf' 
strategy, and one that the UN, quite rightly, would not 
touch with a bargepole.

UKW: Media reporting focusses on the crimes of the 
insurgents and largely ignores the violence of the British 
and Americans -- Medialens recently noted that the BBC 
devoted just nine seconds of coverage to the American 
bombing of Ramadi where, according to Iraqi sources, many 
civilians were killed. How do you view the current media 
coverage and is its depiction of the insurgents as by far 
the most dangerous force in Iraq accurate?

MR: Media coverage of violence in Iraq is appalling, partly 
for the understandable reason that most journalists are 
terrified of doing the things that are necessary to really 
cover the story, but mostly because of ideological conformity.

The depiction of insurgents as by far the most dangerous 
force in Iraq? Well, both Iraq Body Count and the Lancet 
Study published a year ago found that many more Iraqis 
were/are losing their lives because of military action by 
the occupation forces than because of military action by 
insurgents.

Then there is the huge toll of indirect deaths through, for 
example, the greater rate of fatal traffic accidents due to 
the high speeds and recklessness needed to avoid ambushes, 
hold-ups and curfew violations. These deaths are 
attributable to the ongoing occupation.

UKW: Some on the left have argued that the Iraqi insurgents 
deserve our support since they are fighting an illegal and 
very brutal occupation. What is your view?

MR: There is a right of resistance, whenever a country is 
occupied. This does not mean that every tactic is permitted, 
or that every vision of liberation is justifiable, or that 
every 'resistance' group is legitimate. In fact, many of the 
active groups are a serious problem for the Iraqi people.

I do not accept, in fact I vehemently reject, the slogan 
'support the resistance' -- unconditionally.

Secondly, what does it benefit anyone fighting in Iraq if 
someone here in comfort and safety says, 'I support the 
resistance' or 'We all should support the resistance'? If 
someone truly supports the resistance, they would be 
involved in directly assisting the resistance, or going to 
Iraq to fight. I find it distasteful to see, particularly, 
white people living in comfort urging brown people living in 
terrible danger to fight and die in the cause of 
'anti-imperialism'. If you really believe killing British 
and US soldiers is the way forward, then go and take the 
risks yourself, and do not rely on others to win your war 
for you.

Thirdly, when someone living here and associated with the 
anti-war movement says 'I support the resistance', they do 
nothing to assist 'the resistance', but they do much to harm 
the cause of the anti-war movement and thus the cause of the 
Iraqi people, as people who might otherwise listen to us are 
less willing to listen to the arguments for withdrawal.

UKW: Some anti-war activists and commentators have 
criticised the Stop the War Coalition for being 
undemocratic, overly centralised and for not helping to 
mobilise for direct action. Do you think this criticism is 
justified and what do you think the anti-war movement should 
be focussed upon now?

MR: One can either criticise existing organisations, or one 
can try to improve them from within, or one can set up 
complementary/alternative organisations. The Stop The War 
Coalition has many achievements to its credit, and has also 
limited the movement in a number of ways. Those who are 
dissatisfied with it often accord it more power than it 
actually has or should possess.

What should the anti-war movement be focussed on right now? 
Unlocking the majority opposition to the occupation, and 
turning the rather tentative and lukewarm discomfort people 
feel about the war into a powerful and angry force for 
change. I've got some ideas about how to do that, but I'll 
be writing about that at greater length in the next few weeks.

UKW: There is much speculation that the United States is 
gearing up for an assault on Iran. Given how disastrous the 
occupation of Iraq has been and how deeply unpopular 
attacking Iran would be, (even Jack Straw has ruled out 
British support for such a move), how likely do you think it 
is that such an attack would happen?

MR: I think it is extremely unlikely that there will be an 
invasion of Iran in the foreseeable future. Iran is big and 
its military is capable, unlike the poor state of sanctions 
Iraq. The US has learned from the Iraqi invasion of Iran two 
and a half decades ago.

Might the US launch airstrikes and so on? Possibly.

The most likely scenario, in my view, is another Orange 
Revolution-type situation, where the US appears to be 
backing youth, freedom, democracy, pop music, and other Good 
Things, as it tries to shake the establishment and secure 
the rule of thugs who will take orders from Washington.

UKW: Some might argue that since the British presence in 
Iraq is so small our withdrawal would have little or no 
impact. What would be the impact of a unilateral British 
withdrawal?

MR: Why was the US so desperate to have us in the invasion 
force? We were militarily insignificant in the original 
invasion plan, but politically we were critical to securing 
domestic acquiescence in the war -- Blair's on board, we 
have the backing of 'the international community'. Just so 
with the occupation. British withdrawal would set the alarm 
bells ringing in Washington and across the country.

British withdrawal would help build pressure that might 
modify and restrain the US occupation forces. It would help 
to deter future wars.

British withdrawal is crucial for the Iraqi people and for 
others under threat around the world.

UKW: What are the Americans aiming for? What will they now 
settle for in Iraq?

MR: Control. Residual US forces hunkered down in bases, tame 
Iraqi political institutions, obedient (often Saddam-era) 
military-intelligence-police-judicial formations that will 
enable US control of the country.

UKW: You have written much recently on the governments 
response to the London bombings. How serious is the threat 
to human rights in this country? What should concerned 
people do about that threat?

MR: The threat is very serious. The threat to freedom of 
expression is coming from many different directions, without 
much response. As freedom and human rights are eroded, 
alienation, fear and hatred increases, and national security 
is eroded. Doing the right thing is also doing the safe thing.

What can we do? Everything we normally do to resist bad 
policies. Everything from education and lobbying to 
nonviolent civil disobedience.

   ###