Traveling to London to meet with British prime minister Anthony Blair, U.S. president George Bush defended the imperialist occupation of Iraq as part of a “global war on terror.” In a November 20 speech he tied it to the truck bombing that had just taken place in Istanbul, Turkey, and to “terrorist” attacks over the past two years in Indonesia, Morocco, India, Kenya, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. “In some cases, the measured use of force is all that protects us from a chaotic world ruled by force,” he argued, in remarks echoed by Blair. (See front-page article on Bush’s visit.)

Responding to demonstrators in London who had organized peace marches to “Stop Bush,” the U.S. president said the public protests proved his contention that the war and occupation in Iraq were justified as a way to end dictatorship and to guarantee freedom and security at home as well as in Iraq. Free speech, Bush emphasized, “is alive and well here in London. We have that at home, too. They now have that right in Baghdad as well.”

On November 21 Pentagon officials told New York Times reporters that to carry out its goals, Washington is now projecting a several-year-long occupation. They said they expect to maintain about 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq through early 2006.

Two days earlier, U.S. jets dropped 2,000-pound bombs—among the biggest in the U.S. military’s non-nuclear arsenal—on Baqouba, a town 30 miles northeast of Baghdad. Maj. Gordon Tate, a spokesman for the 4th Infantry Division, which called in the strikes, described the targets as “camps suspected to have been used for bomb-making.” Jets also dropped 1,000-pound bombs on “terrorist targets” near the northern city of Kirkuk, he said.

The bombing runs were part of a wide offensive launched in mid-November, as attacks on the occupying forces rose to their present levels of 25-30 a day. U.S. war planners have called the operation in and around Baghdad Operation Iron Hammer. The imperialist offensive in northeastern Iraq is dubbed Operation Ivy Cyclone. Commanders have used F-16 fighter-bombers, AC-130 gunships, assault helicopters, heavy artillery, and tanks.

The offensive has included a drive to assassinate or capture alleged leaders of the military resistance, such as Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri, former deputy head of the Baath Party; the destruction of buildings and sites claimed by U.S. commanders to have been used in attacks; and the jailing and interrogation of those accused of joining or aiding the anti-occupation forces.  
 
5,000 in U.S. detention
U.S. officials told the press that in one four-day period in November, U.S. forces conducted dozens of raids and thousands of aggressive patrols—in Baghdad, Mosul, Haman, Tikrit, Balad, Iskandariyah, the Al-Anbar province, and other cities. At least 200 “anticoalition suspects” were captured and dozens of “anticoalition structures” destroyed. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmett stated that U.S. forces have imprisoned a total of 5,000 people.

At a November 19 news conference Kimmett reported that U.S. troops at the borders with Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia had stopped 198 people “without the proper credentials” from entering Iraq. In the central south zone under British command, he said, occupying forces “deported 77 illegal immigrants back to Iran.”

Maj. Gen. Charles Swannack, who commands the 82nd Airborne Division, stated November 18, “We are not finding foreign fighters coming across the borders in significant numbers to do the fighting; we’re finding mostly former [Saddam Hussein] regime loyalists doing that.”

Swannack said the use of “overwhelming combat” power against select targets was based on the approach of using a “sledgehammer to crush a walnut.” He claimed that with U.S. military technology “we can do munitions from platforms way overhead that are very surgical and have very little collateral damage.” To a large extent, U.S. officers have so far sought to avoid large-scale “collateral damage”—Pentagon-speak for civilian casualties—in order to minimize popular opposition to the occupation.

In a November 13 speech to the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, became one of the latest U.S. administration officials to speak at length about Washington’s goals in Iraq and more broadly.

Arguing from the standpoint of the U.S. capitalist rulers, Feith said that to win a “war on terror” there is “no practical alternative to a strategy of offense” as opposed to a defensive approach that would only lead to undermining “our way of life as a free and open society.” Instead, he said, “We have to reach out and hit the terrorists where they reside, plan and train.”

The U.S. government’s strategy in this offensive, said Feith, has three parts. The first part is military action, spying and disruption operations, killing or capturing targeted “terrorists,” and cutting off their sources of funds. The second part, the U.S. official said, is a political offensive to promote “democracy”—that is capitalism—against what he called “Islamism.” He said, “We refer to this part as ‘the battle of ideas.’” The third part of the strategy,” he said, “is securing the homeland.” Steps in that direction include the formation of the Department of Homeland Security and the “new Northern Command in which, for the first time, a combatant commander has the entire continental United States within his area of responsibility.”

The Northern Command was established by the Clinton administration and formally launched after the September 11 attacks with steps that include the mobilization of National Guard troops at airports, train stations, and other public facilities; the increased deployment of military aircraft over U.S. cities; and the stepped-up militarization of the U.S. borders.

As part of “securing the homeland,” Feith added, “we are in the process, also for the first time, of fielding defenses against ballistic missiles of all ranges.”

Feith reiterated the fact that Washington’s course is aimed not simply at Iraq but that Iran, Syria, Libya, and north Korea are on the “list of terrorist-sponsoring states.”

In addition, Feith hinted at U.S. military action inside Pakistan. “Afghanistan has a way to go before it achieves a stable, permanent government. Taliban forces are working to regroup and attack, often from bases in the rough terrain of the tribal areas just across the Pakistan border,” he emphasized.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home