By Bryan Koulouris

Any election under the guns of a foreign occupying army can hardly be considered "free." Even the U.S.-based Carter Center declared that the January 20 Iraqi elections did not meet any of the criteria for a free and fair voting process.

The fighting will not stop in Iraq just because an election was held. In fact, this may be a turning point towards more sectarian divisions along ethnic and religious lines. Sunnis, most of whom refused to vote, will not accept a decidedly Shi'a-led government. Kurds, who turned out in huge numbers for the election, were motivated to come to the polls because of an informal referendum on an "independent Kurdistan."

Also, many Shi'as were motivated to vote because they saw the election as a step towards getting rid of the U.S. occupation. However, any government under the occupation will have to depend heavily on U.S. soldiers and the U.S. embassy for stability.

The attacks on U.S. troops are likely to continue in full force as well. It's worth remembering that plenty of elections were held in South Vietnam during the Vietnam War. However, the fighting didn't stop until U.S. troops went home. Until the occupation is ended, we can expect more U.S. soldiers returning in body bags.

According to the Bush Administration, the main task of the new Iraqi government is to establish a constitution. This will be no easy task. The Shi'a parties, having no absolute majority, will be forced to work with and appease others in establishing the constitution. Even within the Shi'a coalition itself, problems could arise. Any constitution for a national government means nothing when the streets are ruled by an occupying army.

The Bush Administration claims the Iraqi elections could begin a wave of democracy and stability in the Middle East. Bush's concern for "democracy" is only rhetoric. Bush is tied to many undemocratic regimes, such as those of Musharraf in Pakistan or the Saudi royal family. What Bush and U.S. big business really want are more pro-U.S. regimes (preferably legitimized by some form of election), and the occupation of Iraq does not help them on the way to this goal.

In actuality, the elections could further destabilize the Middle East. The Sunni-dominated dictatorships throughout the region fear the emergence of a Shi'a regime in Iraq, and don't want to see the Shi'a forces in their own countries inspired to revolt. Likewise, Kurdish autonomy and increased power scares Turkey, the neighbor to the north. These ethnic tensions are exacerbated by the Bush Administration's "divide and rule" colonial tactics in Iraq.

There is a potential force that can unite people across ethnic lines. Everybody, no matter their ethnicity or religion, wants a decent life. Everyone wants food, a job, healthcare, housing, education, and electricity. The labor movement can unite people in the fight for these needs. The struggle for higher wages and better social services can be connected to the need to end the occupation of Iraq. Corporate rule and colonial occupation will not solve the problems of Iraq, but Iraq's working class has the potential to change things.

Ruling Class Debates Exit Strategy
On January 18, when questioning Bush Secretary of State then-nominee Condoleeza Rice, many in Congress demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

These politicians were both Democrats and Republicans, most notably Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Lincoln Chafee (R-RI). They stated that the Bush Administration has been constantly overly optimistic about prospects for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. Also, they stated Iraq will not be easily stabilized, and an exit strategy needs to be outlined.

Rice replied by saying, "I am really reluctant to put a timetable on withdrawal." The Bush Administration's general "plan" (insofar as they have one) is to "stay the course" until they can establish a puppet Iraqi government that allows corporate control of the economy and permanent U.S. military bases within the country. Leaving Iraq now would significantly damage not only Bush's prestige, but that of the U.S. military as well.

The politicians in Congress criticizing Rice and Bush are not proposing immediate withdrawal. They are just looking out for the interests of big business in a different way. They want to exploit Iraq's resources, but the occupation is becoming a bigger hassle for them than it is a benefit. They are willing to cut their losses and run from a situation in Iraq that could lead to civil war. They want to do this over time, so they can leave something in place to protect U.S. corporate interests.

It is only a section of politicians that are beginning to call for a U.S. withdrawal. The majority of the ruling elite are content, for now, to "stay the course." At some point, the U.S. elite will be compelled to withdraw from Iraq. However, this will only come after further shocks, crises, big social convulsions, billions of dollars spent, and massive bloodshed. The anti-war movement cannot depend on big business politicians from the Democrats or Republicans. We need to continue to demand: Bring the Troops Home Now!

Justice #42, March-April 2005