Sunday, October 03, 2010

And the war drags on . . .

The oil-rich Kirkuk is disputed territory, claimed by the KRG and by the central government or 'government' out of Baghdad. The Iraqi Constitution mandates a census and then a vote which will determine who gets Kirkuk. Prior to the start of the Iraq War, Kurds were forced out of Kirkuk and after the start of the war -- as documented by Edward Wong (New York Times), among others, the KRG began forcing Kurds back into the region. While trying to continue holding on to the post of prime minister, Nouri announced that a census would be held in October and it would be held regardless of whether or not the issue of the prime minister had been resolved. It is now October. Nouri, spin tells you, is set to be the next prime minister. And lo and behold we have a new announcement. Aseel Kami (Reuters) reports that the census has been pushed back to December 5th. And it needs to be noted that the US government wanted it postponed. This is the census the Constitution mandated be taken in 2007. This is the census that one of the White House benchmarks (in 2007) was that Nouri would hold it. Or as AFP puts it, "The October 24 census has now been delayed until December 5, the latest in a string of deferrals that have consistently put back a count originally due in 2007." News of the delay comes as Azzaman reports that Ashawees (Kurdish security forces) are terrorizing Arab and Turkmen residents of Kirkuk in an attempt to scare them into leaving. MP Omer Khalaf is quoted stating, "Kurdish security forces, known (locally) as Ashawees, have withdrawn papers from Arab immigrants in the city and have warned them to leave within 24 hours." As a result, DPA reports, US forces have been sent into Kirkuk "to protect Arab Sunni and Shiite residents".

They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Sunday, the number of US military people killed in the Iraq War since the start of the illegal war was 4424. Tonight? PDF format warning, DoD listed the the number of Americans killed serving in Iraq at 4427.

Turning to some of today's reported violence . . .

Bombings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad sticky bombing which claimed one life, another Baghdad sticky bombing which wounded two people, a third Baghdad sticky bombing which injured two people, 2 Mosul roadside bombings which unsuccessfully targeted "the Director of Investigation and the Head of Intelligence" in Nineveh Province, an unsuccessful Mosul bombing targeting the US military and a Mosul car bombing which wounded "three bomb-squad members."

Shootings?

Sahar Issa (McClatchy Newspapers) reports an assault on a Falluja police checkpoint in which 1 police officer was killed and another injured, a home invasion attack on a Sahwa ("Awakenings," "Sons Of Iraq") which left one murdered, and a Mosul home invasion in which 1 man was killed.

Kidnappings?

Reuters notes an assault in Muqdadiya in which 5 men were kidnapped.

Ned Parker (Los Angeles Times) reports, "A Shiite Muslim competitor accused Prime Minister Nouri Maliki on Sunday of hoarding power and lacking a vision for Iraq, suggesting that the incumbent still was a long way from securing a new term." That competitor would be Adel Abdul Mehdi who is currently Iraq's Shi'ite Vice President (Iraq has two vice presidents, one Shi'ite, one Sunni). Friday came the news that Nouri stated he (again) had the support of the Iraqi National Alliance. Not quite true. As Jim Muir (BBC News) reported yesterday, some in the alliance are not keen on Nouri. Parker reports that Abdul Mehdi is using his group's twenty-five seats to attempt to form an alternative to Nouri. That would mean -- if no other group is holding out -- Nouri sits at around 134 seats currently.

March 7th, Iraq concluded Parliamentary elections. The Guardian's editorial board noted last month, "These elections were hailed prematurely by Mr Obama as a success, but everything that has happened since has surely doused that optimism in a cold shower of reality." 163 seats are needed to form the executive government (prime minister and council of ministers). When no single slate wins 163 seats (or possibly higher -- 163 is the number today but the Parliament added seats this election and, in four more years, they may add more which could increase the number of seats needed to form the executive government), power-sharing coalitions must be formed with other slates, parties and/or individual candidates. (Eight Parliament seats were awarded, for example, to minority candidates who represent various religious minorities in Iraq.) Ayad Allawi is the head of Iraqiya which won 91 seats in the Parliament making it the biggest seat holder. Second place went to State Of Law which Nouri al-Maliki, the current prime minister, heads. They won 89 seats. Nouri made a big show of lodging complaints and issuing allegations to distract and delay the certification of the initial results while he formed a power-sharing coalition with third place winner Iraqi National Alliance -- this coalition still does not give them 163 seats. They are claiming they have the right to form the government. In 2005, Iraq took four months and seven days to pick a prime minister. It's six months and twenty-six days with no government formed.

Again, 134 appears to be the number Nouri is at -- if all other members of the Iraqi National Alliance are supporting him. 163 is the number needed. Waleed Ibrahim (Reuters) estimates the Kurds have 56 seats and notes that they have declared they will continue talks with Nouri's group; however, "they would press demands that have often put them at odds with the central government in Baghdad, including the right to negotiate oilfield contracts." And, of course, they now go into the talks with Nouri -- yet again -- calling off the Kirkuk census. Steven Lee Myers offers a lengthy analysis -- that recalls the strong work done on the 2009 provincial elections in Iraq -- at the New York Times' At War blog. We'll just emphasize this from it:

The purging of ballot lists before the election, the contentious and inconclusive challenges to the results, and the protracted delay in forming a new government since then have all deepened the ethnic, sectarian and societal cracks in a newly democratic state as fragile as an ancient Babylonian vase.

We went with that because it's so long ago many have forgotten and few bother to include it in the narrative. Nouri declared his party would win. His party came in second. And it came in second after all the above, after threats and after the assassinations of Iraqiya candidates.

Friday some thought that the stalemate was over. They misunderstood what the stalemate was. The stalemate continues until Iraq forms a government. Announcements and press releases on Friday didn't mean the stalemate was over. Today, it still continues.

New content at Third:


Isaiah's latest goes up after this. Pru notes "The Communist Manifesto: speaking to modern times" (Great Britian's Socialist Worker):

In the first of our series on Marx’s classics Jack Farmer looks at the Communist Manifesto

‘A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.” So begins the most important political pamphlet ever written—The Communist Manifesto.

In it Karl Marx and Frederick Engels went further than anyone before them in formulating a critique of the capitalist system.

But they did more than that. They also showed, for the first time, that there was a force with the power to bring that system to a halt and create the basis for a radically different kind of society—the working class.

This was no idle daydream. As the first copies of the manifesto rolled off the press in 1848, Europe was aflame with rebellion.

For Marx and Engels, revolutions were the motor driving history forward.

But the revolutions of 1848 were not against capitalist bosses. They were an attempt to destroy the rotten old regimes of Europe—many of which were run by kings and dictators.

One of the biggest revolts happened in France, where the capitalist bourgeoisie had led a revolution against the king in 1789.

In 1848 many workers thought that the bourgeoisie would again lead the people against the old feudal regime. But it didn’t.

The bosses of the factories were more afraid of their own workers than of the vestiges of feudalism.

Something crucial had changed in society. A new class of capitalists was rapidly displacing the old feudal ruling class.

Their power was based on a new kind of exploitation. People were driven off the land and into factories and mines.

Ordinary people had no choice but to sell their labour power to the capitalists in return for a wage.

Capitalism was unleashing enormous productive potential. But it was inherently unstable, periodically crashing into crisis.

Many people today rightly recognise the Tories as being the ideological zealots of capitalism, and they can appear to be in complete control of society.

But Marx and Engels realised that even the capitalists were not able to control their own system: “Modern bourgeois society...is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells.”

The necessity to accumulate profit “chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe”. The process of competitive accumulation—competing in the market to acquire bigger and bigger profits—means that bosses are compelled to attack their workers in order to increase profits.

Innovation

If they don’t, more ruthless companies will force them out of business.

But Marx and Engels’s most crucial innovation was to identify the force that could overthrow this system and begin society anew. For the bourgeois sorcerer has a powerful apprentice—the proletariat.

When trying to justify attacks on our wages and conditions, politicians often say they have to appease the “wealth creators”—rich bosses and bankers—who they claim would otherwise move their assets abroad.

But these people are not the wealth creators—they are the parasites. The labour and creativity of millions of workers creates wealth.

And not only by those who produce physical goods but also those providing services—like firefighters and tube drivers.

This vast class of workers holds the key that can unlock the chains of exploitation.

The final words of the manifesto are a call to arms: “Workers of all countries, Unite!”

Bourgeois politicians rarely miss an opportunity to divide working people. They will use racism, sexism and homophobia to sow the seeds of prejudice.

Their aim is to disempower all workers, employed and unemployed, immigrant or not, making us feel compelled to cling to the edge of the system for fear that, if we don’t, life could get even harder.

But we are not peripheral to society. We work at capitalism’s dark heart—the point of production.

Not all of the Communist Manifesto is applicable today. After all, Marx and Engels were arguing in part against other socialist currents that no longer exist.

But the centre of their argument remains true—that workers themselves can transform society.

Let the Tories tremble!

© Socialist Worker (unless otherwise stated). You may republish if you include an active link to the original.




The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.


























Posted by at