Iraq: should we call for "troops out now"?

Submitted by Anon on 10 December, 2006 - 2:51

Solidarity is opening a discussion on whether or not we should call for the troops to get out of Iraq now. Short contributions to that debate are welcome.

Solidarity with Iraqi workers! Troops out now!
by David Broder

"What we refuse to do, and it is the crux of our dispute with Barry Finger, is raise a 'demand', Troops Out Now, whose likely, calculable, practical consequences we do not want. Which may well bring on a catastrophe that will abort all the possibilities that the rising labour movement is opening for the working class of Iraq."
(Solidarity 3/84, 17 November 2005)

Above, Sean Matgamna claims that calling for the withdrawal of troops is to demand a "catastrophe" to rain down on the labour movement - a cut-and-run would accelerate a civil war in which the workers would be crushed. It is true that kidnappings and murders of workers are overwhelmingly perpetrated by Islamists rather than by the US/UK occupation - apart from the December 2003 raid of the IFTU headquarters in Baghdad, deliberate military attacks on workers by the Americans have been relatively few.

Yet implicit in the argument that workers would suffer if the troops left is the idea that their presence serves as some sort of defence for workers - even if not "deliberately". If the occupiers' departure would leave the workers more vulnerable, it follows that one of the characteristics of the occupation must be preventing the annihilation of workers. But in reality, in no way has the presence of foreign forces protected trade union activity. The authorities take no action whatsoever to guard union buildings, Decree 8750 has made union activity effectively illegal, and they take no steps to save kidnapped labour activists. Islamists are given free rein to attack them across the country. The coalition appears happy to let this happen, as long as they are not attacking US/UK troops. The trade union movement exists semi-illegally, with no help whatsoever from the government - it organises in spite of the civil war going on around it, rather than because of "democratic space" under the occupation.

To the anger of workers, the imperialists have plundered the country's resources, privatising industries and stealing oil. Given that the Islamists are already attacking workers, particularly trade unionists, at will, the assertion that the withdrawal of troops would result in a sudden outburst of anti-worker massacres crudely ignores the reality.

The occupation serves as a recruiting agent for Islamism and a catalyst for violence - the groups which grow in "resistance" to it represent a huge danger for workers. The presence of coalition troops feeds the "legitimacy"
and support for "resistance" groups. Their policies have made the armed groups bigger and the ethnic tensions greater. Of course, the fact that the invasion has brought the Islamist groups to prominence does not mean that the withdrawal of troops would cause the Islamists to collapse. Their organisations have grown strong and sunk roots. However, a catalyst for their growth would be removed.

The role of imperialist troops is not to defend bourgeois democracy - even "our" government appears to be giving up on that. The troops will do nothing but defend themselves, defend the contractors, defend their barracks, until the imperialist powers finally go home. If they'd gone home three years ago, the Islamists would probably have been less able to grow. But that isn't the central question.

The point is surely that as Marxists hostile to both bourgeois-authoritarian "alternatives" posed in Iraq, it is not our role to predict which reactionary force is "better" than another, or what either might do if it won out militarily. I deny that the argument for "troops out now" relies on any conjecture about what might happen in the future. Our role is to support a working-class, democratic alternative, and use any avenue by which it might grow. The occupation of Iraq is one of the obstacles to this, not an alternative "solution". In this atmosphere, it is unfortunate that in many articles in our press comrades have made abstract conjecture about imperialism being able in some cases to play a world-historic progressive role, as if that could be relevant to the situation in Iraq.

In 1969 we argued within the IS for "troops out" of Northern Ireland, against slogans accepting British troops' role in preventing all-out chaos but also demanding they stay in their barracks. We pointed out that no independent working-class voice would grow if it relied on an imperialist army. How can it have true independence if it accepts the rule of bigger, reactionary forces? How could that appeal to the nationally oppressed? A huge majority of Iraqis oppose the occupation, and the workers' movement would be weakened if it argued that its own existence is reliant on the imperialists not giving up.

Who is in charge in Iraq?

If the scenario in Iraq was ever as clear-cut as being one of an all-out war pitting occupying troops against the Sunni and Shi'a sectarians (in which workers are a passive force simply "caught in the middle") - it is certainly not so now.

It is becoming increasingly less clear where the Islamist militias end and the proto-state structures of the imperialist occupation begin. It is becoming redundant to even talk of "the resistance". The most powerful and hegemonic elements of the movement to which this term refers are just as eager to work within the occupation's structures as they are to "resist" them.

The Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), whose militia - the Badr Corps - is one of the best-armed and most dangerous in Iraq, has had representation on every "government" committee that the occupation has thrown up. Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army controls Sadr City, and the Badr Corps controls police authorities in some areas of Baghdad and uses them as instruments to conduct their struggle against women and LGBT people.

Far from acting as a bulwark against clerical-fascism or defending (by accident or design) democratic spaces against it, the occupation and its structures have given forces like the Mahdi Army and the Badr Corps untold power in Iraq, and opportunities they would not possibly have if they were simply sectarian militias engaged in guerrilla warfare.

The idea that the democratic space in which trade unions can operate remains open only because both the occupation and "the resistance" are too busy dealing with each other to devote too much energy into trying to shut it down looks increasingly spurious as the lines between them blur, and the most dangerous and threatening clerical-fascist forces become enmeshed in the occupation's structures.

The clerical-fascists are not, as we have consistently pointed out, national liberation forces who just happen to be right-wing. They are the representatives of local capital (and Iranian sub-imperialism) engaged in rivalry with international capital and US hyper-imperialism. Their aim is power in Iraq, and if they can advance this aim better by collaborating with occupation forces and working within the structures it has established, then they will. Clearly, this is the route they are choosing; refusing to raise demands for the end of the occupation because we want to keep "the resistance" powerless is a meaningless position.

Why "troops out now"?

The phrase "troops out now" is used poisonously by the SWP etc., who do not in fact aim for a withdrawal of US/UK troops under pressure from a mass working-class anti-imperialist movement in the UK linked to anti-imperialist workers in Iraq. Instead, they hope that the goodwill of political Islam in the UK along with a few "Trotskyists" will help the military victory of Muqtada al-Sadr, Al-Qaeda and allied forces.

The agency of troop withdrawal implied by the words is not however the "resistance". "Troops out now" is a demand placed upon the imperialist powers themselves. With the political weakness of both Bush's and Blair's governments, any serious anti-war movement would be able to put sufficient political pressure on them that they would be forced to abandon their
project to dominate the Middle East. Even the Tories, opportunistically, are trying to do this.

We should spell out quite clearly that we are in favour of the imperialist adventure ending immediately. No qualms, no qualification - immediate withdrawal is not a timetable, but a demand that they abandon all of their plans.

Against the occupation?

Our oft-repeated slogan "Against the occupation", if it comes with the proviso that troops leaving would make the situation worse, simply means abstract dismay that it is "necessary" for the occupation to continue until the workers can pose a serious challenge. As if it were like the birth of capitalism - historically progressive, but a pity it was so exploitative. Believing (or indeed, having the courage to admit you believe) that the withdrawal of troops would kill the remaining hope for Iraqi workers is to concede to the idea that imperialist troops, who barely dare to venture out into the streets, can help build a better, lasting solution for Iraq than the reactionary parties. Yet now the Americans leak plans to use Ba'athist Syria, along with clerical fascists like the Iranian government and Muqtada al-Sadr, to enforce law and order on their behalf! Another attack on Iraq's independence.

The continuing presence of foreign troops is part of the problem, and must be actively resisted - opposing imperialism is a key task for the Iraqi labour movement, and must be represented sloganistically.

Some protection
By Sacha Ismail

Of course, the occupation does not exist to protect the labour movement in any sense. But it is nonetheless true that, as against the "resistance" and the gangsters, its rule and that of its sponsored government provide some very limited space for the labour movement to exist. Can you deny that the Iraqi left and labour movement basically exist in occupied territory, not territory controlled by the "resistance"?

In normal capitalist countries, I don't think the police "protect the labour movement". But as against organised criminals and gangsters, I think the bourgeois rule of law gives the working class more space to operate. I am opposed to both gangsterism/organised crime and the state! I accept that the analogy is not perfect (I acknowledge the occupation is something more violently undemocratic and illegitimate than a 'normal' bourgeois' state, and that we need to be more even-handed here). But it tells us something. In both cases the nature and totality of the relations involved conditions how we oppose our more powerful bourgeois enemy. We do not at the moment raise the slogan "abolish the police". We are for the abolition of the police, but the immediate realisation of that slogan would not mean working-class power but anarchy and free run for people who are on balance worse than the bourgeois state. And, similarly, we should not say "Troops out now" or "End the occupation now", because, though we are for the removal of troops and the end of the occupation, the immediate realisation of the slogan would very likely mean numerous deaths and the labour movement being crushed in an all-out civil war.

No adequate slogans
By Clive Bradley

For sure, Iraq is already verging on catastrophe. If there was ever the possibility that the US and its allies might introduce some kind of functioning bourgeois democracy, it seems pretty much long in the past now. The occupation has played a role in fostering civil war - by forming alliances on sectarian bases, and so on - as well as simply having no plan beyond neo-con abstractions, alienating people whose good will they actually had, etc.

Much of the pro-war left likes to say that since it's the "resistance" killing people, the occupation can't be held responsible. This is bullshit. One half of the sectarian civil war is coming from two groups in the government - the Sadrists and the Badr brigades (it takes two sides for a sectarian civil war); and in any case, the idea that you hold no responsibility for going into a place with a programme of ideological abstractions and turn it into hell on earth doesn't wash, morally or in any other way.

But it is perfectly possible to make the assessment that, bad as things are, with withdrawal they will get even worse. If the Americans withdraw, the Maliki government will simply collapse. There will be no central authority at all, and all hell will break loose.

That I think is the key thing. It's true that the US army has limited real power, and has lost control of vast swathes of the country. But the occupation remains the real source of power of the state, or remains the substitute for a state, or whatever phrase is best; and its withdrawal would amount to the collapse of the state.

If that happens, I don't know what the immediate result will be. Almost certainly hundreds of thousands of people will flee, or try to; the militias will go crazy. It could be that in the relatively short or medium term that the Sunni groups will lose. But it would be naive to count on it. The sectarian hostilities seem now to be very deep. The Sunni groups will be sustained by hatred for the Shia, by revenge for the actions of the death squads, and all the rest of it.

We could well see the partition of the country, and ethnic cleansing. The Kurds will want to lock the craziness out, somehow - but they also want Mosul and Kirkuk...

It is entirely wrong to argue for "troops out now" on the basis of some kind of conviction that you know that things will be better, etc. We don't know. What then? Slogans are tools for mobilisation. In the UK, should we be aiming to mobilise people around the demand for withdrawal?

If reality is too complex and too uncertain to sum up in a slogan, well, that's one of the troubles with reality. We can say everything we need to say about the occupation without, necessarily, having to devise a snappy slogan which saves us the trouble of explaining anything. I would want to say a lot of things which David says. But if there is a reason to chant "troops out now", or use that as a headline, it needs to be because it implies something concrete.

Clearly, there isn't much chance of building a mass solidarity campaign with the Iraqi labour movement. But the need for one should still be our focus - because whatever happens as a result of decisions made by forces we don't control, the labour movement needs solidarity.

We should say: "The occupation is a disaster. We don't really know what will happen if and when they withdraw, though clearly it's been a disaster. But whatever happens, the labour movement, women's movement, etc, need our solidarity." Not snappy. But that's life.

Iraqi workers must oppose occupation
By Daniel Randall

Comrades may have seen an episode of The Simpsons in which a wild bear is found roaming the streets of Springfield. The whole town panics, and to appease the irate townsfolk the Mayor spends hundreds of thousands of dollars on a "Bear Patrol", featuring satellites, stealth-planes, ground troops and all sorts.

Sure enough, no more bears are found on the streets. The "Bear Patrol" is seen as a success. Only little Lisa sees through it; she picks up a rock from the ground, and says to her dad "by your logic, dad, I could just as well say that this rock keeps tigers away. You don't see any tigers around, do you?"

Homer thinks about this for a couple of seconds, and then says "Lisa...I'd like to buy your rock..."

The rock is the troops, Homer is the Iraqi labour movement, and the bears/tigers are "the resistance". I'm sure you get the picture.

It's not clear to me that the Iraqi labour movement only exists because of the "protection" (de facto or not) that the presence of imperialist troops provides for it. Clearly, it's the case that the invasion of Iraq opened up the (limited) space that allowed unions like the UUI and GUOE to organise. But we shouldn't read off political conclusions from this; to draw an analogy, it's probably the case that a US invasion of Cuba would give Cuban workers more "space" than they currently enjoy, but I'm certain no-one in the AWL would think about advocating it.

There's a very strong case for saying that the "protection" the occupation provides is outweighed by the damaging potential of its own ambitions as a capitalist-imperialist project as well as its symbiotic relationship with "the resistance"; on the one hand, multi-level de facto complicity (more on that later), and on the other the catalytic relationship that David's already talked about. Every day of "protection" that the occupation provides is also a day of galvanisation and growth for "the resistance".

It is an inescapable reality that if you don't want the troops to leave because the consequences would be bad, you must prefer (not positively desire, but prefer) for them to stay.

Anyway, in significant parts of Iraq, "the resistance" is already in control. The Badr Corps and the Mahdi Army already control the police force in some areas.The enmeshment of "the resistance" with the state structures (such as they exist) makes the "the troops are fighting the resistance" paradigm seem a little shallow. In fact, "the resistance" is in control of the structures the troops helped put in place.

Also, the presence of imperialist troops in Iraq is a violation of the right to self-determination. Or are we saying that the space for workers to organise overrides democratic questions? Then why not advocate US invasions of Cuba and wherever else?

It's important to make such assessments about what would happen if the troops leave, but we don't always base our slogans on such judgements. The logic of the argument seems to be that, as the labour movement is not currently strong enough to survive without the troops, it would be unwise to advocate the troops' withdrawal even if we don't actually want the troops to be there. My view is that the labour movement will not and cannot become strong enough to be a socially hegemonic force if it is shackled to this kind of de facto reliance on the protection of the occupation. It will only strengthen itself in opposition to and in struggle against its enemies - which, as we all agree, quite prominently includes the US occupation.

I'm not necessarily in favour of "troops out now" as a slogan, and I agree that the primary slogan should be "solidarity with Iraqi workers"). I think it's necessary to state that the occupation plays a reactionary role, and that its presence violates democracy and self-determination in Iraq. "Troops out" or "end the occupation" are sufficient slogans; "troops out now" has, in my view, been poisoned by its usage in the British anti-war movement and struggling to "reclaim" it is probably possible but not worth our bother.

The point of our slogans is not to give military timetables to the bourgeoisie, but to build up the working-class as an independent political force at home and abroad; in short, to build the third camp.

The logic of our activity on Iraq (primarily through Iraq Union Solidarity) has been about doing this. I think it's time our slogans caught up.

This website uses cookies, you can find out more and set your preferences here.
By continuing to use this website, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.