Just over the horizon: Imperialism and deceit of Obama’s Iraq withdrawal
Posted by Mike E on December 25, 2011
Official troops pull out, thousands of U.S. mercenaries remain
Many things go unsaid as the U.S. announces withdrawal from Iraq.
Defeat, for example. (Bush declared victory and “Mission Accomplished” — just as armed resistance to U.S. occupation took off. The Obama regime is declaring its withdrawal now, when in fact, the U.S. is seeking to maintain influence and control through numerous neo-colonial and military channels.
On paper they say that “u.s. combat troops” have pulled out to “zero.”
- 5,000 mercenary troops remain on the U.S. payroll (called “contractors”). They are based in the center of Iraq’s capital Bagdad (in the vast military installation that is deceptively called “the U.S. embassy.”)
These mercenaries dwarf the formal U.S. military force of 200 that makes of the “Office of security Cooperation” within the American embassy. - However at the same time, the U.S. Pentagon has about 40,000 uniformed military fores throughout this Persian Gulf region (and outlying areas). These incude the ground combat unit that was the last force out of Iraq. This posture is called “over the horizon” — meaning the armies have been moved “out of country” but are within striking distance. They are not visible (i.e. they are over the horizon where they aren’t formally counted), but they are really “in theater” and able to reenter iraq in various ways. In the case of this combat unit they are literally just across the border in Kuwait (an arbitrary border drawn in the sand). Such troops were no where near the Persian gulf for most of the last century. Since Jimmy Carter, there has been a steady intrusion of U.S. navies, bases, aircraft and nuclear weapons into the Persian Gulf.
- Meanwhile the U.S. maintains long range strike arecraft on call aboard aircraft carries and bases in the region.
- Further, it is reported that the CIA does not conform to the Obama withdrawal orders — i.e. they are a “separate authority” and independent of the military. At the moment, the U.S. says that “counterterorism commandos” are not formally within Iraq — but the fact is that these forces are designed to move fluidly across these borders (as they did into Pakistan) operating with other U.S. forces as deathsquads. The New York Times writes “The CIA historically has operated its own strike teams, and it also has the authority to hire indigenous operatives to participate in its counterterrorism missions.”
Right now, a ruling class is brewing in the U.S. over whether Obama pulled out too soon, and left too little behind. It is typical of such debates — where the logic of empire is assumed, and the criminality of empire is ignored.
The invasion and occupation of Iraq was a historic war crime — in which the U.S. launched a totally unprovoked aggression on a weaker country based on completely manufactured lies. Hitler’s invasion of Poland comes to mind as a previous example.
Now the debate (in the U.S. ruling class circles) is whether this decade-long war has been ended successfully enough — whether the empire has wrung permanent stability and influence out of its “shock and awe.” And (of course) the almost certain eruption of conflict (and even civil war) within a broken and hobbled Iraq will be read (in U.S. ruling class circles) as proof that their invasion should have lasted even longer.
Here is the truth: The war was launched Bush/Cheney lies, and the withdrawal is covered over by the lies of the Obama administration. Troops and resources are being freed up from occupation — not to carry out a U.S. withdrawal from the oil regions, but to threaten Iran more credibly.
These are the bloody actions of empire — Obama has loyally followed the Bush war plan, and withdrawal plan… and is shamelessly participating in the ongoing threats against Iran and numerous other countries in the region. Some Republicans attack the Democrats for pulling out, others attack them for staying in. And the whole debate is drenched in the logic of capitalism, imperialism, and shameless threat against peoples of the whole Middle East region.
Carl Davidson said
In the end, both Obama and Bush got snookered by an intricate war of position waged by portions of the Iraqi regime and their supporters in Iran. They had to leave, and did, with the antiwar forces playing a secondary but still important role in the outcome. Now the politics of Empire there continue by other means. Strategically speaking, the main winners were Iran and perhaps the Kurds, not the U.S. Now the focus of antiwar struggle shifts to Afghanistan, the drones wars in the region, and the war danger vs Iran and other places. Without US troops on the spot to back them up, the role of the mercenaries is more restricted. They may be drawn down for use elsewhere as well.
nikolaibrown said
“where the logic of empire is assumed, and the criminality of empire is ignored.”
I like that line. This was a generally good post, but it begs the question: if the invasion of Iraq is analogous to the Nazi invasion of Berlin, what are your average Amerikans analogous to? I generally agree with the summation that it doesn’t mean much for imperialism in the Middle East, except it is now poised to maneuver in different ways. Class struggle will continue in Iraq, and it will be interesting to see which route it takes. I wouldn’t be too quick to use the apolitical term ‘civil war’ to describe armed struggles against the Iraqi state.
I find the claim that the US ‘anti-war’ movement played any significant role, even a secondary one, in the US’ nominal withdraw to be far-fetched and hardly backed by any sort of evidence or logical argument I can surmise.
Carl Davidson said
@Nicolai
If 100,000s in the streets battling over many years, 800,000 in Chicago alone voting for ‘Out Now’ in 2006, nearly 200 city councils passing resolutions deploring the war, and the formation of groups like Iraq Vets Against the War has no meaning or impact, why bother?
nikolaibrown said
@Carl That’s great and all (and I don’t mean to diminish the actions and intentions of that who participated [but that's another critique])…. but show me a shred of evidence that that contributed to the US’ decision to nominally withdraw.
Carl Davidson said
A shred? Well, at two of the mass demos in Chicago, one IL politician spoke out against the Iraq war–once before it started, the other months after it was underway. He won a race to the Senate, and then ran for president, saying he would end it, rather than the other candidate who suggested staying 100 years.
To win the office, he first had to win Iowa–not even a majority of Blacks supported him before then. So hundreds, if not thousands, of young people opposed to the war worked the Iowa campaign for him, helping him win it. The rest is history. He could have ordered the troops out the morning after he was sworn in, but he dragged his feet for three years before doing it.
Now that’s more than ‘a shred’, and it’s still conjecture that a McCain-Palin regime would still be dragging their feet. Nor is it to say our current POTUS represents anything other than a contending faction of Empire, among a few others at the top.
But I’d stay the evidence is there that US antiwar voices at the base had a modest degree of influence in shaping the outcome of the withdrawal, such as it is. Now the task is to move on, and work to end the war in Afghanistan, the drone wars and other war dangers rising in the region. To do that, we’ll have to focus our demands on the same guy, as these wars and efforts belong to him now.
As we know, history doesn’t move in straight lines, but in spirals and zig zags–and this is a case in point.