Editorial

Iraq and the Burdens of Empire

The bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad last week may mark a turning point in the U.S. occupation of Iraq and the resistance of the Iraqi people to that occupation. At this time there is only speculation about who actually carried out the attack, with some blaming remnants of the Baathist regime and others blaming Al Qa'eda fighters streaming in from Saudi Arabia. Still others point to a growing number of young Iraqis who are joining the ranks of the resistance fighters. However, regardless of who is responsible, it demonstrates that a UN fig leaf covering a straightforward imperialist annexation will not be tolerated by the Iraqi resistance.

This places the United States in a precarious position. For the past several weeks attacks against American troops have been escalating and it has become clear that the Bush administration is now aware that the occupation of Iraq will not be the cakewalk it assumed it would be. Gone is the rhetoric about continuing the "war on terror" on another front. Talk about invading Syria, Iran or North Korea has dried up; instead the talk has turned to how many hundred thousand more troops will be needed to simply occupy Iraq and crush whoever it is that is continuing to fight there. Desperate calls have gone out to various countries to send in "peacekeepers" to assist the Americans to accomplish this. However, to this point most of these requests have been rejected. India was the latest to refuse to send troops, insisting that Indian peacekeeping forces would operate only under the flag of the United Nations. The U.S. has flatly refused any such development, insisting that it alone will command any forces within the country.

It appears that the U.S. is now considering introducing another resolution in the UN Security Council endorsing a UN peacekeeping mission to Iraq. However, France and Russia have pledged to veto any such resolution unless the UN is given more control (and their companies receive some of the lucrative contracts to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure). Meanwhile, UN General Secretary Kofi Annan has stated that there is little chance that such a resolution will be accepted. So, it appears at this time that the U.S. has run into a brick wall, with some help from Britain, will be forced to shoulder the entire material and manpower costs of the occupation.

Of course, there is still a possibility that the Bush administration will reach some sort of consensus with France and Russia on sharing the spoils of Iraq, but to do so would constitute political suicide. U.S. imperialism would be exposed as being weak and vulnerable and it would only be a matter of time before the vultures started to gather to pick its bones. It has been obvious for over a year that the new aggressiveness of U.S. imperialism is based, not on its overwhelming strength, but rather on its strategic weakness. The U.S. economy is still declining and the financial burden of a long military occupation will weaken it further. Even if the Americans succeed in stealing all of Iraq's oil, that revenue will only pay for a fraction of the costs of occupation. The Americans gambled on a quick and cheap victory, followed by the rapid falling into line of their imperialist competitors. It is beginning to look as if they are going to lose that gamble, if they have not already done so. If so, the days of their empire are numbered.