Advice for the Iraqi Resistance on US politics

An Al-Quds al-Arabi op-ed writer and supporter of the Iraqi resistance, Awni Qalamji, has some advice for everyone, and particularly for the resistance, about the American political process. First, he notes, the confrontation between Democrats and Bush over Iraq policy will no doubt escalate between now and the 2008 presidential elections, so it shouldn't come as a surprise if this continues to dominate American and world attention. And the word the Democrats will be using is "withdrawal" because it was successful for them in 2006. But it is important not to lose sight of the fact that both parties are equally dominated by American capital, starting with the military firms, oil companies, and so on, and even more important that both are dominated by the "Zionist lobby", and here he cites the Walt-Merscheimer report. The result is that both parties share the same outlook on the world.

And so on this basis, when the Democrats focus on "withdrawal from Iraq", this by no means implies an acceptance of the defeat of the occupation project, which would be tantamount to a global American-Zionist defeat. Rather, the real aim in all of this [for the Democrats] is the defeat of Bush and his party in the 2008 presidential elections, seeing that the word "withdrawal" worked for them in the congressional elections [of 2006]....

Then he takes up the question what the Democrats are actually aiming for with respect to the deployment of American forces in Iraq. Quoting first Senate majority leader Harry Reid: "We are going to continue our pressure on the president to change the course of the war in Iraq, which has been so damaging to the American people", the writer explains:

The expression "change the course" means, according to prior statements by the Democratic party, is limited to the idea of withdrawing the occupation forces from the centers of cities, and from areas contiguous to [areas dominated by] the resistance, in order to minimize further human and material losses, and instead getting the armed forces of the [US-]agent government and the armed militias that are associated with it to confront the resistance, with [the US forces] limiting themselves to a support role.

And he says proof of the American intention to keep their forces in Iraq indefinitely is the fact that that the US is constructing 14 megabases in various parts of Iraq, along with 145 other installations to act as connectors.

Next he outlines what he thinks the political objectives are with respect to the Iraqi resistance. There are two major American aims here, he says:

The first aim is to change the war from a war between the resistance and the forces of the occupation, into a war between Iraqis themselves. Secondly: If the Americans can make the weak nationalist forces believe that they [the Americans] are actually responding to their demand for a withdrawal timetable, and that the time has therefore come to join in the political process--if they can make that happen, then it would be a blow to the Iraqi national resistance, or at least it would complicate the fight between the resistance and the occupation, and delay the liberation of Iraq.

The writer explains what he thinks the American imperial project is, focusing on oil, and he says the continued occupation of Iraq is central to that project, and therefore any voluntary abandonment of the occupation of Iraq would be unthinkable for either party. And the latter is the point he wants to drive home to the resistance.

In summary, the continuing dispute between the two American parties doesn't have to do with the occupation project itself or the building of the American empire; rather, it is limited to the question of how to manage the occupation project in a sound and successful way, after Bush has managed it in a bad way, bringing calamity and disaster to the United States of America...

So it would be a major error, he says in conclusion, for anyone in the resistance to fall for the idea that the United States will ever actually withdraw from Iraq voluntarily.