Untitled Document
On August 16, an extraordinary article appeared in the New York Times
providing details of a top-level private meeting on US strategy in Iraq at the
Pentagon last week. President Bush, who was present along with his war cabinet
and selected “outside experts”, voiced his open dissatisfaction
that the new Iraqi government—and the Iraqi people—had not shown
greater support for US policies.
“More generally, the participants said, the president expressed frustration
that the Iraqis had not come to appreciate the sacrifices the United States
had made in Iraq, and was puzzled as to how a recent anti-American rally in
support of Hezbollah in Baghdad could draw such a large crowd,” the newspaper
reported. The angry protest on August 4 against the US-backed Israeli war in
Lebanon drew more than 100,000 people from the capital and other Iraqi cities.
The New York Times article, which had all the hallmarks of a planted story,
did not of course speak openly of a coup against Maliki. Nevertheless it constituted
an unmistakable threat to the Baghdad regime that its days were numbered if
it did not toe the US line. Prior to his trip to Washington last month, Maliki
publicly condemned the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. While his comments were
just a pale reflection of popular sentiment in Iraq and throughout the Middle
East, they soured the Bush administration’s plans to use the visit as
a much-needed boost prior to mid-term US elections.
The New York Times followed up the report with a further article on August
17 on the latest Defence Department indices of the catastrophe in Iraq: the
number of roadside bombs aimed mainly against American forces reached an all-time
high of 2,625 in July as compared to 1,454 in January. “The insurgency
has gotten worse by almost all measures, with insurgent attacks at historically
high levels. The insurgency has more public support and is demonstrably more
capable in numbers of people active and in its ability to direct violence than
at any point in time,” a senior Defence Department official told the newspaper.
Buried at the conclusion of the article, however, was the astonishing admission
by one of the participants in the Pentagon meeting that Bush administration
officials were already beginning to plan for a post-Maliki era. “Senior
administration officials have acknowledged to me that they are considering alternatives
other than democracy,” an unnamed military affairs expert told the New
York Times. “Everybody in the administration is being quite circumspect,
but you can sense their own concern that this is drifting away from democracy.”
The Bush administration’s attempts to dress up its illegal occupation
of Iraq as “democratic” have always been a fraud. Ever since the
2003 invasion, US officials have had a direct hand in drawing up constitutional
arrangements, steering elections and forming cabinets. Maliki was only installed
as prime minister in May after a protracted White House campaign to force his
predecessor Ibrahim al-Jaafari to stand aside. To speak of “considering
alternatives other than democracy” can only have one meaning—that
the Bush administration is contemplating plans to ditch the constitution, remove
Maliki and insert a regime more directly amenable to Washington’s orders.
This would not be the first time that US imperialism has ousted one
of its own puppets. In 1963, as American strategy in Vietnam was floundering,
the Kennedy administration gave the green light to army plotters to overthrow
South Vietnamese President Ngo Dinh Diem. While loyal to Washington, Diem’s
autocratic methods had provoked popular opposition and undermined US efforts
to strengthen the South Vietnamese army in its war against the National Liberation
Front.
On November 1, 1963, rebel army units mutinied and marched on the presidential
palace in Saigon. Diem, who had escaped, rang the US ambassador Henry Cabot
Lodge, who assured the Vietnamese president that the US had no hand in the coup
and expressed concern for his safety. A few hours later, the reassured Diem
surrendered, only to be shot dead along with his notorious brother Ngo Dinh
Nhu, and replaced by a military junta.
The Bush administration has plenty of reasons to get rid of Maliki. In launching
its invasion of Iraq, Washington never wanted an independent or democratic government
in Baghdad. Its aims were to transform the country into a pliable client state
that would function as a base of operations to further its designs throughout
the region, particularly against Iran. But the White House has become increasingly
dissatisfied with the political results of its military adventure. Because of
its own disastrous miscalculations it has been forced to rely on a coalition
government dominated by Shiite parties with longstanding connections to Tehran.
Inside Iraq, the Bush administration’s calculations that Maliki’s
“government of national unity” would quell anti-American resistance
and halt the descent into civil war have already proven worthless. Far from
scaling back, the Pentagon has had to maintain troop levels and dispatch thousands
of extra soldiers to Baghdad in a desperate effort to reconquer the capital.
With Congressional elections looming, the defeat of the pro-war senator Joseph
Lieberman in the Democratic Party primary on August 8 raised fears in the White
House that widespread antiwar sentiment would decimate the Republican Party
at the polls amid US debacles in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Middle East as a
whole.
The removal of Maliki and the imposition of a subservient military regime would,
at least in the short term, solve a few of the Bush administration’s political
problems by removing any objections in Baghdad to a ruthless crackdown in the
country and to US plans for new provocations against Iran and Syria.
Significantly, the New York Times’ accounts of discussions in the White
House and Pentagon have been paralleled in Baghdad by persistent rumours of
a coup. On July 29, the Washington Post reported the remarks of prominent Shiite
politician Hadi al-Amiri, who warned that “some tongues” were talking
about toppling the Maliki coalition and replacing it with a “national
salvation government”. It would mean, he said, “cancelling the constitution,
cancelling the results of the elections and going back to square one... and
we will not accept that.”
Having pursued a policy of reckless militarism in the Middle East for the past
five years, the Bush administration is more than capable of toppling an Iraqi
regime that no longer suits its immediate purposes. However, far from stabilising
the American occupation, a coup in Baghdad would no more extricate the White
House from its political crisis than the ousting of Diem did in 1963. As in
Vietnam, the US is sinking deeper and deeper into a political and military quagmire
in Iraq.
____________________________
Read from Looking Glass News
Iraq’s
Destiny
Who’s
behind the active death squads running in Iraq?
Bush's
Iraq: A Bloodbath Economy
The
Corporate Takeover of Iraq's Economy: Looting By Another Name
US
Collusion with Iraqi Death Squads
US
Military Still Runs With Dreaded Wolf Brigade
Posada
Crony Runs Iraq Death Squads
Death-squad
"democracy" in Iraq
Death
Squad Democracy
More
accusations of US-backed death squads in Iraq
Journalist
killed after investigating US-backed death squads in Iraq
Crying
Wolf: Media Disinformation and Death Squads in Occupied Iraq
"Riding
with the Bad Boys"; the rise of Iraqi death squads
Did
John Negroponte organize the Iraqi death squads?
Salvador
Option: Death Squads in Iraq
Bush's
economic invasion of Iraq
The
corporate plunder of Iraq