Iraq occupation: ‘transform the political landscape’

Joanne Landy is on the New Politics editorial board and is co-director of the Campaign for Peace and Democracy, an advocacy organization based in New York City.

In February 2003, millions of people in America and abroad protested the impending United States-led war on Iraq. But today, even among opponents of the war, there is widespread confusion surrounding the military occupation and re-creation of Iraq's political and economic systems.

Many who opposed the war now argue: Yes, it was a mistake to go into Iraq, but now that we're there, we have to stay. It's our responsibility to bring democracy to the Iraqi people and protect them from chaos and civil war—and to promote peace and stability." Democratic presidential candidates Howard Dean and Carol Moseley Braun make this case, as do many analysts and individuals across the political spectrum.

But this reasoning is flawed and has already led to disastrous consequences because it ignores the destructive, reactionary and inhumane character of the American role in Iraq—supporting Saddam Hussein when Iraq was at war with Iran, and now creating a new Iraqi economic and political system that again puts the U.S. government's agenda and interests ahead of the Iraqis' in rebuilding their country.

No Easy Answers

There is no quick fix for those who oppose war and the continued U.S. military presence in Iraq, and who want to responsibly address how to respond to ruthless dictators, terrorism and Islamic political fundamentalism. But the remedy, in my view, begins with a sensible and practical American foreign policy that does not coddle ruthless dictators, overtly or covertly, and it extends to the economic and political relationships the United States creates—so they do not breed anger and worse among nations and their people.

With the possible exception of cases such as Liberia and Rwanda, the road to stopping war crimes or bringing social justice or peace is not through introducing outside military force. If you look at nations with dictatorial and aggressive forces in formation or in power, military intervention virtually never offers a real solution. The solution is a new U.S. foreign policy—military, political and economic—that tangibly improves the welfare of the nations and their people, so the factions that embrace anti-democratic and repressive solutions, including anti-American terrorism, have, over time, little popular support.

The administration's record in Iraq fails to meet this standard. Staying the course for lofty democratic goals, as many now argue, simply ignores the reality on the ground—especially with the economic and political systems now being imposed under military occupation. The way Americans could encourage a radically new foreign policy is by promoting political change at home, so the White House is actively seeking to eliminate the sources of anti-American anger.

Such a scenario is not what is unfolding in Iraq. As the American-and British-led occupation faces mounting obstacles in Iraq and growing disapproval at home, President Bush is seeking to wriggle out of his primary prewar justifications for war: the discredited claims that Saddam Hussein possessed and was likely to use weapons of mass destruction; and the suggestion that he was allied with Al Qaeda. Instead the administration is now framing the war and occupation as part of a broad campaign for democratization throughout the Middle East. As the president said on Nov. 6, "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe."

But the president's claim he now supports democratic reform isn't credible. Genuine democracy in the region is incompatible with the real goals of the intervention in Iraq: to secure a U.S. military platform in the Middle East; to advance the American-dominated corporate capitalist system; and to gain strategic control over Iraq's vast oil supply. No truly democratic government in Iraq would long be able to defer to such U.S. interests.

Dubious Progress

Some in the peace movement seem to believe that legitimate opposition to the American occupation depends on being able to show Iraq is worse off now than it was under Hussein. But this is a wrong-headed approach. In fact, comparing prewar and postwar Iraq gives a very jumbled picture. On the one hand, Hussein's grotesque repressive apparatus, including the torture chambers and rape rooms, is no longer functioning, which is obviously an improvement.

But at the same time the occupation imposes a different kind of straitjacket on the country, and subjects the Iraqi people to humiliation and often injury and even death at the hands of the U.S. military. Moreover, to the extent that the United States succeeds in sustaining its occupation, it is in a stronger position to dominate not only Iraqi politics, but the political and economic life of other countries around the world. This is precisely the imperial domination that not only is a major cause of terrible misery in the third world but also strengthens authoritarian and theocratic forces everywhere.

The question is not which is worse: control of Iraq by Saddam Hussein; a takeover by the now growing fundamentalist theocratic forces; or imperial military control of the country. All these options are unacceptable, and the victory of any of these forces does not in any way point toward progress. But these are not inevitably the only choices. Even though positive democratic options in Iraq are today relatively weak, they represent the hope for a decent future for the country.

Is This What Democracy Looks Like?

Those who see the occupation creating the foundation for a democratic Iraq need to face the reality of the role of U.S. troops in the country. As Thomas Crampton pointed out in his Oct. 14, 2003 article in The New York Times ("Iraqi Official Urges Caution on Imposing Free Market"), the economic plan the United States is imposing makes even some of its hand-picked Iraqi leaders uneasy.

Iraqi enterprises have been largely state-run, but the United States plans a rapid privatization that will mean huge numbers of unemployed and will leave the nation's wealth free from meaningful social control. Restrictions on foreign investment have been lifted in all economic sectors apart from oil and other natural resources involving primary extraction and initial processing. Many suspect that this exception is intended to appease Iraqi public opinion and will be lifted in due time. Meanwhile, import duties have been cut to 5 percent, thus threatening most Iraqi enterprises, and the maximum corporate tax rate has been set at 15 percent. In a move that Bush and his friends have not yet dared to try at home, a flat tax system has been introduced, thus ensuring that wealthier Iraqi individuals and companies won't pay their fair share.

American economic policy in Iraq is brazenly vulgar. Regulations promulgated by the U.S. Agency for International Development have, until recently, required hiring only U.S. contractors, cutting out both Iraqis and non-U.S. foreign investors. The United States only now is considering allowing countries opposing the war to gain subcontracts. Companies with ties to the administration, such as Halliburton and Bechtel, have been favored without competitive bidding. And U.S. contractors and subcontractors are charging far greater rates than would their local Iraqi counterparts.

The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has been accused of corruption, prompting a Congressional inquiry. At the same time, in what can be seen only as a weird kind of political joke, the United States had charged the U.S.-created Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) with cronyism and corruption. It has delayed multimillion dollar contracts to build and operate wireless phone networks in Iraq because of (likely true) allegations that the bidding for these contracts was "hijacked by associates of the new Iraqi governing council" even as Halliburton et al. take their super-profits.

The U.S.-installed IGC has in effect banned independent trade unions in the state sector, which right now includes the lion's share of all Iraqi enterprises. This has been accomplished through keeping Saddam Hussein's 1987 anti-labor legislation firmly in place. Moreover, in June the CPA issued a decree forbidding strikes. It is difficult to see how the U.S. occupation is creating the preconditions for democratic rule in Iraq when unions, which have provided key social support for democracy in countries around the world, are de facto illegal, and workers are denied the elementary right to strike.

Iraqi labor leaders have also been targeted by the CPA. In July 2003, U.S. troops attacked members of the Union of the Unemployed engaged in peaceful protests against U.S. military and corporations' treatment of the jobless. As the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of American (UE) workers union notes in one report, "The August 2 arrest of 52 of their [Union of Unemployed] leaders is a strong indication of what kind of democracy the Bush Administration intends for the conquered country."

On Nov. 23, the U.S. military in Baghdad arrested two leaders of the Union of Unemployed. On Dec. 6, U.S. occupation forces attacked the temporary headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Workers Trade Unions (IFTU) and arrested eight of its leaders and core activists. The IFTU noted occupation forces "targeted trade unionist cadres and leaders who are well-known for their struggle against the hated dictatorship."

From Liberators To Occupiers

These actions—military, political and economic—have not softened Iraqi attitudes toward the United States. According to a recent New York Times report, a classified opinion poll conducted by the State Department's intelligence branch found that "a majority of Iraqis now regard American troops as occupiers rather than liberators . . ." "'The trend lines are in the wrong direction,' a government official said."

Western imperialism and its retrograde opponents have a symbiotic relationship in which they mutually strengthen and reinforce one another. For example, by providing an "anti-terrorist" rationale, the murderous attack on the World Trade Center was a gift to those who had long wanted to expand and fortify U.S. military power around the world and to mobilize a hitherto skeptical public opinion behind an aggressive imperial agenda.

But the opposite is also the case. The war against Iraq, U.S. military aggression and support for dictators, repressive regimes and unfair economic policies, and the alliance between the administration and Israel's Sharon government create not only waves of new recruits for terrorism and political fundamentalists but also widespread acquiescence or even outright support for these elements among ordinary people in the Middle East.

The response by the peace movement to this cycle of violence, repression, terrorism, militarism and imperialism starts with a foreign policy that has, at its core, a commitment to eradicate the political causes and economic pressures that foment anti-American violence and terror. That pre-emptive vision and policy doctrine is not held by this administration (or by those that preceded it), which is why members of the peace movement must work to transform the political landscape at home if they ever hope to see the United States promoting a democratic and humane foreign policy.

This essay is adapted from an article in the Winter 2004 edition of New Politics magazine.

The full article can be read on the New Politics website