November 11, 2005
On November 4, 2005, Democratic Representative
Jim McGovern of Massachusetts introduced a bill whose purpose
is to "prohibit the use of funds to deploy United States
Armed Forces to Iraq." This bill, numbered HR 4232, is
co-sponsored by twelve other representatives, including Dennis
Kucinich (D-OH), Maxine Waters (D-CA), and Barbara Lee (D-CA).
The bill was immediately referred to the House Armed Services
Committee and the Committee on International Relations, where
it will remain until the Speaker decides to bring it to the floor.
This in itself makes the likelihood that any full House discussion
of this bill will not occur in the near future, if ever. For
the sake of argument, however, let's assume that it will make
it to the House floor as it is written and it will make it there
during this session of Congress.
Making these assumptions, let's
take an honest look at what this bill demands.
(a) Prohibition- Except
as provided in subsection (b), funds appropriated or otherwise
made available under any provision of law may not be obligated
or expended to deploy or continue to deploy the Armed Forces
to the Republic of Iraq.
This portion seems straightforward
enough. Plain and simple, it states that no more funds be appropriated
or used to send any more US military forces to Iraq. If one
opposes the war in Iraq, they certainly can't argue with this
provision.
(b) Exception- Subsection
(a) shall not apply to the use of funds to--
(1) provide for the safe and orderly withdrawal of the Armed
Forces from Iraq;
This subsection is also hard
to argue with. After all, it will cost some money to bring all
of the troops home from their bases in Iraq.
or (2) ensure the security
of Iraq and the transition to democratic rule by--
This is where the bill begins
to become meaningless in terms of an immediate and complete withdrawal
of all occupation forces from Iraq. If we read on, we discover
that Mr. McGovern's bill as introduced is not really a demand
for an end to the foreign occupation of Iraq. Instead, it is
just a call to replace US forces with forces from other nations'
militaries--nations that would coordinate everything with the
US and its intelligence agencies.
(A) carrying out consultations
with the Government of Iraq, other foreign governments, the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations, and
other international organizations;
Which nations might Mr. McGovern
have in mind? Why, first and foremost of course, other nations
with colonialist histories and potential economic interests in
Iraq. By this, I mean the NATO countries, who, despite their
differences prior to the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, would
all like to have a piece of the oil pie that is part and parcel
of what Iraq is to the major capitalist alliance (or NATO).
As for the UN, its recent history regarding Iraq does not place
it in the Iraqi peoples' circle of friends. After all, it was
the UN Security Council that enforced the murderous sanctions
against that country's people for over ten years and has looked
the other way whenever Washington and London violated their part
of any agreement made after the first Gulf War. Then, of course,
there is the so-called government of Iraq. In other words, the
government composed of men and women handpicked by the current
regime in Washington, completely funded by this same regime,
and as recent statements by the Iraqi president regarding US
plans to attack Syria from Iraq made clear, unable to act in
any meaningful manner without the approval of the men and women
in power in DC.
In short, this is where Mr.
McGovern's (and his co-sponsors) good intentions fall apart.
To repaet, this bill, if enacted, would only replace US troops
with other occupying forces. Iraq would continue to be occupied
and the bloodshed would continue. The intentions of the invasion
and occupation would not change, just the nationalities of the
occupying troops. Washington would still be pulling the strings,
although the spoils would have to be shared among those who participated
in this charade. Given the nature of the battleground in Iraq,
any nation willing to send its troops to replace those the US
would withdraw would want an awful big piece of the pie. So,
on a very practical level, it is quite unlikely that any government
would even volunteer its military for such a role.
or (B) providing financial assistance or equipment
to Iraqi security forces and international forces in Iraq.
More of the same. This provision
would continue the funding of the Iraqi military and police forces,
including the various death squads and other covert ops groups
now in place. This means that the mission of the Iraqi forces
would change very little, if at all. They would continue to
attempt to impose Washington's designs (as expressed through
its Iraqi clients) and would be under orders from whatever troops
ended up replacing uniformed US forces under provision (A) above.
(c) Rule of Construction-
Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit or otherwise
restrict the use of funds available to any department or agency
of the Government of the United States (other than the Department
of Defense) to carry out social and economic reconstruction activities
in Iraq.
This sounds like a caveat to
continue any and all covert operations currently going on in
Iraq. Throughout its history, the CIA has operated under the
auspices of providing various types of aid to whatever countries
it is operating in. Indeed, one of the the agency's primary
vehicles operates under the acronym of USAID (US Agency for International
Development). What this provision does is enable most of the
US government in all its disguises to continue business as usual
in Iraq. The only agency that would be forbidden to do so is
the Department of Defense (DOD). So, any operations deemed necessary
to US designs for Iraq and currently operating under the aegis
of the DOD would have to be moved to some other agency. This
includes the huge numbers of so-called security contractors in
that country, many of whom are actually in the employ of US intelligence
agencies. Like I've said before, it's a shell game.
Is this bill the real thing?
Should the antiwar movement support it? Let me put it this
way. It's a beginning--albeit a small one. The members of Congress
who have attached their names to the bill include some of Congress'
most outspoken opponents of the Iraqi invasion and occupation,
which means their intentions are genuine. But we all know about
roads and pavement made of good intentions. Still, the very
fact that there is a bill in Congress that even considers the
withdrawal of US forces from Iraq is a step in the right direction.
Yet, as I briefly point out here, this bill is not enough.
It does not fundamentally change the situation for the people
of Iraq. The proposed legislation continues the scenario whereby
the US-created government in Baghdad is answerable to Washington
and not to the Iraqi people. It replaces one set of foreign troops
with another. It enhances the power of the Iraqi military and
it allows the continued presence of US covert operators (and
private companies in their employ) inside Iraq. Indeed, it makes
the likelihood of enhanced use of covert ops more likely in the
absence of traditional military assaults.
Most important of all, this
bill continues to deny the Iraqi people their sovereignty. The
resolution is not about guaranteeing Iraqi self-determination;
it's about the continued determination of Iraq's future by Washington
and its co-conspirators. To put it bluntly, this bill's only
provision should be that the US get out lock, stock and barrel
and leave no other occupying military force to replace it. As
long as the client government in Iraq depends on outside forces
for its support (and not the Iraqi people), not only will it
continue to ignore those Iraqis opposed to it, it will never
be independent, since the occupier can overrule any of its decisions.
As I've noted before, if the government had to depend on the
Iraqi people for its support, it would be more likely to compromise
with its opposition, armed and otherwise. Then the beginnings
of a just and representative democracy would have a chance in
Iraq.
Don't put away your protest
placards yet. Indeed, the antiwar movement has momentum on its
side, but it risks being maneuvered into a scenario that either
replaces one occupying force with another (without any genuine
input from the Iraqi people) or, as a Nation editorial
called for on November 9, 2005, a nebulous demand for a withdrawal
as quickly as possible - whatever that means. We need to repeat
until we are heard, the only demand should be immediate and
unconditional withdrawal..
(Bill text from http://thomas.loc.gov/)
Ron Jacobs is author of The
Way the Wind Blew: a history of the Weather Underground,
which is just republished by Verso. Jacobs' essay on Big Bill
Broonzy is featured in CounterPunch's new collection on music,
art and sex, Serpents
in the Garden. He can be reached at: rjacobs3625@charter.net