Civil War or War of National Liberation?

Iraq

Some recent events in Iraq may give the impression that the position of imperialism has been strengthened. On one hand, and administration has been formed integrating the main Shii and Kurdish forces. On the other hand, the may have been some advance in the policy of ?Iraqi-fying? the conflict, transforming the war of national liberation underway into a civil war between the Shii and the Sunni.

And yet this conclusion would be altogether wrong. The new Al Malik administration is extremely weak for it expresses a great gap between the different bourgeois fractions that are part of it. At the same time, the ?civil war? between the Shii and the Sunni has no support at all from the masses. Actually, great part of this alleged ?civil war? is a cloak to conceal the activities of the death squadrons of the Badr Brigade led by the Shii CSTI party with headquarter in the Home Ministry and that has already caused nearly 7000 deaths.

The new Al Malik administration

It took the new puppet administration 5 months to settle down because of the bourgeois fractions that collaborate with the occupants and the problems that arise for imperialism from having to negotiate with trends that are very closely lined to Iran.

Jaafari, the leader of Dawa, had to step aside for he was too much committed with the squadrons of death, and he was substituted by another member of the Shii coalition, Al Malik, also a member of the Dawa party. In a way, the government does become stronger with the appointment of a sector more to the left of Al Sadr, leader of Mehdi army (security area) to important posts. The representatives of the Kurdish oligarchy remain where they were and minority sector of the Sunni also participate.

But this ?unity? of the government is not expressed in reality. For example: the different Shii fractions fight hard for the control of the oil areas. In the oil region of Basora, in the south of the country, armed skirmishes are constant and not only with the British troops, but also between the Badr militias, the Mehdi army and Fajita (a regional bourgeois sector that dominated in the region up to the ascent of the Al Malik administration).

Another sore spot is what to do with the pro-government militias: Jaafari and Al Malik propose to incorporate them into the police force and into the army, while other ministers propose to dissolve them and only to incorporate its members individually after a selection.

Finally, there is a number of Shii ministers and religious parties that are very problematic for the USA and the United Kingdom: their main allies in Iraq are directly lined to Iran. This gives some strength to the Iranian government at a time when imperialism is confronting them on the grounds of nuclear armament.

The character of the war

The world press tries to show a situation where two local sectors (Shii and Sunnite) are fighting each other and all the imperialist do it to watch over it all. In this way, they help the USA and Great Britain to encourage the civil war in Iraq. An example of this can be seen in the incident of the detention of the English agents who, dressed up as Arabs, were going to commit raids against the Shii population in Basora and, presumably, blame it all on the ?Sunni terrorists?.

The policy of ?divide and rule? is still on and the danger of the civil war is looming over the horizon even if so far it has not gained weight among the masses and has not changed the central sign of the struggle: a war for national liberation, in which we can find the imperialist occupants on one side together with their lackeys and on the other side, the Iraqi people, the Shii  and Sunni, driven together by the common enemy.

As an expression of this reality, even after Al Sadr had joined the government, he still goes on with his oratory of Shii-Sunnite unity against the occupation. When Bush visited the country, the promoted a march of thousands of his followers in Bagdad demanding a deadline for the withdrawal of the troops.

The activity of the death squadrons of the Bar militias on the one hand and the raid on the Shii  mosques attributed to the group headed by Al Zarqawi on the other help this policy of encouraging a civil war. We cannot even discard the possibility that the crisis of a revolutionary leadership in the country may open a more ample space for it. But the situation at present is that the war of national liberation is still on and that imperialism is not on a straight path towards victory or at least to a viable plan for a way out.

Harder and harder?

The occupation troops are launching a genocide military offensive. And yet they cannot halt the actions of the resistance. During the year 2005 there have been 34 131 resistance raids according to Pentagon,  an average of nearly a hundred a day. The result is that every day 2 0r 3 American soldiers die. The total number of deaths admitted by the American military authorities is already over 2 500 to which we must add nearly 19 000 injured, 8 000 who could not return to combat due to severe side effects. And this happens in a situation where the troops of occupation spend most of their time in their bases and only get out in great numbers for important operations with air support for the resistance actually controls entire areas and routs.

The south of the country (that includes the second city in the country, Basora) has also become an extremely unstable zone, where combats with the British troops occur frequently. In this region, the rubs between Shii fractions makes the task of ?maintaining order? difficult and it leaves room for battles of the militias against the invading troops. A few weeks ago an aeroplane was shot down with a missile. As an expression of the aggravation of the struggle, the British army is already admitting to a thousand deserters, according to the BBC. In this situation, according to some correspondents, several governments and European oil companies are trying to negotiate separately with the rebels.

? and more and more expensive

The expenditure of the government of the USA on the Iraq war represent a growing weight on the national budget. The USA Congress has just voted 64 000 million dollars for this year and it has been estimated that they have already spent 320 000 million since the invasion ? a figure that has already left behind the preliminary budget. But all this great amount of money has not been able to buy any control of the situation in Iraq and ? quite to the contrary ? they are still losing foothold to the resistance.

Pressed by the crisis to give some kind of perspective of a way out at home, the Bush administration swing from pessimistic discourses to optimistic discourses. The secretary of defence, Donald Rumfield, admitted to the Senate that it would be difficult to reduce significantly the number of troops in 2006. On the other hand, a week after in the same senate  commander Peter Pace, encouraged by the death of Al Zarqawi, said that there would be an important reduction of the troops this year and in the late 2007, when only a few thousand soldiers would be left as a support to the ?Iraqi? forces. During his recent visit to Iraq, Bush expressed this latter vision but, when he returned to the USA, his declarations became more similar to those of Rumfeld. This shows quite clearly what contradictions are caused by the situation in Iraq and how difficult it is to control the country.