It is not a colony, because the United States cannot colonize and can only send troops, so it cannot be called a colony.

After the Iraqi Election: The Anti-Occupation Struggle and the Communist Movement On January 30, 2005, the Iraqi "parliamentary election" was held.

Similar to the "Interim Administration Council" and the "Transitional Government", the new "national authority" is destined to live under the gun barrel of the US military, and its authority and life expectancy are extremely bleak.

The occupying forces' sweeps, the overt and covert conflicts of the great powers' Middle East strategies, the conflicts between the upper echelons of various sects over political and economic interests, poverty and deindustrialization, and other factors are turning the oil-rich country into an endless slaughterhouse.

Today, the intention of the U.S. imperialists to invade Iraq has become increasingly clear—to long-term occupation and the step-by-step establishment of the "U.S. Protectorate of Iraq"[1], and then to completely control the Middle East.

It must be pointed out that this strategy is closely related to the general background of the times - after the restoration of the Soviet Union and China, the major powers no longer tolerated the self-help efforts of backward countries and began to rebuild the colonial system; correspondingly, the capitalist patriotic self-help efforts of different tones in Asia, Africa and Latin America

The movement came to an end at the end of the last century.

The departing twentieth century has left us a history of the global duel between property-owning rule and workers' revolution. It has also written a tragic song of progress for the backward capital groups in Asia, Africa and Latin America to "strive for self-improvement and survival."

The victory of the October Workers' Revolution opened up another horizon for the national capital of colonial and semi-colonial countries (that is, the majority of the region and population at that time) - taking advantage of the deadlock between the two camps, advocating a cross-class patriotism, and making deals at both ends.

Use tactics to survive and develop.

After the 1920s, the Soviet Russian bureaucracy strangled domestic workers' democracy, making them full of fear of international workers' revolution, and they were willing to play the Machiavellian trick of "pulling one faction to fight another" and reaching various deals with bourgeois factions.

Later, when China, Vietnam, and Cuba were in disarray, they fostered a large number of "progressive anti-imperialist governments in the Third World." Most similar regimes performed well in areas such as economic independence and social progress.

Within the anti-Japanese camp, Western capital either actively or forcedly provided financial assistance and opened up a corner of the market to the die-hard brothers, allowing the latter to implement industrialization to varying degrees.

Over the past few decades, from Egypt to Iraq, from the Peronist movement to the Burmese military junta, from the Arab Baath Party to the Indian National Congress Party, a bloody path of self-reliance has been carved out on the fringes of the international division of labor system.

The rise of backward capital groups has profoundly changed the balance of power in the world - take Asia at the end of the 20th century as an example. What was "Japan alone" a hundred years ago has evolved into a situation where all countries are competing for supremacy.

Like Chiang Kai-shek's Nanjing regime, the Iraqi Baath Party first relied on Soviet Russia to gain a foothold, and then used American-made bayonets to consolidate its rule. It can be described as having both sides.

In April 1972, Moscow signed a treaty of friendship and cooperation with Baghdad. Backed by the Soviet Union's strong support for construction and procurement commitments, the Baathists decisively took over all foreign-controlled oil fields and obtained a stable source of industrial funds.

In the early 1980s, relations between the United States and Iran became heated; by 1990, the United States had provided a large amount of military aid (including biological and chemical weapons) and financial support to Iran [2].

In a small way, the United States' aid to Iraq can protect its own energy security; in a big way, the fight for Saddam is part of the global war against terrorism.

After 1992, the "Holy Alliance Against ***" was no longer able to unite various capital groups with deep conflicts in their own interests.

Bandits, big and small, are seeking happiness for themselves, and those who are slow to turn the wheel cannot escape disaster. After moving toward parliamentary democracy and market economy, Yugoslavia suffered the fate of being dismantled into pieces; under the hard and soft tactics of US and Australian capital, Indonesia left East Timor with hatred;

South Korea's carefully cultivated large-scale industry has driven a wedge into the American chaebol[3]; Libya has hid under the wings of Western Europe to delay the White House's attack; the Vietnamese government, which has long regarded anti-U.S. diplomacy as its founding principle, has begun to consider providing sea and air bases to the former.

;No one has suffered the worst fate than Iraq.

The bleak days of colonial rule have passed 20 months since the US military boots stepped into Baghdad.

While the White House boasted that "the reborn (Iraq) economy is growing day by day and the security situation is gradually improving" [4], it also coquettishly admitted that the local "unemployment and semi-unemployment rate are close to 50%" [5].

According to United Nations statistics, as of September 2004, 25% (6.5 million people) of Iraqis lived solely on food relief, while another 3.6 million people needed partial relief, while the unemployment rate swung between 30% and 70%.[6]

.

Infrastructure is still in ruins, seriously affecting industrial recovery and making it difficult for nearly two million unemployed workers to return to work.

The 20-month occupation showed the profit-seeking instinct of capital to the whole world - the White House arranged business for relatives and friends with a high face and made no secret of it[7]; the vital oil reconstruction project was in the hands of the US military engineering department

Here; nominally Allawi's "transitional government" has the management rights of the "Development Fund for Iraq" (Development Fund for Iraq), but in fact Washington "has been controlling this ($18.4 billion) fund and will continue to do so" [

8] (Bathsheba Crocker, researcher at the Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the United States).

Witnessing all this, some "transitional government" officials also lamented that "American intentions and interests are often at odds with Iraq's national interests" (Mohammed Aboush, senior director of the Iraqi Ministry of Petroleum) [9].