The inevitability of history

Even if those guerilla actions proved to be little more than pinpricks to the occupiers' huge war machine they certainly assumed a new dangerous dimension when the Iraqi insurgents demonstrated their ability to take on any target of their choosing and in a daredevil operation shot down US Army's Chinook helicopter killing 15 American soldiers on board or took an attempt on the life of US' deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfwitz. The unprecedented security measurers taken during Bush's brief stealth visit to Baghdad is an acknowledgement of the threat the insurgents pose. These lethal turn of events could have been a turning point in the US' posture and policy in occupied Iraq by making the US administration understand the futility of a no-win war it is fighting there. It was earnestly expected that the coalition forces would start considering an exit strategy before it was too late and a Vietnam syndrome sets in.

Belying those expectations the US chose to harden its stance by declaring that it would not be intimidated by what it called the handiwork of a few terrorists. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the US troops would use new tactics to break up the "more sophisticated enemy" in Iraq. The new tactics is however nothing new and often used by any occupation force as last ditch effort to prolong its occupation: the repression to which the occupation force in Iraq has now resorted to. Only days before the US troops wreaked havoc in Sammara, a northern township, suspected to be the base of the insurgents and killed as many as 54 Iraqis in one single operation. This repressive tactics of the occupation forces is likely to be repeated elsewhere in Iraq to crush the resistance.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

In the meantime the US has not exactly been successful in persuading individual nations to contribute troops or for that matter money it is in dire need of. While the contribution of troops only by the close allies like Italy, Spain or Japan is symbolic at the best, the Madrid donors' conference provided not much more than a drop in the ocean. A steadily falling approval ratings for Bush only a year before his reelection goes in tandem with increasing number of body bags from Iraq. Until more foreign troops can be found or occupied Iraq turns peaceful at its own for the American troops to leave, the US commanders will find it difficult to keep their highly demoralised troops motivated. How they meet that challenge will determine if the US occupation forces can weather the war on terror. Pew research centre surveyors had already discovered that growing number of Americans wanted President Bush to focus on economy which is in Chomsky's view 'in relative decline' rather than the war on terror. Bush's White House is spending $1bn a week in Iraq. The war on terror is thus going to be intertwined with American economy.

But then the predicaments of Iraqi freedom fighters resisting the US occupation are no less daunting. A Washington Post-ABC News Poll recently showed that the Americans at 48:47 per cent are fairly evenly divided between Goerge W Bush and a still undetermined Democratic challenger. It is a shock to those who thought of a real change of heart in America with regard to Iraq with a change in American leadership. The present leadership which initiated the war and justified it all throughout cannot possibly concede defeat and beat a retreat. So a lot depends on who enters the White House on the 20th January 2005. The one thing going for Bush is that within the stacks of Democratic presidential candidates there is not a single heavy weight. Neither is there any Kennedy or Clinton. Economy may be Bush's biggest challenge. But one year is long time to turn the tide in economy for a country of the US' potential. Moreover, Bush remains the prince and has already managed an election war chest worth $80 million. None of the President's opponents comes even close.

What even if a Democrat manages to get into oval office? It makes no differences so far as Iraq is concerned. Because all of the democratic candidates are 'pro-imperialist.' Seven out of eight candidates actually support the US occupation of Iraq. The Ohio congressman Denis Kuchinik who favours immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq is indeed a light-weight candidate.

To add to the difficulties of the insurgents fighting for overthrowing the occupation forces there are myriad other means to prolong the occupation. A string of gimmickry, chicanery, and sophistry on the part of occupation forces can always lend fresh lease of life to them. One such thing is the US' much trumpeted plan for expediting the transfer of power to the Iraqis. But who are these Iraqis after all? A carpetbagger like Ahmad Chalabi? But in the name of transferring power the occupation cannot only be prolonged but also be utilised to ensure a pliant government for post-occupation Iraq.

But there is one factor heavily weighing in favour of Iraq's emancipation: the inevitability of history. The urge for national liberation is the strongest force in modern times and it never failed in history. Even a rudimentary knowledge of history would convince the occupiers that eventually the occupation had always to be vacated. At some point they might remember how their forefathers fought and in the end kicked out the British. Rather than feeling liberated by an occupying power the Americans liberated themselves. And that makes Iraq sound too much like a colonial exercise -- an anachronism at the dawn of twenty-first century.

Brig ( retd) Hafiz is former DG of BIISS.