Cashew
11-13-2004, 11:29 AM
The Boy Who Cried Iraq By Dan Berman
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
-Hermann Goering (1893 - 1946)
Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, President of the Reichstag, Prime Minister of Prussia and Hitler's designated successor
The second in command of the Third Reich
"These [terrorist] attacks are not inevitable. They are, however, possible, and this very fact underscores the reason we cannot live under the threat of blackmail…The terrorist threat to America and the world will be diminished the moment that Saddam Hussein is disarmed."
-George W Bush (1946- )
Commander-in-Chief of the United States Armed Forces
President of the United States of America
Introduction.
I wrote this to bring to light what the media and the government will not tell you and me: the truth. Instead, I chose to find it myself, and as a proud American it is my responsibility to share it with you.
I wrote this because standing by complacent and ignorant of events being carried out in my name makes me as guilty as the man ordering the bombs be dropped, it makes me as guilty as the man who orders brave, valiant soldiers to get killed in hostile territory so he can see his bank accounts grow.
I wrote this because I am aware of the deceit and tyranny coming from Washington DC and I can't sit idly by while lives are stolen.
With that, it is important to note that my goal is not to turn you for or against the war. My goal is to expose you to truth and let you decide.
I defend your right to argue for or against this war, the unconditional right to have your own opinion, as long as the argument is based on fact and reason and not the flimsy base of lies the government would have you believe.
My goal is to educate you.
But in order to learn, you need to explore this information with an open mind. Too many people, on either side of the argument, form an opinion that they will defend irrationally. Read this, take in the data, and if you learn something new, apply it accordingly.
However, if you are going to read this, you must commit to reading it in its entirety. In our fast paced world, our attention spans are shorter than Warwick Davis. Each point made in this essay, big or small, serves as an essential piece of the puzzle. And whether made with fact, comedy, or flat out rant, the points still hold true. So print this out, go get a cup of coffee and get comfortable. I'll wait.
In order to do this, I will attack the issue from a couple of different angles.
• I will break down the lies and propaganda being fed to us by the White House and label it as such. I will counter each argument with fact and history that proves otherwise, exposing the information as the lies they are.
• I will show you why our blind sheep faith in our lying wolf president will not only cause even more unnecessary death and murder, but lead this world right back to the darkest times of the last two hundred years.
• I will show why this unprovoked attack is only for oil and money and that "freeing an innocent people" is a convenient, yet fraudulent, excuse the Bush administration is using to rally public support.
• Finally, I will tell you why you should even care, then explore where we can go from here.
"A Lie Told Often Enough Becomes The Truth"
-Vladimir Lenin
As American bombs are indiscriminately obliterating Iraqi building, soldier, and civilian alike, the White House propaganda engine is working overtime to rally public support by means of irrelevant data, half truths, and flat out lies.
We are told that this is a war for our safety and freedom, where, as I will show you, our brave soldiers are really getting killed or wounded in the name of domination and greed.
In a move eerily similar to Germany's invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, troops have been ordered to attack and take over another country for reasons of expansion of power and overall global domination.
What you are not being told is George Bush's illegal and immoral war against Iraq is solely for money and oil. Many more innocent lives will be lost or ruined so a few rich men can get even richer. And to make it even worse, George Bush and his administration are disgracing the memory of everyone that died in 9/11 by using their tragic deaths as a means to silence dissent and alter public opinion.
In order to go to war, the White House has followed a predefined ten step plan:
1. Create the enemy
George Bush Junior had it easier than most presidents - his father effectively demonized Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War. He ignored the fact that Hussein up until very recently was an ally that America armed with conventional and chemical weapons. Instead he is now focusing on the horrible things Hussein has done with the weapons we gave him.
Bush's first attempt to rally the country and the world behind attacking Iraq was on January 29, 2002 when he labeled Iraq part of the "Axis of Evil," a name that he could have just as well stolen from an episode of The Tick. "The Decency Squad vs The Axis Of Evil and Dinosaur Neil" would have made a fantastic episode.
One short month later, on February 28, the White House upped its stance from disarmament of Iraq to complete "regime change."
While yes, Saddam is a brutal ruler doing horrible things to his people, why would America target him while ignoring the 90 other countries with similar situations? Why target a despot that has neither the capability or desire to attack the United States of America instead of somewhere like, say, North Korea, which, on January 12, 2003, threatened to turn the United States into a "sea of fire" and then promptly withdrew from nuclear treaties and began testing long range missiles.
The American government has no interest in saving Iraqi lives any more than necessary for public support. Sadly, it has always been like this, which shouldn't surprise you considering most of our leaders' great grandparents owned your or your friends' great grandparents. Well, except for Colin Powell's, but I'm sure they got to work inside the house.
In order to look at this rationally, it is important to realize that in most cases, America is not the peace loving humanitarian force the government paints itself to be. In World War 2, for example, American troops were not sent in to rescue Jews and stop Hitler. Roosevelt knowingly failed to take many steps that would have saved thousands of Jewish lives. In fact, it was Germany that declared war on America, not vice versa. And even then, saving Jews was a low priority left to the State Department (A People's History Of The United States; Zinn, Howard).
Humanitarian Aid is a great excuse, but unfortunately nothing but a ruse.
In order to rally enough support to go to war, George Bush needed a better excuse. When he realized this, Saddam Hussein became a threat to you and me. Saddam was accused of harboring terrorists or looking to build weapons of mass destruction that he should not be allowed to have.
Is this a legit argument? Britain, China, France, India, Pakistan, Russia, The United States and Israel all have nuclear arsenals. Iran and North Korea are actively, and publicly, seeking nuclear capabilities, while many other countries are secretly researching them.
What about non-nuclear "weapons of mass destruction?" All countries are prohibited from developing chemical and biological weapons. But right here in Nevada and we are storing, and actively developing and testing, illegal chemical weapons featuring Anthrax, VX gas, and everything else Saddam is accused of harboring.
So, why are we attacking Iraq and seeking diplomacy in North Korea?
Even if Iraq did have nuclear weapons, they would never be able to reach US soil. What happens when Syria, Libya, and Egypt start developing nuclear weapons? Attack them all too? And then those after? That sort of imperialism would surpass the Third Reich's wildest dreams. It would make the Roman Empire look like a militia. That sort of imperialism would equate to world domination, and how long can an empire exist when the entire world is against them?
The irony here is that the United States literally created the enemy. We are the ones who armed Hussein in the first place. Iraqi soldiers are using American weapons to kill American soldiers.
Yes, "Allied forces" created this enemy in the literal sense as well.
If irony was a crime, Texas would execute the preceding sentences.
After the Ottoman Empire fell at the end of World War 1, Britain took over much of the Middle East. They made pacts to sell oil to the west at extremely low prices while denying it to the Soviet Union.
Numerous Iraqi revolts for this "freedom" we've been hearing so much about were crushed by RAF troops and bombers. Finally, in 1958, Colonel Abdul Karim el-Kassem overthrew Iraq's West-friendly tyrannical government and restored Soviet relations. The First World, of course, could not have this.
Eventually, American-friendly Saddam Hussein was able to take over Iraq with the weapons and help of the United States Central Intelligence Agency. Known as the Arab Stalin, Hussein ruthlessly ruled Iraq with an iron fist, using oil revenues from Western countries to modernize Iraq and weapons from America to keep the Iraqi people suppressed.
In the late 1970s, When Iran's Islamic government threatened oil domination, the United States and Britain empowered Hussein even more to attack the neighboring country. Empowerment included massive arms shipments and plans for the manufacturing of chemical and biological weapons. When Hussein turned around and used the chemicals on the Kurds, the CIA turned a cold shoulder and even went so far as to increase funding.
The White House next tried to tie Hussein to the real threat to America, Al Qaeda. George Bush Junior began telling us that Saddam Hussein is supporting and arming terrorists and we need to get him before its too late. Any opposition is "supporting the terrorists," and what American would want to do that?
It sounds scary, but it's a flat out lie. A senior CIA official stated publicly that "Saddam Hussein initiating an attack in the foreseeable future is…low" (10/02). Shortly thereafter, George Tenet, the head of the CIA, the source of all of this country's military intelligence, said on November 7th, 2002 that Iraq "appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or chemical weapons against us." Both of these statements were made after 9/11.
Unfortunately, the only country really arming the terrorists is America.
On September 11th, George Bush Junior was given what he needed to glue all of his unproven accusations together and scare our country enough to support everything he does.
Now, a lot of Americans will go along with anything that falls under the guise of fighting terrorism. We have illegally gone to war against a country because "it's fighting the war on terrorism." George Bush was able to use a tragedy that left 3000 innocent Americans dead to defy the peace keeping UN that America created, defy international law, defy international opinion, and attack a country in a way that makes the World Trade Center tragedy look like a firecracker went off.
People fear what they do not understand, and George Bush leveraged that to effectively create the enemy. Time for step 2.
2. Be sure the enemy you have chosen is nothing like you.
To the dismay of naïve politically correct optimists everywhere, racism is still a fundamental part of this country. Not near where it was but it's still here. If you don't believe me, you're probably white.
George Bush has always been careful in reassuring us that "not all Arabs are terrorists," but if Iraq was not an Arab country, he would not have been able to use that excuse to invade and conquer the oil rich country.
The news talks about Al-Qaeda fighting along with Iraq. Kind of like the French helping us win the Revolutionary War I guess. Oops. If that shows us anything, it's that a lot of Iraqi nationalists will be joining Al-Qaeda very shortly, if not already.
And if you need to be reminded, Al Qaeda is our real threat.
As the war is waged, the media does everything possible to demonize the "evil" enemy. By convincing the country that the Iraqi way of life is far inferior to American culture and that the enemy is a horrible person that deserves to die, the White House is able to rally even more public support.
Donald Rumsfeld is on the news talking about how Iraq is breaking all sorts of laws of combat. Oh, I see. The law needs to be followed when it suits what you're doing. Got it.
The news is also highlighting Iraq's "unconventional" fighting style. They are drawing the American soldiers into the streets, pretending to surrender and dressing like civilians. Mass media makes sure to point out that only an evil murderous force could do that
But really, what do you expect? Both sides line up and fire muskets? They're doing exactly what America did in the Revolutionary War. WHATEVER THEY CAN to stand up to a much bigger and stronger enemy.
Like lobbing bombs from out of the enemy's reach is any more fair. One can't call the Iraqis on their "unfair" methods when the other side is doing something so similar.
Bill Maher got fired for pointing that out. America, the land of the free.
3. Continue to reinforce these differences
The Bush Propaganda engine, co-headed by Colin Powell, the man greatly responsible for covering up the Mai Lai massacre where over 400 Vietnamese women and children were murdered by American soldiers, pounds manipulative, incendiary keywords into your head to elicit an emotional response. Hussein's government has always been referred to as a "regime," which we instantly equate with "bad." Usage of this word is passed to the public by the media and becomes part of everyday speech. What sort of "terrorist" would oppose taking a "regime" out of power? (I mean besides our government when it's making money)
If I had a dollar for every time I've heard the word evil I could buy an oil company and run for president.
Remember, these accusations are coming from the same guy that undid 30 years of progress by withdrawing America from global nuclear disarmament treaties and announcing the right to pre-emptive strike and the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries.
Who, again, is the threat to world peace?
4. The government uses the "unbiased" media to broadcast their propaganda into your living room
The saddest thing is some people are calling the media leftist liberals. Calling the media left is like calling Dick Cheney a pacifist.
In a democracy, it's the media's job to convey accurate, factual information. It's naïve to expect that, but realistic to want it. If the media accurately portrayed to us the repercussions we will face for years to come, a lot of Americans would be rethinking the situation. But they won't. The media exists to further the government's agenda. Mark Twain said that "a newspaper is not just for reporting the news, it's to get people mad enough to do something about it." Unfortunately, it is used in our country to do the exact opposite. To keep us complacent and show us only what we need to see to rally behind our corrupt government.
For example, the media never disputed Bush's fraudulent claim that the "world agrees" with the White House. CNN and Fox News spent much time talking about the British documents that show Iraq is actively seeking nuclear weapons from Niger. These documents were used in excess by Colin Powell and George Bush, but were proven to be forgeries as soon as they were made public. The UN's nuclear commission declared the documents were forged and "not authentic." The war-mongering media did not spend too much time reporting that little fact.
In June 2002, Dr Mohamed el Baradei, General Director of the Internation Atomic Energy Authority, said that "there are no indications that Iraq has nuclear weapons, weapons usable material or the practical capabilities to produce them." I seem to have missed that report as well.
Why does Fox News show pictures of the pro-American Iraqis but not the flag burning protesting ones? Americans are for a war when they think it is helping the people in the other land. Would those same people be for this war if they were shown that many Iraqis prefer Hussein's death squads over American Occupation? Of course not.
Why is it that I have to go to other counties' news sources to get accurate information? Why doesn't CNN show, or even talk about, all of the 1000+ Iraqi civilian casualties? They're making headlines all over the rest of the world. While reporting the Iraqi [Kurd] civilians that are happy to see American forces, the media also fails to mention that many Hussein-hating Iraqis are actually joining the Iraqi Army in the same "lesser of two evils" argument some pro-war activists use to rationalize this attack.
Of course, every side is going to be biased, if not because of government's controls because of editors and advertisers. But the more sources you read, the better picture you can paint for yourself.
In the 1940s and 1950s, GE head Charles Wilson was so happy about the wartime situation he suggested a continued alliance between business and military, advocating a "permanent war economy."
GE owns NBC.
During the Vietnam War, the media played a significant role in ending the war. A major change was said to have come after Walter Cronkite declared the war un-winnable. Today, reporters aren't even allowed to slightly question the government.
So why now wont the media do its job and provide fair and accurate analysis?
The FCC is close to deregulating media ownership limits. This would allow the mass media to expand to globally dominant organizations. This is very important to them all, so they'll do anything to stay on the government's good side. Being that Colin Powell's son is the head of the FCC, opposing the White House would sway the FCC to rule against the corporations. Therefore the media outlets are acting as the White House's cheerleaders, doing their part to disseminate government propaganda.
The media is about as fair and accurate as Mark Fuhrman.
5. Portray the enemy as non-human, evil, a killing machine.
"Saddam's 'regime' is evil!"
"He murders and gasses his own people!"
"He's a murderer who doesn't deserve to be in power!"
Sound familiar?
For the record, he didn't gas his own people. He gassed the Kurds. With money and chemical plans supplied by the CIA. While, yes, geographically they live in Iraq, calling them Iraqi is like calling Palestinians Israelis.
But yes, he is a bad man. No one is disputing that. That is the argument used by many people to support the war, that he murders and tortures his own people. They paste testimonials of former Iraqi inhabitants, vividly describing his horrible rule.
But that is not what this war is about. As I've stated, taking down a repressive despot is a good side effect, but an even better excuse. Our government could care less what happens to some poor brown people. American wars are waged for political and economic gain, not for freedom of some oppressed people. If you really doubt that, pick up some history books and start learning. Here is the United States' war record over the last 100 years:
• PHILIPPINES, 1898 - 1910: seizes from Spain, 600,000 Filipinos killed
• PUERTO RICO, 1898: seizes from Spain
• PANAMA, 1901 - 14: separates country from Colombia and annexes canal zone
• HONDURAS, 1903: US marines intervene against revolution
• NICARAGUA, 1912 - 33: 20-year occupation and war against guerrillas
• HAITI, 1914 - 34: occupation
• DOMINICAN REPUBLIC, 1916 - 24: occupation
• CUBA, 1917 - 33: military occupation, made into economic protectorate
• RUSSIA, 1917 - 22: troops sent five times to try to overthrow revolution
• YUGOSLAVIA, 1919: marines intervene against Serbs
• PANAMA, 1925: marines suppress general strike
• CHINA, 1927 - 34: marines stationed throughout the country
• EL SALVADOR, 1932: warships sent during revolt
• JAPAN, 1945: firebombs Tokyo and other cities, drops atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
• PUERTO RICO, 1950: independence rebellion crushed
• KOREA, 1950 - 53: US and South Korea fight China and North Korea to stalemate. US threatens to use nuclear bombs. At least two million Korean civilians killed or wounded
• IRAN, 1953: CIA overthrows democracy
• GUATEMALA, 1954: CIA directs invasion after government nationalized land belonging to US United Fruit company
• LEBANON, 1956: US troops land
• VIETNAM, 1960 - 75: two million Vietnamese killed in longest US war
• INDONESIA, 1965: one million killed in CIA-assisted coup
• GUATEMALA, 1966: troops intervene
• CAMBODIA, 1969 - 75: US carpet-bombs. Two million killed by years of bombing and starvation
• CHILE, 1973: CIA-backed coup overthrows democratically elected government
• ANGOLA, 1976 - 92: CIA assists South African backed rebels
• LIBYA, 1981: two Libyan jets shot down
• EL SALVADOR, 1981 - 92: troops and air power assist death squads, 75,000 people killed
• NICARAGUA, 1981 - 90: CIA directs Contra invasions
• LEBANON, 1982 - 84: US forces intervene, navy shells Beirut
• HONDURAS, 1983 - 89: US troups build bases for death squads
• GRENADA, 1983: US invasion
• LIBYA, 1986: capital Tripoli bombed in effort to kill President Gadaffi
• IRAN, 1987: Iranian passenger jets shot down over Persian Gulf
• PANAMA, 1989 - 90: invasion, thousands of civilians killed
• GULF WAR, 1990 - 91: US-led coalition kills 100,000 Iraqis. Post war sanctions kill an estimated one million civilians in the following ten years
• SOMALIA, 1992 - 94: US-led United Nations occupation
• EX-YUGOSLAVIA, 1995: bombs Serbs and assists ethnic cleansing
• SUDAN, 1998: bombs pharmaceutical factory
• IRAQ, 1998: four days of air strikes, raids continue until present day
• SERBIA 1989: 78 days of NATO air strikes
• AFGHANISTAN, 2001: US-led war kills thousands
• IRAQ, 2002/3: ...
[see end for sources]
6. Eliminate opposition to the ruling party.
According to John Ashcroft, I am a terrorist. And by reading this far, you are too.
I can't help it. I like to read. I prefer to form my OWN opinion. I wouldn't kill or hurt anybody, but our attorney general has defined terrorism as even speaking against the government and holding opposing views.
So if you need me, I'll be over there with the other terrorists. Oh, no, not the real terrorists. I mean George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Susan B. Anthony, and everyone else that has strived for something better.
Right after 9/11, The Bush Administration was quick to capitalize on the death of innocent Americans by declaring that dissent and opposing views (also known as reason and common sense) are now un-American.
How dare you speak out against our government. Remember 9/11!
I am. That's why I'm writing this.
Bush furthered this fascist notion with his "You're either with us or against us" policy he announced on November 5th, 2001.
All of a sudden being anti-war, even questioning a single government action, has become "anti-American." Anti-War protesters are accused of not supporting our troops?
Are you kidding me? Is there any BETTER way to support our troops then by GETTING THEM OUT OF A WAR?
What kind of backwards logic is this? The troops are going to hear about a large portion of their countrymen protesting for their return, for their removal out of harms way, and get demoralized because they WANT to be stuck in the desert right in the middle of bullets and a seemingly infinite number of suicide bombers? Of course not!
Why are these "Americans" that so adamantly support a war to "free" people the first to try to take someone else's away? These people with their backwards oppressive jingoism would fit better on Saddam's side.
If irony was a constitutionally protected figure of speech, John Ashcroft would take away this section.
7. Use nationalistic and/or religious symbols and rhetoric to define all actions.
I'm going to tell you something that may upset you.
Putting flags on your car does not make you an activist.
In fact, it makes you the opposite. It makes you complacent. Policies will not change, or be created, because you put two flags on your car. Instead, it tells the government that they can do whatever they want right now and you will stand by it and wave your flag proudly while you fill up your 10 mile to the gallon road-brontosaurus with gas that is coming directly from the country where the real terrorists came from.
Let's hear it for irony!
And how is it that putting four flags on your car makes you more patriotic than the soccer mom with only three flags on her car? Does her "God Bless America" sticker count for anything? It should, being God is obviously on America's side.
The real irony here is that George Bush goes against everything the flag stands for. Suddenly the stars and stripes represent the repression of dissent and promotion of global imperialism.
That's why I smile when I see them on German cars.
Wave them proudly, America.
8. Align all actions with the dominant deity.
"I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator."
(Adolph Hitler, Mein Kampf, pp. 46)
Does anyone else find it bitterly coincidental that God was apparently on Bin Laden's side when he ordered his soldiers to crash planes into the World Trade Center as well as on Bush's side when he ordered his soldiers to turn Iraq into a sea of fire? Sorry. A precision-based sea of fire.
What ever happened to "Thou Shalt Not Kill?"
Whether you are religious or not, do we really want someone with the ability to destroy the entire earth 100 times over believing in invisible super heroes? What happens when the Green Lantern comes to him in a dream and tells him it's time?
Do we really want Bush to put his faith in God the same way Mohammed Atta did?
Look at the bumper sticker on the next car that cuts you off. I bet it says "God Bless America." Come on. Is this God blessing you and not the Iraqi people defending their homeland? And Jesus' homeland, at that? I thought God was everywhere and everyone was his child and all that. Oh. Only white people. That makes more sense. No wonder you turned Jesus into a white man.
Seriously, is claiming a "peaceful" diety a way to justify murder for money? Of course not!
The Vatican stated publicly that that "there is no moral justification for pre-emptive war in Iraq." And the Pope himself called this war a "defeat for humanity." These quotes coming from an organization that didn't even publicly oppose the Nazis! What else do you need? A burning bush? Well, head on over to Baghdad cause there's a fucking LOT of them there.
9. Design propaganda to show that your soldiers have feelings, hopes, families, and loved ones.
The media is making it very clear that the army is doing everything they can to avoid casualties, going so far as to NOT report what's really happening.
CNN actually has a web page up personifying each American soldier that has been killed. It shows a picture of them, lists their hobbies and family members. Alternatively, they barely even mention the hundreds of dead Iraqi bomb victims.
I do honestly believe that most of the soldiers are trying to save lives. I don't think a few bad apples -cough- Amiriya - cough - should ruin the integrity of the soldier. But civilian casualties, intentional or not, are a part of war and should be reported accurately.
Al Jazeera, the Middle East's primary news source, is plastering the television and papers with images of bombing victims, of civilians that had their lives stolen by Bush. A 9 year-old girl that had the back half of her skull blown off. The boy that had both of his arms ripped off by an American bomb.
But CNN is only showing troops surrendering or Iraqis cheering the Americans.
Now of course Al Jazeera is just as much a propaganda engine as CNN, but being aware of both will give you a more accurate view of everything.
Al Jazeera recently put their English speaking website online. Instantly it was attacked and taken offline, then cracked and replaced with a big American flag.
I could be wrong, but isn't that the same flag that stands for the freedom of speech? Isn't that the same flag that we are rallying behind while freeing an oppressed people so THEY can have the freedoms that we supposedly enjoy? Wouldn't seeing the news from a different bias help us form a better, more educated opinion?
"Educated opinion" Bwahahaha
Why, again, is it that so many people that are for this war for freedom are against the freedom of speech?
10."Orange you glad I didn't say Red"
Since September 11th, Americans will apparently support absolutely anything that "fights terror." George Bush knows this and has used it to become the single most powerful leader in modern history. During his speech on October 8, 2002, George Bush used the word "terror" 30 times in 30 minutes.
And it worked!
I'm going to invent some sort of "terror-fighting" laundry detergent or something. I'll sell it for twice that of any of my competition and become an instant millionaire because if you don't buy my product, the terrorists win.
Then I'll come out with the new and improved version that fights twice the terror while keeping your colors bright and making your whites whiter. Don't let stains terrorize your shirt!
Speaking of colors, what better way to keep America in a state of fear than with a color coded chart! I don't want to get too much into 9/11 and terrorism, but we need to touch on this color coded system that the administration is using to instill fear and faith in the public.
Let me ask you this. How exactly will a color system do anything more than help you test the pH balance of a swimming pool? Let alone stop terrorism.
Here is a secret: It won't.
What does a heightened state of alert really mean? Look at brown people more suspiciously when the color is closer to brown? Even after Tom Ridge, head of the Ministry of Truth, tells us to go on with our lives just the same?
Is the FBI on higher alert when the color changes? Of course not. They're smart enough to know that terrorist strikes will occur any time, especially when not expected.
So what really comes out of this color system? Fear!
The color is orange. The terrorists are coming! Duct tape your doors shut and your eyes closed. Really, just duct tape your hands to your ankles and your cheeks open and wait for Ashcroft to come to your door to thank you personally.
The public is appeased by a leader that will protect them. As soon as there is danger, the public looks to Bush for protection.
And that is exactly why this color system exists. In fact, it's absolutely genius. It's what Pavlov wished he could have done. It's like Simon Says but for keeps.
When has the color been raised to orange? [by the time of this writing]
• Before the attack on Afghanistan
• While rallying support to attack Iraq
• When the attack on Iraq began
Notice the alert has never gone all the way up to red. And I don't think it will. Once it gets THAT dangerous, people will question their safety and the effectiveness of the White House.
Are they protecting us?
Can we trust this color system?
And why didn't this system exist BEFORE 9/11? How did Tom Clancy know about this but the entire CIA, FBI, and American public not? [Well, according to internal sources, they did, but I won't touch that one yet]. Why doesn't the government just hire writers? People that HAVE to think to get paid? Lets not stop there. I say we replace Condoleezza Rice with Madam Cleo. Not like either ISN'T full of shit, and at least Cleo will relax the FCC.
By installing fear throughout the country of an unknown enemy Bush can effectively rally enough domestic support to carry out his plans of domination and still get a second term. Because Americans love peace, and war brings peace.
And freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength. I know, I've read that book, too.
[10 Steps taken from the song "Anatomy of your Enemy." See end for source]
The Boy Who Cried Wolfgang
What happens when something is so over referenced that it becomes common place?
Simple. It's ignored. The farmers won't come stop the wolf from eating the sheep after hearing the same cry night after night. Except this time, the American people are the sheep, the Bush administration is the wolf, and the Democrats, who should have been the farmers, are too scared that they'll be sent more Anthrax if they oppose the administration. Tom Daschle, that fuck.
But now, the analogies have come true.
Some people, like George Bush Senior, try to compare Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler. Other than both having a last name that starts with the same letter and living in a place most Americans refer to as "Not America," they don't have too much in common. Given, both are American adversaries and neither would be, let's say an "ideal neighbor," but anything beyond is just stretching.
One could argue that they both kill their own people. Whereas the Kurds live in Iraq as the Jews lived in Germany, both could more accurately be referred to as being in the right place at the very wrong time.
Where Saddam Hussein terrorizes his own people to keep them in line and in fear, Hitler rallied his people behind him with promises of expansion and "homeland security."
Israelis claim that Iraq is a threat to their homeland. I disagree. Israel could militarily crush Iraq with lightning speed and precision. In fact, Ariel Sharon announced on December 7, 2002, that if Iraq did in fact launch missiles, chemical or conventional, Israel would retaliate tenfold.
Not a single missile has been fired at Israel.
Maybe some will be, but they will be fired as final acts of desperation when Iraq sees imminent defeat. If America didn't illegally invade Iraq, Israel would not have to worry about missile attacks from Iraq.
Hitler on the other hand, did launch an illegal invasion, and if Israel existed at the time, would have been directly threatened. Hitler had massive goals of continental, and possibly global, domination. He had the means to do it and almost succeeded. Hussein, even if he wants to, has no means or ability to do so.
In fact, I would argue that George Bush has more in common with Hitler than Hussein does.
And I'm going to!
Don't let this throw you off. I'm not claiming we are Nazis or George Bush Junior would be able to create concentration camps. However, what I am saying is that public sentiment, putting blind faith in a phony leader using the guise of security and protection, is what allowed Hitler to do what he did.
After all, Hitler was "liberating" people too.
The overall public sentiment in this country is starting to mirror the public sentiment in 1930's Germany.
Nazism has been referenced so much that people tune it out and dismiss it as common cliché. What I will do is simply compare and contrast today with Nazi Germany and let you make the decision.
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to insure our domestic security and protect our homeland. "
- Adolph Hitler, 1922, Creating the Gestapo
"Our first priority must always be the security of our nation… We will win this war; we'll protect our homeland"
- George Bush, 1/29/2002
Here are some fundaments of Nazism:
1. Individualism over Collectivism
In 2001 the army changed its motto from "Be All That You Can Be" to "Army of One"
People are more concerned with themselves than the whole. I would even argue that the only people, other than public servants and teachers, who both get paid near nothing for the most important jobs out there, are our soldiers. Ironic that we are sending them to die into a maelstrom of fire and bullets. I say we bring them all back and pay them to teach people how to work together and support one another.
I mean, why are people really still driving SUVs? Is soccer practice in the middle of the fucking Rockies? Do you REALLY think if you "out-bling" the next guy on Sunset that some group of girls will pull over and get in your car? I mean has that EVER worked there? EVER?
I'll bet you if it was somehow made fact that if everyone traded in their SUV and bought an economy car there would be no more terrorism, the public's response would be "Ah fuck it, so there's terrorism."
"…I'll just add a third flag on my seventh door."
I'm going to buy a short school bus. My car will be bigger than all of yours and I, unlike you, the Terrorist Support Committee, won't be hiding the fact that I'm fucking retarded.
2. Merit Over Equality
Nothing inherently bad with this. However, still a significant aspect of both Nazism and capitalism. [You may claim this is a democratic republic, but it's all governed by the dollar]
It is important to illustrate that Nazism is very different than Communism, the catalyst of 30 years of nuclear brinkmanship. It's not some far off, defeated concept. It's among us.
3. Competition over Cooperation
Also a fundament of this country. From birth, we are programmed to win at all costs. You won't hear that "it's how you play the game" excuse from the winner. And that is why winning a war, no matter why it started, rallies a country and a diplomatic solution doesn't.
4. Power Politics and Militarism over Pacifism
With great power comes great responsibility. Sad that the only one to ever say this and follow it at the same time was Spiderman, and he's not even real. As the world's only super-power [right now], we are leveraging our influence over the world very heavily. There are American Troops in over 45 countries, influencing their politics, culture, and economy to fit our needs.
Throughout American history, our troops have influenced culture and toppled governments at the President's command.
For example, when the Marxist Sandinista Movement overthrew the corrupt, American sponsored Somoza Dynasty in Nicaragua, President Reagan began immediately planning the overthrow of the Sandinistas. While they set out to give more land to peasants and spread health care and education to all, the CIA organized a secret contra force to re-install an American-friendly establishment. Unsupported by the people, the contras were forced to reside in America-dominated Honduras. From there, they would stage raids into Nicaragua. Former contra colonel Edgar Chamorro testified to the World Court
"...Many civilians were killed in cold blood. Many others were tortured, mutilated, raped, robbed, or otherwise abused…[It] turned out to be an instrument of the US government"
(source: Zinn, p.356)
The United States has a long history of murder and militarism when economic interests are at stake. In 1932, popular rebellions were threatening El Salvador's military government. Two percent of the population owned 60 percent of the land, and the repressed people were starting to stand up. This threatened American business interests, so the freedom loving United States sent "a cruiser and two destroyers to stand by while the government massacred thirty thousand Salvadorans" (source: Zinn, p.361)
Thirty THOUSAND.
And that is exactly why when Osama Bin Laden attacked us over 80% of the world was happy about it.
5. Capitalism over Marxism
Again, without attacking capitalism, both Americans and Nazis believe in, and are influenced by, the same economic system.
6. Religion over Secularism
Touched upon above.
Both cultures are fundamentally influenced by religion. Both George Bush Junior and Hitler [and bin Laden] used God as a justification for war. And in each case, the public bought it.
That is why, while I fully support your right to believe what you want and practice whatever you believe, I do not think religion should have any place in politics. God did not bless this war. Dick Cheney's business partners did.
Doubleyou-speak
The George Bush propaganda machine is changing our thoughts and opinions with Orwellian Doublespeak
1. "Regime"
You will never hear Hussein's CIA-sponsored Ba'ath party referred to anything but a "regime." After all, what kind of American could support a "regime?"
2. Operation "Iraqi Freedom"
Who can oppose freeing Iraqi people? How can the war be about anything but freeing an enslaved people if it's called Operation Iraqi Freedom?
I guess "Operation Iraqi Freedom…. From having homes" would be more accurate.
If George Orwell were still alive, he'd spend his time lamenting about why he couldn't think of something so nefariously genius. Who could oppose freedom? Only tyrants and terrorists. Go back to bed, America, Iraq will be free in no time.
Does George Bush intend to free Iraq the same way he freed Afghanistan?
If you rely on domestic news sources for your accurate information, you've probably missed the sarcasm.
• After 9/11, George Bush Junior retaliated against the terrorist-harboring country with our favorite hobby: indiscriminately bombing the shit out of a country full of brown people. Seems ironic that a bombing of civilians is retaliated by a BIGGER bombing of civilians.
To put it in perspective, lets just call the White House's Middle East policy "Nine Eleven… Billion"
• More innocent Afghani civilians died by American bombs than those at the World Trade Center on 9/11. (And we never even did get our targets)
• Afghanistan is now worse off than before. The country is in economic shambles, in a state of anarchy violently ruled by drug barons and warlords.
• George Bush Junior promised to stand by the Afghan people, too.
He promised food and healthcare to the Iraqi people. But since 1991's sanctions, over one million Iraqi civilians have died as a direct result of the American Led UN Resolution 1441. Over 500,000 of those were children.
George Bush Junior announced that immediately after Iraq is taken over, it will be controlled by General Tommy Franks as a military dictatorship. Leaked documents have exposed details on the martial law that will be imposed.
If irony was oil, George Bush Junior would bomb my house and steal that paragraph.
3."Coalition of the Willing"
Countries that support Bush are being referred to as the Coalition of the Willing. I guess this is accurate if willing to do something means being bullied into it.
The United States has incredible political and economic influence over most of the world. While the administration claims that it did not strong-arm any nation into the coalition, fact (Bush's real nemesis) points in the opposite direction.
America can block any country from entering NATO and uses this as leverage. Want in NATO? Not if you oppose the United States.
The United States accounts for 25% of all economic activity on Earth and is able to use that to effectively impose its will on smaller nations.
In 1991, during the first Gulf War, China was going to veto the UN Resolution allowing the war. A bribe of economic and diplomatic aid, especially right after Tienammen Square, quickly turned them right around. The votes of many smaller countries were also bought with money and aid.
But it's the countries that can't be bought that need to be added up:
• On February 20, 2003, representatives from 52 African Nations gathered in Paris and issued a statement opposing the war except as a last resort.
• On February 25, 2002, 116 nations passed a statement opposing the war.
• The countries with the largest GDPs in Europe, South America, Africa, and Asia all oppose the war.
Yet George Bush Junior has the audacity to call the UN "ineffective." If by ineffective he means "doing everything they can to support peace at the will of over 170 nations," then yes, I'd have to agree.
What happens when bin Laden uses the same excuse to justify his next attacks? What happens when he says that "The United States can no longer resort to blackmail and terrorism" and that he must pre-emptively strike before the United States tries to invade the next Arab country?
If irony were Filipino slave laborers we could out-produce Nike.
America sees support from the absolute monarchies of countries like Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey because of the amount of money at stake. They are all dependant on US dollars, as well as the United States military to keep them in power.
Of course, there are countries that support the war without being strong-armed. Spain, Italy, Australia, Denmark, Portugal and Japan officially all support George Bush's war. However, their populations don't, and the massive protests have made that very clear.
The entire sum of the populations of the coalition countries adds up to a mere 10.4% of the world population. That's assuming 100% of the population agrees with their country's official stance. Based on polls and protests, about 10% of this sum supports the war.
If 9/11 taught us anything, it's that our new enemies are the individuals, not the states. That's over 5 billion potential bombers. We couldn't even stop 19.
When Yemen voted against the war resolution, they were told by an American diplomat that that "would be the most expensive 'no' vote you ever cast," and three days later America cut all financial aid to Yemen. I wonder how many Yemenites were affected enough to join Al-Qaeda or one of the numerous other terrorist organizations looking to attack our homes. I bet more than one.
Syria was removed from the "Terrorism-Supporting Country" list after supporting UN Resolution 1441 against Iraq. I wonder if after the UN voted all of the potential terrorists changed their minds.
Take Mexico, for example. The United States buys more than 80% of their exports. America could easily buy those products from another country, and would! Mexico's economy would instantly collapse.
AND can you imagine how much more racist this country would be against Mexicans, and peoples from other countries that looks similar?
Just look at what happened to France.
4."Freedom Fries"
Like Eurasia was to Orwell's Oceania, France is America's favorite non-threatening enemy. This is being actively promoted by the government and media. Politicians are threatening to raise tariffs or just block imports from France all together. The same people claiming to not be racist are the very ones supporting this.
Let's be realistic. How is France's protest of this war any different than the American people's protests of the Vietnam "conflict?" Given, France is protesting for economic reasons, but I personally welcome the opposition to global imperialism any time I can get it.
If that makes me un-American, then I can be as proud to be called un-American as Schindler was to be called un-German. Look at this from 80% of the rest of the world's perspective.
And the absolute worst thing to happen to culture since, well, since "ever," many "Americans" have begun calling French Fries "Freedom Fries."
If you support this, don't even finish reading this. I don't want you to. Just believe me when I say that this world will be a LOT better off without you.
I have a better idea. Why don't you go tear down the statue of liberty? You know the French made that, right?
You do that, and I'll be watching from the mainland, eating French Toast and French Fries and drinking Evian. And I don't even drink Evian. But I'm going to start to because fuck you.
Oh, and make sure to think of me next time you're freedom kissing your girlfriend.
The main argument against France is that they have a weak military history, like that is somehow at all relevant to anything at all.
What kind of fucked up adolescent high school bigger-dick-than-you jock mentality dictated that one? That's like pitting Gary Kasparov against a hungry, wounded lion, awarding the win to the lion when it eats Kasparov, then renaming "playing Chess" to "Feeding the hungry" and protesting the Chess Board for disputing the win.
People love to bring up the fact that if you type in "French military victories" in the Google search engine it gives you a page that recommends "French military defeats"
Well, I love to bring up the fact that people are fucking stupid. I just haven't made a webpage about it yet.
Look at the URL next time you're claiming that search engine results should dictate foreign policy. It's not even a Google page. It's a spoof webpage. Some guy made it. Maybe the same guy that Tony Blair hired to fabricate his "proof."
Bill Maher put it perfectly: "At least the French have the balls to stand up to the Bush Administration, unlike the Democrats."
Remember when the opposite party at least pretended to offer opposing views. Now we have Tom Daschle, senate minority leader, saying one tiny little comment and then taking it back when the republicans give him the eye? We need France's opposition more than ever.
The Axis Of Oil
France, Russia and China are the main opponents of this war. Because innocent people will die? Of course not. Russia and China aren't exactly the poster children of human rights.
So why are they so adamantly opposed to US intervention in Iraq?
Oil, of course.
Iraq possesses about 12% of the world's oil reserves- an estimated 112.5 billion barrels. It's widely believed there may be a lot more untapped oil there, making them the number one source of oil in the world. Rather tempting to a world dependent on the finite resource.
I say George Bush Junior just cuts the bullshit already and just uses all the Iraqi oil to buy a fucking Death Star.
The sad thing is, if he wasn't against cloning that wouldn't surprise me.
Mr. Speaker, members of Congress, and fellow Americans, I present to you Darth Bush.
In 1997, Lukoil, Russia's primary oil company, reached an agreement to develop the West Qurna oil field, one of Iraq's largest oil prospects. The $3.7 billion dollar deal lasted until December 2002, The deal was cancelled because Russia was looking for post-Saddam oil deals. The only way for them to regain the contract was to keep Saddam in power.
Similarily, China's National Petrolium Corporation had been in talks to develop Iraqi oil fields after UN sanctions were lifted. China National also signed an agreement with Iraq for the North Rumailah field. Their needs of Persian Gulf oil is expected to grow from 1997's 0.5 million barrels of oil a day to 5.5 million barrels of a oil a day in 2020. Once they become dependant on America for their oil, they become strongly susceptible to "Western" diplomatic and economic influence. I don't think they want that.
France has also been in talks with Iraq to develop the Majnun field after sanctions were lifted.
There are five companies that dominate the world's oil market. It shouldn't be surprising that two of those are American companies and two are primarily British countries.
And where is the fifth company primarily based? France, of course.
The United States and England had a ¾ share of Iraq's oil production. They lost this share when Iraq nationalized oil production in 1972 and turned to France and Russia for partnerships. By installing a new, American-controlled dictator in Hussein's place, the US and UK effectively gain control of possibly the world's largest oil cache, and can privatize it right into the hands, and bank accounts, of the big four oil companies.
Is it any surprise that these countries would oppose the United States controlling this land?
Why is the Bush family so much more hell bent, sorry, "heaven bent," on Iraq's oil than the other presidents? Because the Bush administration and their associated henchmen have more to gain than any other presidents:
• Both George Bush Junior and Dick Cheney both worked in the oil business, and still have strong ties therein
• 41 Senior White House officials were former oil executives and have significant stock holdings or other financial ties
• National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice is a former director of Chevron, and even has an oil tanker named after her
In 1944, The United States and Great Britain signed an oil pact on "the principal of equal opportunity." Six years after that, UK Foreign Secretary Selwyn Lloyd outlined the First World's oil policy: "At all costs these oil fields must be kept in Western Hands." Forty two years later, Dick Cheney restated it: "Our strategy must now focus on precluding the emergence of any possible competitor."
As occupying power, the United States will assume sole responsibility for Iraq's immense oil reserves, making it a virtual member of OPEC, and the most powerful one at that.
And big oil and the government know that.
In 1998, Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr told the San Francisco Commonwealth Club that "Iraq poses huge reserves of oil and gas… reserves I'd love Chevron to have access to." One year after that, Commander-In-Chief of US Central Command, General Anthony C. Zinni, testified to Congress that Gulf oil is of "vital interest" to the United States, and that the United States "must have free access to the region's resources."
Predetermination
If only John Calvin knew that half of it.
Vice President of the United States Dick Cheney, or "Evil Sadistic Murderer" for short, has significant economic reasons to go to war beyond just oil.
Until he stepped down to become George Bush Junior's running mate, Cheney served as chief executive of Halliburton, a large corporation that makes billions of dollars from Middle East refining and "reconstruction." Dick Cheney still earns over $1 million dollars a year from the company and has significant stock holdings. His severance package alone was $30 million. Cheney has been using his power to provoke war and negotiate deals in order to raise his stock prices.
In 2001, Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown, and Root scored a ten year long Pentagon deal called the "Logistics Civil Augmentation Program" for "cost-plus-award-fee, indefinite delivery and quantity." The company has since made over $830 million dollars in the deal. They also have the Pentagon contract for controlling Iraqi oil fields, in what may add up to as much as $1.5 billion in contracts. Can we trust a man who will see immense profit in a war to tell us the truth or even push us in the right direction?
Maybe that was a question to ask before we didn't elect them in the 2000 elections, but now that they have the office anyways, it's a little too late.
Now that America has successfully freed the Iraqi oil fields, Halliburton has been awarded, without competition, a $7 billion contract to put out the Iraqi oil fires.
If irony was a Tom Daschle statement, these paragraphs would be rescinded, that pussy fuck.
Alternatives
There is no question that this war is about oil and money. Pro-war arguments about "freeing the oppressed Iraqis" backed up with statements like "Why don't you go live over there and then see if you support the war" are irrelevant. Again, freeing the Iraqis and taking down a brutal dictatorship is definitely a positive effect of this massive blitzkrieg, but still, just a side effect.
Similarly, taking out Saddam Hussein's American-funded government will not hinder terrorists or make us any safer at home. It sure will increase the number of our enemy though.
The only pro-war argument I've ever come across is the educated Republican stance: We are dependant on oil and controlling the oil supply will keep us on top, therefore I believe this unprovoked invasion is worth it.
If this statement was factually correct, then it would be a completely valid argument. However, oil is no longer our only option for power and energy.
Alternative fuel sources are constantly being developed, with completely new ones coming up every few months. The technologies are being advanced and refined in universities and independent laboratories, but are not backed enough to effect the market. A relatively small investment by the government or energy companies could give these labs the resources they need to perfect and mass produce these fuel sources.
In early March 2003, researchers at St. Louis University created a new type of fuel cell powered by Ethanol alcohol. Shortly before that, a Carthage plant figured out how to turn turkey byproducts into diesel fuel. Fuel cells are close to powering small electronic devices, and hydrogen cells have continued to make progress and shown immense potential.
But how would the energy companies make money off the Sun? How does the government tax an un-measurable source? California has tried to tax solar power, but has so far been unsuccessful.
They can't, and that is why they will not put in the resources necessary to bring these alternative fuel sources into our homes, offices, and cars.
As the industrial revolution ushered a new age, alternative fuel sources will bridge the gap to the next era of humanity.
America's military budget is almost $400 billion dollars. Less than ten percent of that would be more than enough to perfect existing alternative fuel sources and leave oil, with the greed, torture, and murder it brings, in our past. The money spent on this unprovoked invasion alone would have been enough to make significant strides in the technologies.
Some would argue that along with securing oil resources for ourselves, being able to control oil distribution to other countries would further define America's role as sole superpower. While true, it is still defeated by efficient and reliable alternative fuel sources. While the rest of the world would fight to control what's left of the finite, material resource, we would be decades ahead of them all with an infinite energy source. Imagine how much stronger the military would be without being dependent on oil. Imagine how many more $300 checks George Bush Junior would be able to send out to buy even more support. The possibilities are endless.
But alas, oil is the black gold, and in the same way Columbus murdered an entire race of Indians for gold, oil will continue to bring about war and murder and terror until it is all gone.
40° N
"If you want to know your past life, look into your present condition. If you want to know your future, look into your present action" -Padmisambha
Our country has developed a cultural divide, a virtual Mason-Dixon line separating the sheep and the intelligent people in a way that would make Pol Pot jealous.
We have a portion of this country blindly supporting the presidency no matter what is carried out. Questioning the Washington Autocracy is met with fascist accusations of not supporting troops and supporting terrorism and every other backwards declaration of stupidity imaginable.
Whether you are for the war or against it really doesn't matter now. What does matter is if you are for America or against it.
Trying to suppress dissent and blindly supporting the swift destruction of the constitution is not being American. No matter how many crosses are waved or "God Bless America" stickers are put on cars.
This country was founded on dissent. Our greatest president encouraged dissent to keep the government in line, publicly declaring that the day the public stops questioning the government is the day democracy in this country has died.
This is the eulogy.
How did the anti-freedom pro-war zealots get to reserve the "support the troops" propaganda for their side? That makes as much sense as an arsonist yelling to support the firefighters.
Supporting the troops is desiring to get them out of harm's way. Supporting the troops is trying to end an unjust invasion that has caused over 100 American soldiers to be killed. Supporting the troops is not supporting the crooked dynasty that has caused more death globally than any Iraqi dictator ever could.
People bring up the fact that "I'd rather live here than there" and all that irrelevant drivel. That's not an excuse to let things go. The "lesser of two evils" argument does not cut it. Hitler was not better than Stalin because he killed less people. We must strive for more. For better.
It's the same as telling a black guy in the 40's to "deal with it, at least you're free" - it's just doesn't work. Nothing should ever be "good enough."
The people that resort to this baseless nonsense are the same people that would have owned slaves. Of course, now they would be the first to say "racism is wrong!" while carefully using political correct terms to "politely" keep up the dividing lines.
It's just amazing to me how people can say the most unbelievably racist things against Iraqis and Arabs and French and whoever else we are told to hate and really think they are not racist. Someone needs to explain to these narrow minded Klan candidates that racism means judging ANY race, not just black.
Even worse is the "if you don't like it, leave!" cliché.
Tell that to the Jews in Nazi Germany.
Tell Martin Luther King Junior to go to Canada. Tell Rosa Parks to walk. Tell George Washington to find a new continent. Tell Susan B. Anthony to go vote somewhere else.
Look at the bigger picture. It's the mentality. Sure, many people can now agree that slavery is bad, but only after being raised that way. It's relative to the environment. Hating the French because they can actually stand up for themselves? Oh, so you still can hate an entire group of people.
Relating Bush to Hitler isn't accusing him of trying to set up death camps and murder ten million people. But it is illustrating that he and his administration are taking the same steps and doing the same things that Hitler did to accomplish what he accomplished. We don't need a color-coded early warning chart to see the danger in that.
In order for us to live in a free country, dissent should be encouraged. The government, by nature, will always end up being an oppressive and corrupt body. It is up to the people to continuously question the government and tell the politicians what to do. We need to become aware of what our government is doing, and we can't rely on their media to tell us the truth. On September 11th, we learned why.
It is important that we are aware of how our actions affect other people in other countries. Osama bin Laden himself stated that the reason he will target civilians is that in a republic like ours the actions of the government are representative of the will of the people. That statement is correct. If we do not become aware of what is being carried out in our name, we will continuously, and more frequently, be attacked and killed in acts of desperation and retribution.
That is why we must educate ourselves about the results of our actions and respond to them accordingly.
Our culture is in a horrible downward spiral aimed right in the center of the story that Adolph Hitler, George Orwell and Aldous Huxley all wrote chapters of.
Our future is not bright. Things will not "get better." Praying will do nothing but encourage complacency. Our only hope is to work together, to rise up from our sheep mentality and educate ourselves. Once we are aware of where we are and why, we can take the right steps to move forward to better things.
And that is why I wrote this. Now do your part. Read more. Educate yourself. Educate others. Encourage dissent and questions. Do what needs to be done to make this world a better place for everybody.
Thank you for reading.
Sources
A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present (Zinn, Howard)
10 Steps To Start A War taken from Anatomy of Your Enemy (Antiflag)
Commondreams.org
www.fpif.org
Globalpolicy.com
Hitler.org
Left-turn.org
NY Times
Tompaine.com
www.villagevoice.com
Washington Post
Recommended Reading
Books
1984 (Orwell, George)
9-11 (Chomsky, Noam)
Brave New World (Huxley, Aldous)
A People's History of the United States: 1492 - Present (Zinn, Howard)
Ishmael (Quinn, Daniel)
Manufacturing Consent: The Political... (Herman, Edward; Chomsky, Noam)
Silencing Political Dissent: How Post-September 11 Anti-Terrorism Measures Threaten Our Civil Liberties (Chang, Nancy; Zinn, Howard)
Terrorism and War (Zinn, Howard)
We (Zamyatin, Yevgeny)
What Uncle Sam Really Wants (Chomsky, Noam)
President Bush's UN Speech:
Idealistic Rhetoric Disguises Sinister Policies By Stephen Zunes
Commentators in the mainstream media seem genuinely perplexed over the polite but notably unenthusiastic reception given to President George W. Bush’s September 21 address before the United Nations General Assembly. Why wasn’t a speech that emphasized such high ideals as democracy, the rule of law, and the threat of terrorism better received?
The answer may be found through a critical examination of the assumptions underlying the idealistic rhetoric of the U.S. president’s message. Below are a number of examples:
“We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace. We know that oppressive governments support terror, while free governments fight the terrorists in their midst.”
Notwithstanding the clear moral preference of democracy over dictatorship, this formula fails to withstand closer scrutiny. There are many dictators in the past and present—as nasty as they may have been toward their own people—who have not engaged in acts of aggression against other nations and have not supported terrorists. Furthermore, the United States—one of the world’s oldest democracies—has demonstrated through its invasion of Iraq, as well as its earlier invasions of Panama, Grenada, and other countries, that it can certainly be “quick to choose aggression.” Similarly, the decision by the Bush administration a few weeks ago to allow into the country a group of right-wing Cuban exiles who had been implicated in a series of attacks against civilian targets—including an attempt to set off a series of explosions in a crowded auditorium at a Panamanian university in 1998, and the blowing up of an airliner in Barbados in 1976—as well as the active U.S. support for the Contra terrorists who attacked civilian targets in Nicaragua during the 1980s—demonstrate that democracies do indeed allow “terrorists in their midst.”
“We’re determined to prevent proliferation, and to enforce the demands of the world [demanding that nations] fully comply with all Security Council resolutions.”
In reality, U.S. policy is not nearly as categorical as this statement implies. For example, since 1998, India and Pakistan have been in violation of UN Security Council resolution 1172, which calls upon these governments to cease their development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Since 1981, Israel has stood in violation of UN Security Council resolution 487, which calls upon that government to place its nuclear facilities under the trusteeship of the International Atomic Energy Agency. The United States has repeatedly blocked the United Nations from enforcing those resolutions, even as it insisted that Iraqi noncompliance with similar resolutions required that the UN authorize an invasion of that country and the overthrow of its government. It appears that the Bush administration, like preceding Republican and Democratic administrations, is only concerned with UN resolutions regarding nonproliferation if the target of the resolution is a government they don’t like. Such double standards make a mockery of law-based efforts toward non-proliferation, however, and will likely encourage, rather than discourage, regimes to develop weapons of mass destruction.
“The Russian children [in Beslan] did nothing to deserve such awful suffering, and fright, and death. The people of Madrid and Jerusalem and Istanbul and Baghdad have done nothing to deserve sudden and random murder. These acts violate the standards of justice in all cultures, and the principles of all religions. All civilized nations are in this struggle together, and all must fight the murderers.”
All true. Yet the numbers of innocent civilians killed in recent years by American forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as by U.S.-armed Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and by U.S.-armed Turkish forces in Kurdistan have far surpassed those killed by all Middle Eastern terrorist groups combined. While a case can certainly be made that the killings of civilians by the United States and its allies was, in most cases, not as wanton as the killings in these terrorist attacks, the callous disregard for civilian lives in many of these military operations did constitute clear violations of international humanitarian law.
“The dictator [Saddam Hussein] agreed in 1991, as a condition of a cease-fire, to fully comply with all Security Council resolutions—then ignored more than a decade of those resolutions. Finally, the Security Council promised serious consequences for his defiance. And the commitments we make must have meaning. When we say ‘serious consequences,’ for the sake of peace, there must be serious consequences. And so a coalition of nations enforced the just demands of the world.”
First of all, the majority of member states that voted in favor of UN Security Council 1441—which warned of “serious consequences” for continued Iraqi non-compliance—explicitly stated that this was not an authorization for the use of force and that a subsequent resolution would be needed. The two times in its history that the UN Security Council has authorized the use of military force to enforce its resolution—in response to the North Korean invasion of South Korea in 1950 and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990—such authorization was quite explicit.
Secondly, if one were to accept President Bush’s interpretation of “serious consequences” as simply another term for a foreign invasion of a sovereign nation, it is downright Orwellian to claim that such “serious consequences” must be inflicted “for the sake of peace.”
Finally, at the time the United States launched its invasion of Iraq, the Iraqi government had allowed United Nations inspectors back in with unfettered access to wherever they wanted to go whenever they wanted to, and they were in the process of confirming the fact that Iraq had indeed dismantled, destroyed, or otherwise rendered inoperable its proscribed weapons, delivery systems, and WMD programs. Therefore, the U.S.-led invasion did not “enforce the just demands of the world” since the demands were already being enforced without the use of military force.
“More than 10 million Afghan citizens—over 4 million of them women—are now registered to vote in next month’s presidential election. To any who still would question whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies, the Afghan people are giving their answer.”
Currently in Afghanistan, vote-buying, intimidation, and the enormously disproportionate resources allocated to pro-government candidates raise serious questions as to how democratic these upcoming elections will be. Currently, there are more Afghan males registered to vote than there are eligible Afghan male voters; duplicate voting cards are commonplace and can be sold on the open market. The regime, which lacks solid control of much of the country outside the capital of Kabul, was largely hand-picked by the United States. The ongoing violence and chaos in the country, along with extremely high rates of illiteracy, raise serious questions as to whether the Western-style election the United States is trying to set up will have any credibility among the Afghans themselves.
No one should question whether Muslim societies can be democratic societies. However, Afghanistan under U.S. domination is no more a model of a democratic society than Afghanistan under Soviet domination 20 years ago was a model of a socialist society.
“A democratic Iraq has ruthless enemies, because terrorists know the stakes in that country. They know that a free Iraq in the heart of the Middle East will be a decisive blow against their ambitions for that region.”
This assumes that the armed resistance in Iraq is not because a Western power invaded and occupied their country, failed to provide basic services and security, sold off key sectors of their economy to foreigners, and installed a puppet regime, but simply because its members don’t want democracy. It also fails to explain why when other Middle Eastern states have taken even further steps toward democracy than Iraq, there has not been this kind of terror. Indeed, the opposite is true: For example, there was virtually no terrorism when Algeria democratized its political system in the late 1980s, but then saw an enormous rise in terrorism after a military coup short-circuited its democratic experiment at the end of 1991.
“Coalition forces now serving in Iraq are confronting the terrorists and foreign fighters, so peaceful nations around the world will never have to face them within our own borders.”
First of all, well over 90% of the fighting is by U.S. forces, hardly a “coalition.”
Secondly, there are indeed terrorists among the dozen or more opposition groups in Iraq, but the majority of the armed opposition has been targeting U.S. occupation forces, not civilians, and therefore should not be considered terrorists. Similarly, there are foreign fighters among them, but most credible sources put the percentage of foreigners in the various resistance groups—terrorist and otherwise—at well under 5%.
Thirdly, this idea that if the United States withdrew, these terrorists would suddenly leave Iraq and start attacking the United States and other countries is specious. This is simply a retread of the rationalization used during the Vietnam War that “if we don’t fight them over there, we’ll have to fight them here.” Despite the U.S. withdrawal and the Communist victory nearly 30 years ago, the Vietnamese have yet to attack the United States. The Vietnamese stopped killing Americans when American forces got out of Vietnam. One can similarly assume that the Iraqis will stop killing Americans when American forces get out of Iraq.
“For too long, many nations, including my own, tolerated, even excused, oppression in the Middle East in the name of stability. Oppression became common, but stability never arrived. We must take a different approach. We must help the reformers of the Middle East as they work for freedom, and strive to build a community of peaceful, democratic nations.”
These are noble words, but the reality of U.S. policy is very different: Under the Bush administration, U.S. military aid, police training, and financial assistance to Middle Eastern governments that engage in patterns of gross and systematic human rights violations has dramatically increased. Since the Bush administration came to office, thousands of reformers have been jailed, tortured, and murdered by governments supported by the United States.
“This commitment to democratic reform is essential to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Peace will not be achieved by Palestinian rulers who intimidate opposition, tolerate corruption, and maintain ties to terrorist groups. The long-suffering Palestinian people deserve better. They deserve true leaders capable of creating and governing a free and peaceful Palestinian state.”
This statement assumes that if Palestinian President Yasir Arafat and the Palestinian Authority cleaned up their act, Israel would allow the creation of a viable Palestinian state, which is the key requisite for peace. In reality, the right-wing Israeli government of Ariel Sharon, with the support of the United States, has embarked upon a plan to annex nearly half of the occupied territories and divide up the remainder into small, non-contiguous cantons surrounded by Israel, where the Israelis would control the borders, the airspace, the ports, and the water resources. This will clearly make the establishment of a viable Palestinian state impossible, whatever the nature of the Palestinian leadership. Israel—again, with U.S. support—has also rejected consideration of withdrawal from occupied Syrian territory, despite promises by the Damascus government of strict security guarantees.
It is important to remember that Kuwait’s rulers during the early 1990s also intimidated opposition, tolerated corruption, and maintained ties to terrorist groups. That did not stop the United States, along with the rest of the international community, from demanding that Iraq end its occupation of that country. There are no such U.S. demands, however, that Israel end its occupation.
The Influence of the Christian Right on U.S. Middle East Policy By Stephen Zunes
In recent years a politicized and right-wing Protestant fundamentalist movement has emerged as a major factor in U.S. support for the policies of the rightist Likud government in Israel. To understand this influence, it is important to recognize that the rise of the religious right as a political force in the United States is a relatively recent phenomenon that emerged as part of a calculated strategy by leading right-wingers in the Republican Party who—while not fundamentalist Christians themselves—recognized the need to enlist the support of this key segment of the American population in order to achieve political power.
Traditionally, American fundamentalist Protestants were not particularly active in national politics, long seen as worldly and corrupt. This changed in the late 1970s as part of a calculated effort by conservative Republican operatives who recognized that as long as the Republican Party was primarily identified with militaristic foreign policies and economic proposals that favored the wealthy, it would remain a minority party. Over the previous five decades, Republicans had won only four out of 12 presidential elections and had controlled Congress for only two of its 24 sessions.
By mobilizing rightist religious leaders and adopting conservative positions on highly-charged social issues such as women’s rights, abortion, sex education, and homosexuality, Republican strategists were able to bring millions of fundamentalist Christians—who as a result of their lower-than-average income were not otherwise inclined to vote Republican—into their party. Through such organizations as the Moral Majority and the Christian Coalition, the GOP promoted a right-wing political agenda through radio and television broadcasts as well as from the pulpit. Since capturing this pivotal constituency, Republicans have won four out of six presidential races, have dominated the Senate for seven out of 12 sessions, and have controlled the House of Representatives for the past decade.
As a result of being politically wooed, those who identify with the religious right are now more likely than the average American to vote and to be politically active. The Christian Right constitutes nearly one out of seven American voters and determines the agenda of the Republican Party in about half of the states, particularly in the South and Midwest. A top Republican staffer noted: “Christian conservatives have proved to be the political base for most Republicans. Many of these guys, especially the leadership, are real believers in this stuff, and so are their constituents.”
The Movement Takes Office
The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State recently quipped: “The good news is that the Christian Coalition is fundamentally collapsing. The bad news is that the people who ran it are all in the government.” He noted, for example, that when he goes to the Justice Department, he keeps seeing lawyers formerly employed by prominent right-wing fundamentalist preacher Pat Robertson.
As the Washington Post observed, “For the first time since religious conservatives became a modern political movement, the president of the United States has become the movement’s de facto leader.” Former Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed marked the triumph by chortling, “You’re no longer throwing rocks at the building; you’re in the building.” He added that God “knew George Bush had the ability to lead in this compelling way.”
American liberals have long supported Israel as a refuge for persecuted Jews and have championed the country’s democratic institutions (for its Jewish citizens). Historically these liberals, bolstered by the disproportionate political influence of Zionist Jews within the party, prompted Democrats to adopt a hard line toward Palestinians and other Arabs. Though more hawkish on most foreign policy issues, Republicans traditionally took a somewhat more moderate stance partly due to the party’s ties to the oil industry and in part because of GOP concern that too much support for Israel could lead Arab nationalists toward a pro-Soviet or—in more recent years—a pro-Islamist orientation. But this alignment has shifted, thanks to the influence of the Christian Right. Though Christian fundamentalist support for Israel dates back many years, only recently has it become one of the movement’s major issues.
As a result of renewed fundamentalist interest in Israel and in recognition of the movement’s political influence, American Jews are less reluctant to team up with the Christian Right. Fundamentalist leader Gary Bauer, for example, now receives frequent invitations to address mainstream Jewish organizations, which would have been hesitant toward the movement prior to the Bush presidency. This is partly a phenomenon of demographics: Jews constitute only 3 percent of the U.S. population, and barely half of them support the current Israeli government.
The Israelis also recognize the Christian Right’s political clout. Since 2001, Bauer has met with several Israeli Cabinet members and with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Former Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu noted, “We have no greater friends and allies” than right-wing American Christians.
It used to be that Republican administrations had the ability to withstand pressure from Zionist lobbying groups when it was deemed important for American interests. For example, the Eisenhower administration pressured Israel during the Suez Crisis of 1956, the Reagan administration sold AWACS-equipped planes to Saudi Arabia in 1981, and the first Bush administration delayed a $10 billion loan guarantee for Israel to await the outcome of the pivotal 1992 Israeli election.
With the growing influence of the Christian Right, however, such detachment is no longer as easily achieved. For the first time, the Republican Party has a significant pro-Israel constituency of its own that it cannot ignore. Top White House officials, including Elliott Abrams, director of the National Security Council on Near East and North African Affairs, have regular and often lengthy meetings with representatives of the Christian Right. As one leading Republican put it: “They are very vocal and have shifted the center of gravity toward Israel and against concessions. It colors the environment in which decisions are being made.” Indeed, the degree of the Bush administration’s support for Prime Minister Sharon has surprised even the most hard-line Zionist Jews.
Rising Power of Christian Zionists
It appears, then, that right-wing Christian Zionists are, at this point, more significant in the formulation of U.S. policy toward Israel than are Jewish Zionists, as illustrated by three recent incidents.
• After the Bush administration’s initial condemnation of the attempted assassination of militant Palestinian Islamist Abdel Aziz Rantisi in June 2003, the Christian Right mobilized its constituents to send thousands of e-mails to the White House protesting the criticism. A key element in these e-mails was the threat that if such pressure continued to be placed upon Israel, the Christian Right would stay home on Election Day. Within 24 hours, there was a notable change in tone by the president. Indeed, when Rantisi fell victim to a successful Israeli assassination in April 2004, the administration—as it did with the assassination of Hamas leader Sheik Ahmed Yassin the previous month—largely defended the Israeli action.
• When the Bush administration insisted that Israel stop its April 2002 military offensive in the West Bank, the White House received over 100,000 e-mails from Christian conservatives in protest of its criticism. Almost immediately, President Bush came to Israel’s defense. Over the objections of the State Department, the Republican-led Congress adopted resolutions supporting Israel’s actions and blaming the violence exclusively on the Palestinians.
• When President Bush announced his support for the Road Map for Middle East peace, the White House received more than 50,000 postcards over the next two weeks from Christian conservatives opposing any plan that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state. The administration quickly backpedaled, and the once-highly touted Road Map essentially died.
Theological Influences: Good Versus Evil
Messianic theology is centered around the belief in a hegemonic Israel as a necessary precursor to the second coming of Christ. Although this doctrine is certainly an important part of the Christian Right’s support of a militaristic and expansionist Jewish state, fundamentalist Christian Zionism in America ascribes to an even more dangerous dogma: that of Manichaeism, the belief that reality is divided into absolute good and absolute evil.
The day after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, President Bush declared, “This will be a monumental struggle of good versus evil, but good will prevail.” America was targeted—according to President Bush—not on account of U.S. support for Arab dictatorships, the large U.S. military presence in the Middle East, U.S. backing of the Israeli occupation, or the humanitarian consequences of U.S. policy toward Iraq but simply because they “hate our freedom.” Despite the Gospels’ insistence that the line separating good and evil does not run between nations but rather within each person, President Bush cited Christological texts to support his war aims in the Middle East, declaring, “And the light [America] has shown in the darkness [the enemies of America], and the darkness will not overcome it [American shall conquer its enemies].”
Even more disturbingly, Bush has stated repeatedly that he was “called” by God to run for president. Veteran journalist Bob Woodward noted, “The President was casting his mission and that of the country in the grand vision of God’s Master Plan,” wherein he promised, in his own words, “to export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of this great country and rid the world of evil.” In short, President Bush believes that he has accepted the responsibility of leading the free world as part of God’s plan. He even told then-Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas that “God told me to strike al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did.” Iraq has become the new Babylon, and the “war on terrorism” has succeeded the Cold War with the Soviet Union as the quintessential battle between good and evil.
Cultural Affinities
The esprit that many Americans have with Israel is rooted in a common historical mission. Each country was settled in part by victims fleeing religious persecution who fashioned a new nation rooted in high ideals with a political system based upon relatively progressive and democratic institutions. And both peoples established their new nations through the oppression, massacre, and dislocation of indigenous populations. Like many Israelis, Americans often confuse genuine religious faith with nationalist ideology.
John Winthrop, the influential 17th century Puritan theologian, saw America as the “City on the Hill” (Zion) and “a light upon nations.” In effect, there is a kind of American Zionism assuming a divinely inspired singularity that excuses what would otherwise be considered unacceptable behavior. Just as Winthrop defended the slaughter of the indigenous Pequot peoples of colonial Massachusetts as part of a divine plan, 19th century theologians defended America’s westward expansion as “manifest destiny” and the will of God. Such theologically rooted aggrandizement did not stop at the Pacific Ocean: the invasion of the Philippines in the 1890s was justified by President William McKinley and others as part of an effort to “uplift” and “Christianize” the natives, ignoring the fact that the Filipinos (who by that time had nearly rid the country of Spanish colonialists and had established the first democratic constitution in Asia) were already over 90 percent Christian.
Similarly, today—in the eyes of the Christian Right—the Bush Doctrine and the expansion of American military and economic power is all part of a divine plan. For example, in their 2003 Christmas card, Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife Lynne included the quote, “And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?”
But is such thinking normative in the United States? Polls show that the ideological gap between Christian conservatives and other Americans regarding the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the “war on terrorism” is even higher than the ideological gap between Christian conservatives and other Americans regarding Israel and Palestine.
In many respects, much of the American right may be at least as concerned about how Israel can help the United States as about how the United States can help Israel. Due to the anti-Semitism inherent in much of Christian Zionist theology, it has long been recognized that U.S. fundamentalist support for Israel does not stem from a concern for the Jewish people per se but rather from a desire to leverage Jewish jingoism to hasten the Second Coming of Christ. Such opportunism is also true of those who—for theological or other reasons—seek to advance the American Empire in the Middle East. And though a strong case can be made that U.S. support for the Israeli occupation ultimately hurts U.S. interests, there remains a widely held perception that Israel is an important asset to American strategic objectives in the Middle East and beyond.
Strategic Calculation Trumps Ethno-Religious Card
Ultimately, Washington’s championing of Israel—like its approval of other repressive governments—is part of a strategic calculation rather than simply ethnic politics. When a choice must be made, geopolitical considerations outweigh ethnic loyalties. For example, for nearly a quarter of century, the United States supported the brutal occupation of East Timor by Indonesia and to this day supports the Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara, despite the absence of powerful Indonesian-American or Moroccan-American ethnic lobbying forces. The United States was able to get away with its support for occupations by Indonesia and Morocco due to their relative obscurity. This is certainly not the case with Israel and Palestine. (Interestingly, even though the East Timor situation involved a predominantly Muslim country conquering, occupying, and terrorizing a predominantly Christian country, virtually no protests arose from the Islamaphobic Christian Right.)
The Christian Right has long been a favorite target for the Democratic Party, particularly its liberal wing, since most Americans are profoundly disturbed by fundamentalists of any kind influencing policies of a government with a centuries-old tradition of separating church and state. Yet the positions of most liberal Democrats in Congress regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are far closer to those of the reactionary Christian Coalition than to those of the moderate National Council of Churches, far closer to the rightist Rev. Pat Robertson than to the leftist Rev. William Sloan Coffin, far closer to the ultraconservative Moral Majority than to the liberal Churches for Middle East Peace, and far closer to the fundamentalist Southern Baptist Convention than to any of the mainline Protestant churches. Rather than accusing these erstwhile liberals of being captives of the Jewish lobby—a charge that inevitably leads to the countercharge of anti-Semitism—those who support justice for the Palestinians should instead reproach congressional Democrats for falling captive to the Christian Right. Such a rebuke would be no less accurate and would likely enhance the ability of those who support peace, justice, and the rule of law to highlight the profound immorality of congressional sanction for the Israeli occupation.
Those who support justice for the Palestinians—or even simply the enforcement of basic international humanitarian law—must go beyond raising awareness of the issue to directly confronting those whose acquiescence facilitates current repressive attitudes. It will not be possible to counter the influence of the Christian Right in shaping American policies in the Middle East as long as otherwise-socially conscious Christian legislators and other progressive-minded elected officials are beholden to fundamentalist voting pressures. It is unlikely that these Democrats and moderate Republicans will change, however, until liberal-to-mainline churches mobilize their resources toward demanding justice as strongly as right-wing fundamentalists have mobilized their resources in support of repression.
Iraq One Year Later By Stephen Zunes
A full year after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, while the tyrannical rule of Saddam Hussein is over, the killing continues and the quality of life for most Iraqis has actually deteriorated. Meanwhile, the United States is continuing to sacrifice lives and money in an enterprise for which the original rationales--eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its support for the al Qaeda terrorist network--are now widely acknowledged to be false.
This essay offers a brief overview of the situation on the ground and the U.S. response to it. The violence in reaction to the U.S. occupation has consisted of both urban guerrilla warfare against U.S. and other occupation forces, led primarily by Baathist and other nationalist militias, and terrorism against Iraqi and foreign civilians, presumably led by domestic or foreign radical Islamists. There is also small-scale and potentially large-scale nonviolent resistance, particularly in the Shiite community.
Armed Resistance to U.S. Occupation Forces
The guerrilla attacks, while responsible for fewer deaths overall, have been the primary concern for U.S. officials. Though dismissed simply as supporters of the old regime, their support appears to be much deeper. A CIA report at the end of last year acknowledged that “there are thousands in the resistance--and not just hardcore Baathists” and that “the resistance is broad, strong, and getting stronger.”
Much of the armed resistance appears to be under the control of Baathists, but--with the capture and killing of most senior Baath officials loyal to Saddam Hussein--they appear to be mid-level Baathists who were more independent and not saddled with the baggage of the old regime. For example, Samarra--which is a center of anti-occupation resistance--was also a center for anti-Saddam elements of the Baath Party.
To use an analogy from the Vietnam War, while the National Liberation Front (NLF, or “Viet Cong”) was certainly controlled by the Communist Party and most of its leadership was communists, the vast majority of its fighters were ordinary peasants motivated by nationalism.
As in Vietnam, the primary victims of U.S. counter-insurgency operations appear to be civilians, particularly as a result of the bombing and shelling of crowded residential areas. Human rights groups have observed that the mere presumption that fighters may be hiding in a particular area is not enough to legally justify a military response when civilians are in the area, according to international law.
Also as in Vietnam, such tactics are motivated in part by racism. For example, the New York Times quoted Captain Todd Brown, a company commander with the Fourth Infantry Division, as saying “You have to understand the Arab mind. The only thing they understand is force.”
Armed engagements with insurgents are not always reported accurately. For example, following a three-hour battle in the town of Samarra, where U.S. forces reported that fifty-four guerrillas and no civilians were killed, local doctors and other civilian eyewitnesses spoke of minimal military deaths and widespread civilian fatalities. U.S. forces reportedly shelled and shot up civilian homes, a mosque, a kindergarten, pharmaceutical plant, and a minibus carrying Iranian pilgrims, as well as crushed cars with their tanks.
American responses to attacks have not been limited to exchanges of fire with insurgents, targeting communications or confiscating weapons, but punishing entire cities and neighborhoods for acts committed by a group of locals involved in attacks against occupation forces. In the words of Brigadier General Dempsey, the goal of such operations is “to communicate to the enemy that the cost of actions against [the U.S. occupation forces] is high.” Often, they are not even locals, deliberately making attacks from neighborhoods and towns away from where their families live, so the retribution will fall elsewhere.
Another American officer, Colonel Sasaman, stated, “With a heavy dose of fear and violence, and a lot of money for projects, I think we can convince these people that we are here to help them.”
Such heavy use of force has not only failed to achieve the intended results, but has also contributed to ongoing U.S. casualties in patrols by sizable contingents of American forces. Seeking to minimize young Americans coming home in body bags in an election year, the Bush administration, as of November, began emphasizing the use of Special Forces to make pre-emptive tactics.
Tactics by U.S. occupation forces in responses have included the demolition of houses, cordoning off whole towns and neighborhoods with razor wire, and detaining relatives of suspected guerrillas in hopes that insurgents will turn themselves in.
One American adviser described it: “We're going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrillas. Terrorism versus terrorism. We've got to scare the Iraqis into submission.” Similarly, a former U.S. intelligence officer has acknowledged “This is basically an assassination program. That is what is being conceptualized here. This is a hunter-killer team.”
In occupied Palestinian territories Israel has also used such tactics, which have been recognized as illegal and have been subjected to a series of critical UN Security Council resolutions. Senator John Kerry and other Democratic leaders in Congress have vigorously defended such actions, however, on the grounds that Israel was targeting families of terrorists and otherwise responding to attacks against civilian populations. The targets of U.S. attacks, however, don't appear to be primarily terrorists responsible for bombings against civilians, but rather guerrillas targeting occupation forces.
In either case, such tactics are a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which strictly prohibits such attacks.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld repeatedly criticized the former Special Forces Commander, Air Force General Charles Holland, “for his reluctance to authorize commando raids without specific … intelligence.” In his place he has promoted, as one of the key planners of these operations, Lieutenant General William (Jerry) Boykin, who has declared that Muslims are a Satanic force that “want to destroy us as a nation, and he wants to destroy us as a Christian army” because “we are a nation of believers.” Furthermore, he declares that Bush was “not elected” president but was “appointed by God.”
The United States has brought in Israeli commandos and intelligence units to train these forces at Fort Bragg, North Carolina; some Israelis have been brought into Iraq itself as military “consultants;” and some Americans are going to Israel to observe their occupation forces in action. The hawkish Israeli military expert Martin Van Creveld has noted, however, that such tactics have not worked for Israel and will not likely work for the United States, either: “They are already doing things that we have been doing for years to no avail. The Americans are coming here to try to mimic all kinds of techniques, but it's not going to do them any good.” Indeed, it may be even less successful since, while Israel's occupation of the Palestinians is based on a combination of security concerns and territorial expansion, the United States claims its occupation of Iraqi is to liberate Iraqi citizens. If such intimidation does not work on your perceived enemies, it is even less likely to work on those whom you want to be your friends.
It is also ironic that the United States began working with the Israelis and adopting such tactics just as four former heads of Shin Bet--Israel's security agency--went on record condemning their country's policies as counter-productive.
There has been little concern about the use of such tactics from Democratic lawmakers. Indeed, top Democratic members of Congress--including House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee John Kerry--have attacked President Bush from the right for criticizing Israel's assassination policies. As a result, it would be hard for them to raise objections when such tactics are used for the purpose of protecting American troops.
Just as the ruling elites of medieval Europe used members of the Jewish community as money-lenders and tax collectors, the United States is now using the Israelis to help them with their dirty work.
Similarly, just as the United States used former collaborators with German and Japanese occupiers to help crush leftist insurgencies in the late 1940s after having “liberated” them, U.S. occupation forces have assembled teams made up of the upper ranks of Saddam Hussein's brutal intelligence services to infiltrate the insurgency. A CIA station chief acknowledged that the U.S. was “tapping into them. We have to resuscitate Iraqi intelligence, holding our nose” and have Special Forces and CIA operatives “break down doors and take them out.”
A Pentagon adviser has called hits “pre-emptive manhunting,” and it appears to have a striking resemblance to Operation Phoenix in South Vietnam, which resulted in the assassination of 20,000 to 40,000 Vietnamese, ostensibly connected to the NLF, though many were targeted because of private grievances.
With the counter-insurgency efforts led by an anti-Islamic Christian fundamentalist general with the support from some of the nastiest elements of Israeli occupation forces and Saddam's intelligence services, it is not surprising that the U.S. occupation is having a hard time winning Iraqi hearts and minds.
Indeed, the repression against Iraqi civilians through counter-insurgency operations by U.S. occupation forces is fueling a backlash, effectively creating resistance fighters faster than they can be killed. Milt Bearden, former chief of CIA operations in Afghanistan during the 1980s declares, “For every mujahedeen killed or hauled off in raids by Soviet troops in Afghanistan, a revenge group of perhaps a half-dozen members of his family took up arms. Sadly, this same rule probably applies in Iraq.”
The Terrorist Threat
The Bush administration has tried to link the very real threat to American security from mega-terrorist groups like al Qaeda to phony threats originating in Iraq. Not only has President Bush tried to link the terrorism that has grown out of the post-invasion chaos in Iraq to the devastating al Qaeda attacks on the United States two years ago, he has depicted all the current violence against Americans and other foreigners in Iraq as part of this terrorist threat.
For example, President Bush has failed to distinguish between the car bombings and other terrorist attacks against Iraqi civilians and international relief workers with guerrilla attacks by the Iraqi resistance against U.S. occupation forces. As tragic as the deaths of American soldiers may be, the Fourth Geneva Convention--to which the United States is a signatory--recognizes that a people under foreign military occupation do have the right to militarily engage armed, uniformed occupation forces. This is not the same as terrorism, which refers to attacks deliberately targeted against unarmed civilians and is universally recognized as a war crime. It is therefore terribly misleading to try to convince the American public that these two phenomena are the same.
President Bush has also failed to differentiate between the increasingly disparate elements behind the attacks. Some of the violence may indeed come from those who have some connection with al Qaeda who have infiltrated Iraq since the invasion; some are supporters of Saddam Hussein's former regime; some are Iraqi Islamists; still others are independent Iraqi nationalists who opposed the old regime but also oppose the U.S. occupation; still others may be foreign fighters who see driving American occupiers from Iraq as an act of pan-Islamic solidarity comparable to driving Soviet occupiers from Afghanistan.
In any case, President Bush now declares that a successful American-led pacification of the anti-occupation resistance in Iraq would be an “essential victory in the war on terror.” In linking the legitimate international struggle against al Qaeda with the illegitimate U.S. occupation of Iraq, it becomes possible for the administration to justify the president's determination to “spend what is necessary” in controlling this oil-rich country and to depict those in the United States and elsewhere who oppose the occupation as being soft of terrorism.
It is noteworthy that only after it has become apparent that Iraq did not have the WMD programs the Bush administration had claimed, President Bush now says that the U.S. occupation of Iraq is necessary since that country has become “the central front” of the “war on terror.” In a nationally televised address last fall, President Bush declared that “the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans. We are fighting that enemy in Iraq ... today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.”
There appears to be no evidence, however, that those Iraqis currently fighting U.S. occupation forces in their own country actually want to somehow sneak into the United States to kill American civilians. Indeed, no Iraqis have ever been known to commit an act of terrorism against Americans on American soil.
The president's statement is essentially a retread of the line used by supporters of the Vietnam War that “If we don't fight them over there, we will have to fight them here.” However, more than 28 years after the Communist victory in Vietnam, the United States has not had to fight the Vietnamese on American streets and there is no indication that we ever will. The Iraqis, like the Vietnamese 35 years ago, are fighting Americans because U.S. troops are in their country and, like the Vietnamese, will presumably stop fighting Americans once U.S. troops leave their country.
Iraqi support for international terrorists--primarily small radical nationalist groups, particularly Palestinian--peaked in the 1980s (when Saddam Hussein's regime was supported by the United States ) and has been largely non-existent since the early 1990s. Though Iraq was not a hotbed of terrorism for the last dozen years of Saddam's rule, it is now. The destruction of Saddam Hussein's tightly controlled police state by U.S. forces opened up the country as a haven for the world's terrorists. The U.S. invasion resulted in the replacement of a highly centralized authority to the kind of weak state that the Bush administration, in its September 2002 National Security Strategy, noted was a breeding ground for terrorists: an inability to meet the basic needs of its citizens or control its borders. Furthermore, a senior U.S. counter-terrorism official has acknowledged that “an American invasion of Iraq is already being used as a recruitment tool by al Qaeda and other groups. Similarly, Richard Clarke, a former senior White House counter-terrorism official noted, “Fighting Iraq had little to do with fighting the war on terrorism, until we made it so.”
According to Jessica Stern of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, “We're inspiring terrorism. The Bush administration didn't seem to have anticipated the extent to which terrorists would be drawn into Iraq and the extent to which they would be inspired by our occupation to attack elsewhere.”
No Light at the End of the Tunnel?
Even if some sort of Iraqi government emerges in July, it may mean little in terms of the military commitment of the United States. President Bush may be able to claim that the United States is no longer an occupying army but there at the invitation of the legitimate government of Iraq. The fact is, however, that whatever government emerges in July will be directly or indirectly appointed by the United States, which illegally invaded and occupied the country. It is less important whether the occupier sees its presence as an occupation than it does the people of the country itself. The Americans may have declared that their presence in Vietnam was at the request of the government of South Vietnam and the Soviets may have declared that their presence in Afghanistan was at the request of the government of Afghanistan, but as long as the people of a given country see them as a foreign occupying army, it matters little whether the government they install “invites” them to stay.
While it would be a mistake to believe that U.S. forces will successfully crush the Iraqi resistance in short order, it would also be a mistake to assume that the resistance will grow significantly or drive the American occupation forces out. The United States has several advantages: U.S. forces have access to sophisticated surveillance technology, which far surpasses earlier counter-insurgency campaigns, that can track down and root out resistance cells. The resistance does not have mountains and jungles in which to hide, nor an outside source of arms and support. The paranoid “snitch culture” from years of totalitarian rule makes it difficult for insurgents to create trustworthy underground networks. The use of terrorism by some resistance forces--which has primarily harmed Iraqi civilians--has alienated huge segments of the population from the resistance as a whole.
On the other hand, U.S. occupation forces have killed far more Iraqi civilians--albeit accidentally in most cases--than have the terrorists, and the occupation itself is extremely unpopular.
The violence in central part of the country, however, may not be the biggest obstacle to U.S. designs to create a stable, pro-American Iraq.
Shiite happens
The eventual undoing of the occupation may be less a result of the guerrilla movement against U.S. occupation forces, murders of alleged collaborators and foreign nationals, or terrorist attacks against civilians, than mass noncooperation, particularly from Iraq's Shiite majority, who dominate the southern part of the country and were brutally suppressed by Saddam Hussein's Sunni-dominated regime.
While Sunni (orthodox) Islam, whose adherents are the vast majority of the world's Muslims, is egalitarian in structure, Shia Islam, whose adherents are the majority in Iraq, has a hierarchical structure. The ayatollahs--comparable in many respects to Roman Catholic cardinals--wield an enormous amount of influence, particularly in authoritarian societies where other forms of organization were either controlled by the government or brutally suppressed.
In Iran during the late 1970s, as the brutal U.S.-backed regime of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi was collapsing, local Shiite leaders were able to organize committees to create a kind of parallel government that was able to fill the void when the Shah fled into exile in January 1979, eclipsing the secular and independent Islamic elements.
As the Sunni-dominated parts of central Iraq struggle to restore civil order and basic services a full year after the devastating American invasion, the Shiite-dominated towns and cities of southern Iraq--as well as the Shiite neighborhoods of Baghdad and other cities in the center of the country--are functioning relatively well, in some cases with the blessings of U.S. occupation forces and in other cases independently. As a result, it is not surprising that the political capital of Shiite leaders is growing, as are demands for direct elections.
U.S. occupation forces have successfully postponed direct national elections on the grounds of ongoing logistical problems resulting from the disorder in many parts of the country. However, the United States has also been unwilling to proceed with local and regional elections in Shiite areas, where few of these logistical problems appear to be a factor. Needless to say, this is creating enormous resentment at U.S. occupation forces from those whom the Bush administration assumed--due to years of oppression by Saddam Hussein--would be among their strongest supporters.
Following centuries of rule by others--the Ottomans, the British, the Hashemites, and the Baathists--the Shiite majority believe it is now their time to rule. As a result, there is resentment at U.S.-led efforts to restrict their power and influence by setting up a system that allows minorities a disproportionate degree of influence. While the establishment of an Iraqi Constitution that creates some sort of federal system guaranteeing the rights of ethnic minorities may indeed be appropriate, it nevertheless has led to some resentment by the Shiites who never had such protections or self-governance when they were out of power. (To use an analogous situation in U.S. politics, it would be similar to the situation in some American cities where, just as African-Americans are on the verge of becoming the electoral majority, the city council decides to switch from at-large representation to district representation and devolves power away from city hall.)
Already, Ayatollah Sistani and other Shiite leaders have been talking of massive nonviolent civil disobedience and the creation of their own alternative governing structures, which the vast majority of Iraqi Shiites would likely support. While U.S. occupation forces may ultimately be successful in crushing the armed Sunni insurgency in central Iraq, they may find--like the Shah's well-equipped army--they are unable to stop hundreds of thousands of unarmed people in the streets who refuse to recognize their authority.
This does not mean that Shiite-led governance in Iraq--locally, regionally, or nationally--will evolve into the kind of totalitarian theocracy that came in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. Shiite politics in Iraq, as elsewhere, contain progressive and moderate elements along with reactionary currents. The longer legitimate demands for democratic self-governance are relegated to the back burner by U.S. occupation forces--as the U.S.-backed Shah repeatedly postponed political liberalization--the more likely the extremist elements will gain ascendancy.
Conclusion
Despite these problems, there are surprisingly few prominent American political figures advocating an American withdrawal or even turning over Iraqi administration to the United Nations. Even former presidential contender Howard Dean, whose anti-war positions led him to be criticized by Senator Kerry and other pro-invasion Democrats, argued that now that U.S. forces have invaded Iraq, they should stay.
At the same time, while the situation could fall short of the unmitigated disaster many war opponents have predicted, the problems are serious and will not go away for some time to come.
It is no less important than it was prior to the invasion for the Bush administration's lies to be exposed, the illegality and immorality of its actions be challenged, and realistic alternatives to the policy be brought forward.
Paying the Price: The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War By, Stephen Zune
I. Costs to the United States
A. Human Costs
U.S. Military Deaths: Between the start of war on March 19, 2003 and June 16, 2004, 952 coalition forces were killed, including 836 U.S. military. Of the total, 693 were killed after President Bush declared the end of combat operations on May 1, 2003. Over 5,134 U.S. troops have been wounded since the war began, including 4,593 since May 1, 2003.
Contractor Deaths: Estimates range from 50 to 90 civilian contractors, missionaries, and civilian worker deaths. Of these, 36 were identified as Americans.
Journalist Deaths: Thirty international media workers have been killed in Iraq, including 21 since President Bush declared the end of combat operations. Eight of the dead worked for U.S. companies.
B. Security Costs
Terrorist Recruitment and Action: According to the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, al Qaeda's membership is now at 18,000, with 1,000 active in Iraq. A former CIA analyst and State Department official has documented 390 deaths and 1,892 injuries due to terrorist attacks in 2003. In addition, there were 98 suicide attacks around the world in 2003, more than any year in contemporary history.
Low U.S. Credibility: Polls reveal that the war has damaged the U.S. government's standing and credibility in the world. Surveys in eight European and Arab countries demonstrated broad public agreement that the war has hurt, rather than helped, the war on terrorism. At home, 54 percent of Americans polled by the Annenberg Election Survey felt that "the situation in Iraq was not worth going to war over."
Military Mistakes: A number of former military officials have criticized the war, including retired Marine General Anthony Zinni, former commander of the U.S. Central Command, who has charged that by manufacturing a false rationale for war, abandoning traditional allies, propping up and trusting Iraqi exiles, and failing to plan for post-war Iraq, the Bush Administration made the United States less secure.
Low Troop Morale and Lack of Equipment: A March 2004 army survey found 52 percent of soldiers reporting low morale, and three-fourths reporting they were poorly led by their officers. Lack of equipment has been an ongoing problem. The Army did not fully equip soldiers with bullet-proof vests until June 2004, forcing many families to purchase them out of their own pockets.
Loss of First Responders: National Guard troops make up almost one-third of the U.S. Army troops now in Iraq. Their deployment puts a particularly heavy burden on their home communities because many are "first responders," including police, firefighters, and emergency medical personnel. For example, 44 percent of the country's police forces have lost officers to Iraq. In some states, the absence of so many Guard troops has raised concerns about the ability to handle natural disasters.
Use of Private Contractors: An estimated 20,000 private contractors are carrying out work in Iraq traditionally done by the military, despite the fact that they often lack sufficient training and are not accountable to the same guidelines and reviews as military personnel.
C. Economic Costs
The Bill So Far: Congress has already approved of $126.1 billion for Iraq and an additional $25 billion is heading towards Congressional approval, for a total of $151.1 billion through this year. Congressional leaders have promised an additional supplemental appropriation after the election.
Long-term Impact on U.S. Economy: Economist Doug Henwood has estimated that the war bill will add up to an average of at least $3,415 for every U.S. household. Another economist, James Galbraith of the University of Texas, predicts that while war spending may boost the economy initially, over the long term it is likely to bring a decade of economic troubles, including an expanded trade deficit and high inflation.
Oil Prices: Gas prices topped $2 a gallon in May 2004, a development that most analysts attribute at least in part to the deteriorating situation in Iraq. According to a mid-May CBS survey, 85 percent of Americans said they had been affected measurably by higher gas prices. According to one estimate, if crude oil prices stay around $40 a barrel for a year, U.S. gross domestic product will decline by more than $50 billion.
Economic Impact on Military Families: Since the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 364,000 reserve troops and National Guard soldiers have been called for military service, serving tours of duty that often last 20 months. Studies show that between 30 and 40 percent of reservists and National Guard members earn a lower salary when they leave civilian employment for military deployment. Army Emergency Relief has reported that requests from military families for food stamps and subsidized meals increased "several hundred percent" between 2002 and 2003.
D. Social Costs
U.S. Budget and Social Programs: The Bush administration's combination of massive spending on the war and tax cuts for the wealthy means less money for social spending. The $151.1 billion expenditure for the war through this year could have paid for: close to 23 million housing vouchers; health care for over 27 million uninsured Americans; salaries for nearly 3 million elementary school teachers; 678,200 new fire engines; over 20 million Head Start slots for children; or health care coverage for 82 million children. Instead, the administration's FY 2005 budget request proposes deep cuts in critical domestic programs and virtually freezes funding for domestic discretionary programs other than homeland security. Federal spending cuts will deepen the budget crises for local and state governments, which are expected to suffer a $6 billion shortfall in 2005.
Social Costs to the Military: Thus far, the Army has extended the tours of duty of 20,000 soldiers. These extensions have been particularly difficult for reservists, many of whom never expected to face such long separations from their jobs and families. According to military policy, reservists are not supposed to be on assignment for more than 12 months every 5-6 years. To date, the average tour of duty for all soldiers in Iraq has been 320 days. A recent Army survey revealed that more than half of soldiers said they would not re-enlist.
Costs to Veteran Health Care: About 64 percent of the more than 5,000 U.S. soldiers injured in Iraq received wounds that prevented them from returning to duty. One trend has been an increase in amputees, the result of improved body armor that protects vital organs but not extremities. As in previous wars, many soldiers are likely to have received ailments that will not be detected for years to come. The Veterans Administration healthcare system is not prepared for the swelling number of claims. In May, the House of Representatives approved funding for FY 2005 that is $2.6 billion less than needed, according to veterans' groups.
Mental Health Costs: A December 2003 Army report was sharply critical of the military's handling of mental health issues. It found that more than 15 percent of soldiers in Iraq screened positive for traumatic stress, 7.3 percent for anxiety, and 6.9 percent for depression. The suicide rate among soldiers increased from an eight-year average of 11.9 per 100,000 to 15.6 per 100,000 in 2003. Almost half of soldiers surveyed reported not knowing how to obtain mental health services.
II. Costs to Iraq
A. Human Costs
Iraqi Deaths and Injuries: As of June 16, 2004, between 9,436 and 11,317 Iraqi civilians have been killed as a result of the U.S. invasion and ensuing occupation, while an estimated 40,000 Iraqis have been injured. During "major combat" operations, between 4,895 and 6,370 Iraqi soldiers and insurgents were killed.
Effects of Depleted Uranium: The health impacts of the use of depleted uranium weaponry in Iraq are yet to be known. The Pentagon estimates that U.S. and British forces used 1,100 to 2,200 tons of weaponry made from the toxic and radioactive metal during the March 2003 bombing campaign. Many scientists blame the far smaller amount of DU weapons used in the Persian Gulf War for illnesses among U.S. soldiers, as well as a sevenfold increase in child birth defects in Basra in Southern Iraq.
B. Security Costs
Rise in Crime: Murder, rape, and kidnapping have skyrocketed since March 2003, forcing Iraqi children to stay home from school and women to stay off the streets at night. Violent deaths rose from an average of 14 per month in 2002 to 357 per month in 2003.
Psychological Impact: Living under occupation without the most basic security has devastated the Iraqi population. A poll by the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority in May 2004 found that 80 percent of Iraqis say they have "no confidence" in either the U.S. civilian authorities or in the coalition forces, and 55 percent would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign troops left the country immediately.
C. The Economic Costs
Unemployment: Iraqi joblessness doubled from 30 percent before the war to 60 percent in the summer of 2003. While the Bush administration now claims that unemployment has dropped, only 1 percent of Iraq's workforce of 7 million is involved in reconstruction projects.
Corporate War Profiteering: Most of Iraq's reconstruction has been contracted out to U.S. companies, rather than experienced Iraqi firms. Top contractor Halliburton is being investigated for charging $160 million for meals that were never served to troops and $61 million in cost overruns on fuel deliveries. Halliburton employees also took $6 million in kickbacks from subcontractors, while other employees have reported extensive waste, including the abandonment of $85,000 trucks because they had flat tires.
Iraq's Oil Economy: Anti-occupation violence has prevented Iraq from capitalizing on its oil assets. There have been an estimated 130 attacks on Iraq's oil infrastructure. In 2003, Iraq's oil production dropped to 1.33 million barrels per day, down from 2.04 million in 2002.
Health Infrastructure: After more than a decade of crippling sanctions, Iraq's health facilities were further damaged during the war and post-invasion looting. Iraq's hospitals continue to suffer from lack of supplies and an overwhelming number of patients.
Education: UNICEF estimates that more than 200 schools were destroyed in the conflict and thousands more were looted in the chaos following the fall of Saddam Hussein. Largely because of security concerns, school attendance in April 2004 was well below pre-war levels.
Environment: The U.S-led attack damaged water and sewage systems and the country's fragile desert ecosystem. It also resulted in oil well fires that spewed smoke across the country and left unexposed ordnance that continues to endanger the Iraqi people and environment. Mines and unexploded ordnance cause an estimated 20 casualties per month.
Human Rights Costs: Even with Saddam Hussein overthrown, Iraqis continue to face human rights violations from occupying forces. In addition to the widely publicized humiliation and abuse of prisoners, the U.S. military is investigating the deaths of 34 detainees as a result of interrogation techniques.
Sovereignty Costs: Despite the proclaimed "transfer of sovereignty" to Iraq, the country will continue to be occupied by U.S. and coalition troops and have severely limited political and economic independence. The interim government will not have the authority to reverse the nearly 100 orders by CPA head Paul Bremer that, among other things, allow for the privatization of Iraq's state-owned enterprises and prohibit preferences for domestic firms in reconstruction.
III. Costs to the World
Human Costs: While Americans make up the vast majority of military and contractor personnel in Iraq, other U.S.-allied "coalition" troops have suffered 116 war casualties in Iraq. In addition, the focus on Iraq has diverted international resources and attention away from humanitarian crises such as in Sudan.
International Law: The unilateral U.S. decision to go to war in Iraq violated the United Nations Charter, setting a dangerous precedent for other countries to seize any opportunity to respond militarily to claimed threats, whether real or contrived, that must be "pre-empted." The U.S. military has also violated the Geneva Convention, making it more likely that in the future, other nations will ignore these protections in their treatment of civilian populations and detainees.
The United Nations: At every turn, the Bush administration has attacked the legitimacy and credibility of the UN, undermining the institution's capacity to act in the future as the centerpiece of global disarmament and conflict resolution. The recent efforts of the Bush administration to gain UN acceptance of an Iraqi government that was not elected but rather installed by occupying forces undermines the entire notion of national sovereignty as the basis for the UN Charter.
Coalitions: Faced with opposition in the UN Security Council, the U.S. government attempted to create the illusion of multilateral support for the war by pressuring other governments to join a so-called "Coalition of the Willing." This not only circumvented UN authority, but also undermined democracy in many coalition countries, where public opposition to the war was as high as 90 percent.
Global Economy: The $151.1 billion spent by the U.S. government on the war could have cut world hunger in half and covered HIV/AIDS medicine, childhood immunization and clean water and sanitation needs of the developing world for more than two years. As a factor in the oil price hike, the war has created concerns of a return to the "stagflation" of the 1970s. Already, the world's major airlines are expecting an increase in costs of $1 billion or more per month.
Global Security: The U.S.-led war and occupation have galvanized international terrorist organizations, placing people not only in Iraq but around the world at greater risk of attack. The State Department's annual report on international terrorism reported that in 2003 there was the highest level of terror-related incidents deemed "significant" than at any time since the U.S. began issuing these figures.
Global Environment: U.S.-fired depleted uranium weapons have contributed to pollution of Iraq's land and water, with inevitable spillover effects in other countries. The heavily polluted Tigris River, for example, flows through Iraq, Iran and Kuwait.
Human Rights: The Justice Department memo assuring the White House that torture was legal stands in stark violation of the International Convention Against Torture (of which the United States is a signatory). This, combined with the widely publicized mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners by U.S. intelligence officials, gave new license for torture and mistreatment by governments around the world.
Misleading Rhetoric in 2004 State of the Union Address By, Stephen Zune
As we gather tonight, hundreds of thousands of American servicemen and women are deployed across the world in the war on terror. By bringing hope to the oppressed and delivering justice to the violent, they are making America more secure.
Though no one should question the commitment and bravery of American servicemen and women, their missions of invading and occupying foreign countries and engaging in high altitude bombing and urban counterinsurgency operations that kill civilians has brought more fear than hope, delivered more violence than justice, and has created an unprecedented level of anti-American sentiment in the Islamic world and beyond that has actually made America less secure.
We have faced serious challenges together and now we face a choice: We can go forward with confidence and resolve or we can turn back to the dangerous illusion that terrorists are not plotting and outlaw regimes are no threat to us.
This assumes that those who believe that the Bush administration's policies are illegal, immoral, and counterproductive are living under illusions that deny the dangers from terrorists and despots. This rhetorical device ignores the many national security analysts and ordinary Americans who are fully aware of the forces arrayed against the United States yet believe the country must choose better means to protect itself than continuing the policies of the Bush administration.
The first to see our determination were the Taliban, who made Afghanistan the primary training base of al Qaeda killers. Businesses are opening, health care centers are being established, and the boys and girls of Afghanistan are back in school. With help from the new Afghan Army, our coalition is leading aggressive raids against surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda.
While life has improved markedly in the capital of Kabul , the vast majority of Afghanistan is under the grip of warlords, ethnic militias, opium magnates, and overall lawlessness. While women and girls are now legally able to attend school and go out of their houses unaccompanied, many are now too afraid to do so because of the breakdown of law and order.
Furthermore, the aggressive raids led by the United States are unfortunately not just against surviving members of the Taliban and al Qaeda, but often end up being against innocent villagers. Indeed, more Afghan civilians have been killed from U.S. bombing raids than American civilians were killed from the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Since we last met in this chamber, combat forces of the United States and other countries enforced the demands of the United Nations, ended the rule of Saddam Hussein, and the people of Iraq are free.
The United Nations did not demand an invasion of Iraq or an end to Saddam's regime. It demanded that the Iraqi government destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and open up to intrusive inspections to confirm that it had done so. Iraq eventually came into compliance with these demands, allowing UN inspectors to return to conduct unimpeded inspections anywhere in the country in 2002 and apparently eliminating its WMDs and delivery systems some years earlier. An invasion was not necessary for Iraq to comply with the demands of the United Nations since it had already done so.
While the people of Iraq are free from Saddam Hussein's rule, they are not free. They are living under a foreign military occupation and the United States occupation authorities has thus far rejected popular demands by the Iraqis for direct elections to choose their own government.
Having broken the Baathist regime, we face a remnant of violent Saddam supporters. These killers, joined by foreign terrorists, are a serious, continuing danger. We are dealing with these thugs in Iraq, just as surely as we dealt with Saddam Hussein's evil regime.
While Baathists are apparently taking the dominant role leading the armed resistance to the U.S. occupation, increasing numbers of Iraqis fighting U.S. forces are not supporters of the former regime, but are non-Baathist nationalists who resent their country being controlled by a foreign army. If U.S. forces were simply battling remnants of the old regime and some foreign supporters, it would largely be a mopping up operation where attacks would be decreasing over time. Instead, the resistance has been growing. While those planting bombs in crowded civilian areas are undeniably thugs and terrorists, the vast majority of attacks are against uniformed foreign occupation forces which, while most unfortunate, are generally recognized as legitimate acts of resistance under international law.
Today our coalition is working with the Iraqi Governing Council to draft a basic law, with a bill of rights. We are working with Iraqis and the United Nations to prepare for a transition to full Iraqi sovereignty by the end of June.
Unfortunately, the Bush administration and its handpicked Iraqi Governing Council are trying to set up a government through regional caucuses that they can control, rejecting popular demands for direct elections. Under this system and with U.S. occupation forces remaining in the country, it would be a stretch to consider the establishment of such a government full Iraqi sovereignty. The United Nations has thus far been understandably reluctant to support the establishment of what many would see as a puppet regime.
As democracy takes hold in Iraq , the enemies of freedom will do all in their power to spread violence and fear. They are trying to shake the will of our country and our friends, but the United States of America will never be intimidated by thugs and assassins. The killers will fail, and the Iraqi people will live in freedom.
By defining the U.S. occupation as democracy and those who are fighting the occupation as enemies of freedom who are trying to shake the will of our country, President Bush is trying to make Americans and others who are calling for a U.S. withdrawal appear to be unprincipled cowards.
Last month, the leader of Libya voluntarily pledged to disclose and dismantle all of his regime's weapons of mass destruction programs, including a uranium enrichment project for nuclear weapons. Nine months of intense negotiations involving the United States and Great Britain succeeded with Libya, while 12 years of diplomacy with Iraq did not. And one reason is clear: For diplomacy to be effective, words must be credible and no one can now doubt the word of America .
This is misleading on several counts. First of all, Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction programs had been well-developed, whereas Libya 's WMD efforts were in their infancy. Secondly, there was no direct diplomacy between the United States and Iraq in the twelve years prior to the invasion: there were sanctions, threats, and air strikes. Most importantly, the implication that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was what led Libya to give up its program flies in the face of logic: Not only did Iraq give up its WMD programs through United Nations efforts prior to the U.S. invasion, but despite dismantling its weapons and opening up to inspections the United States invaded anyway.
Let us be candid about the consequences of leaving Saddam in power. Already the Kay Report identified dozens of weapons of mass destruction-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations. Had we failed to act, the dictator's weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day.
Last year, President Bush falsely claimed Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. At most, all he can claim now is that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction-related program activities. These were virtually all legal and inconsequential remnants of old programs, not new WMD programs starting up again that posed a potential threat. With strict sanctions remaining in place against the importation of military equipment, dual use technologies, and raw materials to Iraq that could be used for WMD development (which, unlike the economic sanctions, were strongly supported worldwide) it is hard to imagine how Saddam Hussein could have ever restarted his WMD programs.
Had we failed to act, Security Council resolutions on Iraq would have been revealed as empty threats, weakening the United Nations and encouraging defiance by dictators around the world.
Not only does it appear that Iraq was apparently in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions at the time of the U.S. invasion, there are more than ninety UN Security Council resolutions currently being violated by countries other than Iraq , the vast majority by governments supported by the Bush administration. U.S. policy has done far more than Saddam Hussein in weakening the authority of the United Nations.
The world without Saddam Hussein's regime is a better and safer place.
Putting aside the fact that previous Republican administrations helped keep the regime in power during the 1980s (its most dangerous and repressive period), many of Iraq's neighbors and independent strategic analysts believe that a weak and disarmed Iraqi regime even under Saddam's oppressive rule represented a better and safer environment than the current situation, where Iraq is torn by guerrilla warfare, terrorist attacks, separatist movements, and a rising tide of Islamic extremism.
Some critics have said our duties in Iraq must be internationalized. This particular criticism is hard to explain to our partners in Britain, Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Thailand, Italy, Spain, Poland, Denmark, Hungary, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Romania, the Netherlands, Norway, El Salvador, and the 17 other countries that have committed troops to Iraq.
Despite some notable exceptions, most of the 34 countries contributing to the U.S. occupation have sent only very small and highly specialized units (such as medical teams or construction workers) and have done so only under diplomatic pressure and financial incentives. Americans make up over 85% of the occupation forces and have control over virtually all of the political, military, and reconstruction operations by these other countries. By contrast, most of those who are calling for internationalizing the operations in Iraq are advocating placing Iraq under a United Nations trusteeship similar to that which guided East Timor to independence following the 1999 Indonesian withdrawal.
From the beginning, America has sought international support for operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, and we have gained much support. There is a difference, however, between leading a coalition of many nations, and submitting to the objections of a few. America will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people.
In reality, it was not a few nations, but an overwhelming majority of the world's nations that opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, public opinion polls show that even in countries whose governments did support the U.S. invasion, the majority of these countries' populations opposed it. It is highly unlikely that there would be any opposition in the United Nations Security Council or anywhere else for the U.S. government to defend the security of our people. The invasion of Iraq, however, was not about defending the security of the American people but an illegal act of aggression, according to the United Nations Charter, which has been signed and ratified by the United States and virtually every country in the world.
As long as the Middle East remains a place of tyranny, despair, and anger, it will continue to produce men and movements that threaten the safety of America and our friends. So America is pursuing a forward strategy of freedom in the greater Middle East. We will challenge the enemies of reform, confront the allies of terror, and expect a higher standard from our friends.
The unfortunate reality is that the United States is not pursuing a strategy of freedom, but continues to be the primary military, financial, and diplomatic supporter of the majority of tyrannical regimes in the Middle East. The United States supplies the equipment and training for internal security forces for dictatorial governments in countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Uzbekistan that crush popular movements for reform as well as providing the military equipment for occupation armies that suppress movements for national self-determination from Western Sahara to the West Bank.
Our aim is a democratic peace, a peace founded upon the dignity and rights of every man and woman. America acts in this cause with friends and allies at our side, yet we understand our special calling: This great republic will lead the cause of freedom.
No country has given more military and economic support to more dictatorships and occupation armies in the Middle East and in the world as a whole than has the United States . The monetary value of U.S. military aid to Middle Eastern countries is six times our economic aid. The top commercial export from the United States to the Middle East is not consumer items, high technology, or foodstuffs but armaments. Virtually all the recipients of such weaponry are governments that engage in gross and systematic human rights abuses. Unfortunately, U.S. policy has little to do with peace or freedom.
Perhaps even more disheartening than these misleading statements by President Bush during his State of the Union address is that, in their formal responses to Bush's speech, Democratic congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Tom Daschle failed to challenge them other than a vague appeal for stronger diplomatic efforts. None of the analysts on the major networks challenged these misleading statements either. Meanwhile, the two Democratic presidential contenders who dominated the Iowa caucuses the previous evening were senators who have largely supported Bush administration policy in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, and elsewhere in the Middle East.
President Bush can get away with such misleading rhetoric because he knows the mainstream media and the Democratic Party will allow him to do so. Unless the American public demands greater accountability from the news media and the Democratic Party leadership, George W. Bush will have four more opportunities to make similar State of the Union speeches.
House Republicans and Democrats Unite
in Linking Iraq with 9/11 By Stephen Zunes
On the eve of the third anniversary of 9/11, the U.S. House of Representatives--by an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of 406-16--passed a resolution linking Iraq to the al-Qaida attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. This comes despite conclusions reached by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission, a recent CIA report, and the consensus of independent strategic analysis familiar with the region that no such links ever existed.
The resolution contains appropriate and predictable language paying tribute to the rescue workers and victims' families. It also notes actions taken by the U.S. government in response to the attacks, such as the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, improvements in intelligence procedures, enhanced coordination between government agencies, and hardening cockpit doors on commercial aircraft. Actions by American allies were noted as well, such as their arrest of key al-Qaida operatives in Europe and elsewhere.
However, the resolution also contains language designed, despite the lack of any credible evidence, to associate the former Iraqi government of Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks.
Al-Qaida = Taliban = Iraq
For example, the resolution states that "since the United States was attacked, it has led an international military coalition in the destruction of two terrorist regimes in Afghanistan and Iraq."
First of all, there appears to be a calculated ambiguity in the language of that clause through the use of the word "since," which can mean both "from the time when" as well as "because."
Secondly, these two military operations were very different:
While there was no evidence that the Taliban regime of Afghanistan was directly involved in international terrorism, they undeniably provided the most important base of operations for the al-Qaida terrorist network, which shared their extremist Wahhabi-influenced brand of Islamist ideology. In return, al-Qaida provided direct support for the Taliban by contributing fighters to the Afghan government in the face of military challenges by rebels of the Northern Alliance. Despite concerns over the large numbers of civilians killed as a result of the U.S. bombing and missile attacks and other aspects of U.S. military operations, much of the international community supported the legitimacy of the war effort.
By contrast, despite extraordinary efforts by the U.S. government to find some kind of association between the Islamist al-Qaida and the secular Baathists then in power in Iraq, no such links have been found. Relatively few countries have supported the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq outside of poor debtor nations which received enormous pressure from the United States to do so.
Allegations of Iraqi support of other anti-American terrorist groups appear to be groundless as well. Despite backing Abu Nidal and other secular terrorist groups in the 1980s, Iraqi support for international terrorism declined markedly in subsequent years; the last act of anti-American terrorism the U.S. government formally tied to Iraq was back in early1993. The State Department's annual study Patterns of Global Terrorism did not list any acts of international terrorism linked directly to the government of Iraq in subsequent years. The most evidence of indirect Iraqi involvement in terrorism the Bush administration has been able to come up with was Iraqi financial support of the tiny pro-Saddam Palestinian group known as the Arab Liberation Front, which passed on funds to families of Palestinians who died in the struggle against Israel, including some families of suicide bombers. Such Iraqi support was significantly less than the support many of these same families have received from Saudi Arabia and other U.S.-backed Arab monarchies. In fact, Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups have received extensive direct support from these countries as well, but apparently not from Iraq.
The resolution goes on to note that "United States Armed Forces and Coalition forces have killed or captured 43 of the 55 most wanted criminals of the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, including Saddam Hussein himself." While this statement is in itself true, there is no evidence to suggest that any of these members of the former Iraqi regime had anything to do with 9/11. As a result, it appears that the House decided to include this clause as an attempt to associate Saddam Hussein's regime, in the eyes of the American people, with the attacks.
The Saddam--al-Zarqawi--bin Laden Connection
The single most misleading clause in the House resolution claims that "the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies." This charge was originally raised by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his February 2003 speech before the United Nations and has long since been discredited. Indeed, a recent CIA report concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam's regime had in any way harbored, provided aid, or in any other way support al-Zarqawi.
While the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers were indeed located inside Iraq's borders prior to the U.S. invasion, they were not based in Baghdad, but in the far north of the country inside the Kurdish safe havens the United Nations had established in 1991, well beyond the control of Saddam's government.
Indeed, the only evidence the Bush administration has been able to put forward linking the al-Zarqawi terror network to the Iraqi capital was a brief stay that al-Zarqawi had in a Baghdad hospital at the end of 2001, apparently having been smuggled by supporters into the country from Iran and smuggled out days later. The recent CIA report has called even this claim into question, however.
Charges by Powell and other administration officials that al-Zarqawi was affiliated with al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden also appears to have little merit. Indeed, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that the two see each other as rivals.
This apparently fictional al-Zarqawi connection alleged by Congress is significant in that it was a key component of one of the justifications put forward by the Bush administration for invading Iraq in the weeks leading up to the start of the war in March 2003. For if al-Zarqawi was closely aligned with al-Qaida, and if Saddam Hussein was allowing the al-Zarqawi terror network to use Baghdad as a base of operations, and if Saddam was manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, therefore Saddam could pass these weapons on to al-Zarqawi, who would then pass them on to al-Qaida, which in turn could then use them on the United States. Therefore, according to this argument, the United States had to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam's government in order to protect our nation from a chemical, biological, or nuclear attack.
It appears, then, that the House of Representatives decided to include the long-since disproven claim that "the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies" in order to justify the bipartisan vote in October 2002 authorizing the invasion.
(Ironically, since the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq, the al-Zarqawi terror network has established extensive cells in Baghdad and elsewhere in the country, which they were unable to do during Saddam's regime. They are believed to be responsible for many of the most devastating car bombings and other acts of terrorism which have killed hundreds of civilians and wreaked havoc on Iraq since the U.S. takeover of that country during the spring of 2003.)
Bipartisan Efforts to Hide the Truth
This is not the first time that Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives have teamed up to present the invasion of Iraq as a justifiable response to 9/11.
Just days after President Bush forced United Nations weapons inspectors out of Iraq and commenced the U.S. invasion, the House voted 392-11 to express their "unequivocal support and appreciation" to President Bush for leading the nation to war against Iraq "as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism."
Some Democrats have defended that March 2003 vote on the grounds that House members were simply fooled by President Bush and others who insisted Iraq had a close connection with al-Qaida.
However, the fact that Congress would pass another resolution by a similarly one-sided margin long after U.S. military and intelligence officials had gone through many thousands of captured Iraqi documents and had interviewed hundreds of former Iraqi officials and still failed to find any credible evidence of any such ties appears to indicate that there indeed remains a calculated bipartisan attempt to mislead the American people.
Such dishonest rhetoric from the Bush administration has become all too common in the three years since the 9/11 attacks. Why, then, would the Democrats also want to perpetuate such myths that are essentially designed to grant legitimacy to President Bush's illegal and disastrous invasion of Iraq?
Perhaps, in some cases, they were too busy or too lazy to bother reading the resolution, and just assumed it was a tribute to the 9/11 victims. Perhaps some of them were afraid that the Republicans would accuse them in the fall campaign of "voting against a resolution honoring the brave firefighters" if they did otherwise, and this was just another case of the Democrats wimping out.
However, the real answer may lie in the fact that while a majority of Americans now believe that the United States should have never invaded Iraq, the Democratic leadership of both the Senate and the House of Representatives firmly supported the U.S. invasion of that oil-rich country. More importantly this presidential election year, Democratic nominee John Kerry and his running mate John Edwards both voted in October 2002 to authorize President Bush to launch the war at any time and under any circumstances of his own choosing, a decision that they both defend to this day. As a result, if the American public can be convinced that Iraq somehow had something to do with the 9/11 tragedy, more voters might be willing to see these two Democratic senators not as irresponsible militarists who helped drag the United States into an illegal, unnecessary, and bloody counter-insurgency war, but as bold leaders who acted decisively to defend America from future terrorist attacks.
In short, it appears that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats have any qualms about taking advantage of the anniversary of one of the greatest disasters ever inflicted upon our soil in order to justify the ongoing violence inflicted upon the people of Iraq and upon American soldiers forced to fight there. That these two parties are the only realistic choices we have on a national level this election year is not just a tragedy for the people of Iraq, but a sad testament to the state of American democracy.
Fact and Fiction in Foreign Policy: Misleading Foreign Policy StatementsMade by the Candidates in the Vice Presidential Debate by Stephen Zune
The list below contains what I consider to be the sixteen most misleading statements made by Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards during the foreign policy segment of their debate of October 5, followed by my critiques. This is a resolutely non-partisan analysis: eleven of the misleading statements cited are from Cheney and five are from Edwards. The quotes are listed in the order in which they appear in the transcript.
Iraq
1. Cheney: “Concern about Iraq specifically focused on the fact that Saddam Hussein had been, for years, listed on the state sponsor of terror, that he had established relationships with Abu Nidal, who operated out of Baghdad;…and he had an established relationship with al Qaida.”
At the height of Iraq’s support for Abu Nidal, during the mid-1980s, the Reagan administration dropped Iraq from its list of states sponsoring terrorism in order to transfer arms and technology to Saddam Hussein’s regime that would have otherwise been illegal. Iraq was put back on the list immediately following its invasion of Kuwait in August 1990, despite evidence that Iraq’s support for international terrorism had actually declined. Abu Nidal’s group had been largely moribund for more than a decade when Saddam Hussein had him killed in his Baghdad apartment in 2002.
Despite seemingly desperate efforts by the Bush administration to find a working relationship between the secular Baathist government of Saddam Hussein and the Islamist al-Qaida network of Osama bin Laden, no credible links have been established. Indeed, recent reports from the 9/11 commission, the Central Intelligence Agency and other credible sources have gone on record denying that any evidence of such a relationship exists.
2. Edwards: “Saddam Hussein needed to be confronted. John Kerry and I have consistently said that. That’s why we voted for the resolution.”
Saddam Hussein’s regime was already being confronted through the United Nations Security Council, which had imposed strict sanctions upon the country and had overseen the disarmament of that country’s chemical weapons; its nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons programs; and its offensive delivery systems. There was no need and no legal right for Kerry and Edwards to authorize President Bush to unilaterally take military action, since the dispute regarding the destruction of proscribed weapons and weapons systems and access for UN inspectors was not between Iraq and the United States but between Iraq and the United Nations. Earlier the same day that Kerry and Edwards voted to give President Bush such unprecedented authority to unilaterally invade a foreign country, they both voted against a similar resolution granting President Bush the power to use military force if it was authorized by the UN Security Council. This underscores the willingness of the Democratic presidential and vice presidential nominees to defy the United Nations Charter and to project American military power unilaterally regardless of international law.
“Global Tests” for Military Action
3. Cheney: “We heard Senator Kerry say the other night that there ought to be some kind of global test before U.S. troops are deployed preemptively to protect the United States.”
In reality, during the first presidential debate—as well as on many other occasions—Kerry has made clear that he would not give any foreign government the right to block the United States from moving preemptively against a perceived threat. Kerry has emphasized, however, that he would make a far more serious effort than has the current administration to demonstrate to the international community that such use of force was for a legitimate reason.
Kerry’s Record on Military Spending
4. Cheney: “In the mid-’80s, he [Kerry] ran on the basis of cutting most of our major defense programs.”
John Kerry’s 1984 race for the U.S. Senate was not based upon “cutting most of our major defense programs.” He did support a bilateral verifiable treaty with the Soviet Union to freeze the testing, development and deployment of new nuclear weapons and delivery systems, a proposal which—according to public opinion polls at that time—was backed by a sizeable majority of Americans. Kerry also opposed some costly weapons programs which independent strategic analysts argued were unnecessary for America’s defense needs while he supported many other weapons programs. In any case, these issues were never the basis of his campaign.
Afghanistan and El Salvador
5. Cheney: “We’re four days away from a democratic election, the first one in history in Afghanistan. We’ve got 10 million voters who have registered to vote, nearly half of them women. That election will put in place a democratically elected government that will take over next December. We’ve made enormous progress in Afghanistan, in exactly the right direction, in spite of what John Edwards said two and a half years ago. He just got it wrong.”
In Afghanistan, vote-buying, intimidation, and the enormously disproportionate resources allocated to pro-government candidates raise serious questions as to how democratic these upcoming elections will be. Currently, there are more Afghan males registered to vote than there are eligible Afghan male voters; duplicate voting cards are commonplace and can be sold on the open market. The regime, which lacks solid control of much of the country outside the capital of Kabul, was largely hand-picked by the United States. The ongoing violence and chaos in the country, along with extremely high rates of illiteracy, raise serious questions as to whether the Western-style election the United States is trying to set up will have any credibility among the Afghans themselves. Edwards’ concerns about the growing power of opium magnates and war lords—casually dismissed by Cheney—are actually quite valid.
6. Cheney: “Twenty years ago we had a similar situation in El Salvador. We had—guerrilla insurgency controlled roughly a third of the country, 75,000 people dead, and we held free elections. I was there as an observer on behalf of the Congress. The human drive for freedom, the determination of these people to vote, was unbelievable. And the terrorists would come in and shoot up polling places; as soon as they left, the voters would come back and get in line and would not be denied the right to vote. And today El Salvador is a whale of a lot better because we held free elections.”
First of all, the United States was not supporting freedom in El Salvador twenty years ago. According to the United Nations Truth Commission and independent human rights organizations, the vast majority of those killed in El Salvador during this period were civilians murdered by the U.S.-backed junta and its allied paramilitary organizations.
Secondly, the Salvadoran elections Cheney observed in the 1980s were not free elections. The leading leftist and left-of-center politicians had been assassinated or driven underground and their newspapers and radio stations suppressed. The election was only between representatives of conservative and right-wing parties.
Thirdly, despite threats from some of the more radical guerrilla factions, there were very few attacks on polling stations.
Fourthly, people repeatedly lined up to vote because they were required to. Failure to get the requisite stamp that validated the fact that you had voted would likely get one labeled as a “subversive” and therefore a potential target for assassination.
Lastly, El Salvador finally did have free elections in 1994, only after Congress cut off aid to the Salvadoran government and the peace plan initiated by Costa Rican president Oscar Arias—which was initially opposed by the Republican administrations then in office in Washington—was finally implemented.
Supporting the Troops?
7. Cheney: “You voted for the war, and then you voted against supporting the troops when they needed the equipment, the fuel, the spare parts and the ammunition and the body armor.”
Edwards and Kerry have voted on successive administration requests to provide equipment, fuel, spare parts, and ammunition and body armor for U.S. occupation troops in Iraq, rejecting calls by opponents of the U.S. invasion and occupation to cut off funding so the troops can come home. They did vote against a particular funding bill by the administration based primarily on the administration’s insistence that it be funded by increasing the federal deficit. Kerry and Edwards instead voted for an identical measure—which failed to win a majority –that allocated the same amount of money to the occupation but would have funded it by reducing recently-enacted tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans.
Coalitions in Question in Wars Against Iraq in 1991 And 2003
8. Edwards: “What we know is that the president and the vice president have not done the work to build the coalition that we need—dramatically different than the first Gulf War.”
The senior President Bush was indeed able to build a broader coalition than his son, but that was because the 1991 war against the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait was very different than the 2003 war to impose a U.S. occupation of Iraq. While strong arguments can be made against the 1991 Gulf War, the use of forces was legally sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, consistent with the UN Charter and the international legal consensus that supports such collective security against such clear acts of aggression as Iraq’s 1990 invasion, occupation, and annexation of Kuwait. By contrast, the 2003 war against Iraq was an unmitigated act of aggression in direct contravention of the United Nations Charter and basic international legal principles going back for nearly a century. The failure to build a broader coalition, then, was not based upon the Bush administration’s lack of diplomatic acumen; even the more erudite Kerry could not have built such a coalition simply because the international community recognized that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was illegal and unjustified.
9. Cheney: “You made the comment that the Gulf War coalition in ‘91 was far stronger than this. No. We had 34 countries then; we’ve got 30 today.”
The U.S.-led 1991Gulf War coalition included more than twice as many non-American troops, all of which were assembled prior to the launching of the war in January 1991. By contrast, troops from all but four members of the current coalition arrived after U.S. forces had marched on Baghdad, toppled the Iraqi regime and began the occupation. Their role is ostensibly that of peace keepers and the vast majority of these forces serve in non-combat roles.
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Saddam Hussein
10. Cheney: “Let’s look at what we know about Mr. Zarqawi... He set up shop in Baghdad, where he oversaw the poisons facility up at Khurmal, where the terrorists were developing ricin and other deadly substances to use.”
First of all, the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his followers were not based in Baghdad, but in the far northeastern corner of the country inside the Kurdish safe havens established by the United Nations in 1991, well beyond the control of Saddam’s government. The only evidence the Bush administration has been able to put forward linking the al-Zarqawi terror network to the Iraqi capital was a brief stay that al-Zarqawi had in a Baghdad hospital at the end of 2001, apparently having been smuggled by supporters into the country from Iran and smuggled out days later.
Secondly, not only was the Khurmal area in Kurdish areas far outside of Saddam’s reach, but journalists who visited the supposed poisons factory within hours of it being identified by Bush administration officials from satellite photos found nothing remotely resembling such a facility. U.S. Special Forces that seized control of the area weeks later came to a similar conclusion.
Finally, Zarqawi and his followers established a presence in Baghdad only after U.S. forces overthrew the Iraqi government in March 2003.
Iraq, Libya, and Iran
11. Cheney: “One of the great by-products, for example, of what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan is that five days after we captured Saddam Hussein, Muammar Qaddafi in Libya came forward and announced that he was going to surrender all of his nuclear materials to the United States, which he has done.”
First of all, in 1998, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) announced that Iraq’s nuclear program had been completely dismantled. When IAEA inspectors returned in the fall of 2002 as part of UN Security Council resolution 1441, they reported that there were no signs that the program had been revived. Despite this, the United States invaded Iraq and overthrew the Iraqi government. As a result, Qaddafi presumably recognized that unilaterally giving up his nuclear weapons program and allowing in international inspectors to verify it does not necessarily make you any less likely to be invaded by the United States.
Secondly, the agreement had been in the works for a number of years, largely as a result of a British-led diplomatic effort. That the announcement came five days after Saddam Hussein was arrested was sheer coincidence.
12. Edwards: “The reality about Iran is that Iran has moved forward with their nuclear weapons program on their watch. They ceded responsibility to dealing with it to the Europeans.”
The United States broke off diplomatic relations with Iran nearly twenty-five years ago and, during the 1990s, unilaterally imposed sanctions on that country, openly called for the government’s overthrow and funded groups dedicated to that purpose. All of these initiatives took place under Democratic administrations. By contrast, the Europeans—despite outspoken criticism of certain Iranian policies and restricting certain arms and technology transfers—have maintained normal diplomatic and trade relations. It should not be surprising, then, that the Europeans have had to take the lead in resolving the current standoff over Iran’s nuclear program.
Israel and Palestine
13. Edwards: “If Gaza’s being used as a platform for attacking the Israeli people, that has to be stopped. And Israel has a right to defend itself.”
While it is true that some militant Palestinian groups have used the Gaza Strip as a base for lobbing shells into civilian areas of Israel, the Israeli armed forces have similarly used Israel as a platform for attacking civilian areas of the Gaza Strip. Indeed, far more Palestinian civilians in the Gaza Strip have been killed by attacks launched from Israel than have Israeli civilians in Israel been killed from attacks launched from the Gaza Strip. Does this mean that Palestine therefore also “has a right to defend itself” by launching a major military incursion into nearby Israeli population centers with widespread killings of unarmed civilians and massive destruction of civilian property as Israel has been doing? Apparently not, since Edwards and Kerry clearly have different standards regarding the use of force depending upon a particular government’s relations with the United States. Given that Secretary of State Powell that very afternoon criticized the disproportionate nature of the ongoing Israeli military response, Edwards is clearly placing the Democratic ticket to the right of the Bush administration.
14. Edwards: “They don’t have a partner for peace right now. They certainly don’t have a partner in Arafat, and they need a legitimate partner for peace.”
Palestinian president Yasir Arafat has repeatedly called for a resumption of substantive peace negotiations, but the Israeli government of Ariel Sharon has refused. Arafat has called for a peace settlement along the lines proposed by President Clinton in 2000, which culminated with the signing of the Geneva Initiative in December 2003 by leading Israelis and Palestinians. The agreement calls for an Israeli withdrawal from the territories it conquered in the 1967 war (with minor and reciprocal border adjustments), a shared Jerusalem as the co-capital of Israel and Palestine, the resettlement of Palestinian refugees from what is now Israel in the new Palestinian state or other Arab countries, and strict security guarantees for Israel, including the disarming of Palestinian militias. Sharon, by contrast, has categorically rejected such an agreement.
While Arafat’s rule has been corrupt and autocratic and he has been ineffective in stopping terrorism by radical Palestinian groups, his positions on the outstanding issues in the peace process is far more moderate than those of the Israeli government. Arafat certainly has blood on his hands, but no more than does Sharon, widely recognized as a war criminal for his role in major atrocities against Lebanese, Jordanian, and Palestinian civilians in previous years. In any case, Arafat is the elected leader of the Palestinians and Sharon is the elected leader of the Israelis. By refusing to include one of the two major parties in the peace process, Edwards and Kerry are effectively foreclosing any realistic prospects for a negotiated peace.
15. Cheney: “In respect to Israel and Palestine, the suicide bombers, in part, were generated by Saddam Hussein, who paid $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers. I personally think one of the reasons that we don’t have as many suicide attacks today in Israel as we’ve had in the past is because Saddam is no longer in business.”
Saddam Hussein did provide money to a small Palestinian faction known as the Arab Liberation Front which passed it on to some families of terrorists killed in suicide bombings. Money was also given to families of other Palestinians killed in the fight against Israel, such as militiamen shot while defending Palestinian towns under Israeli siege and unarmed teenagers shot during demonstrations. The vast majority of the funding for Hamas and other radical Palestinian groups responsible for suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism in recent years has come from Saudi Arabia and other Gulf monarchies, governments supported by the United States. In any case, the families of suicide bombers normally have their homes destroyed by Israeli occupation forces in retaliation for the terrorist attacks, and $25,000 does not come close to recouping their losses.
16. Cheney: "The president stepped forward and put in place a policy basically that said we will support the establishment of two states. First president ever to say we’ll establish and support a Palestinian state next door to Israelis.”
The Bush administration has endorsed Sharon’s plan to annex up to half of the West Bank into Israel and leave the remaining Palestinian areas divided into a series of non-contiguous cantons surrounded by Israel. This would give the Palestinians barely 12% of historic Palestine. Furthermore, according to this plan, Israel would have control over all border crossings, the air space, and the water resources, with an unrestricted right to militarily intervene in Palestinian areas at any time. This would no more constitute a viable “state” than did the infamous Bantustans of apartheid South Africa.
Bush Administration Disasters Depicted as Triumphs By Stephen Zunes
Even putting aside the many important legal and moral questions about the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq, it has been a disaster even on practical terms. Mainstream to conservative strategic analysts and retired generals--along with the majority of career professionals in the State Department, Defense Department, and CIA--recognize that the invasion and occupation has made America less secure rather than more secure.
Still, the Bush administration continues to defend its actions and public opinion polls still show that a majority of Americans trust George W. Bush more than John Kerry to defend America. This is in large part because, throughout this fall’s campaign, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been making demonstrably false and misleading claims about what motivated administration decisions as well as the results of their actions.
Ironically, a number of these claims have been supported in a series of resolutions backed by a majority of congressional Democrats--including Senators John Kerry and John Edwards--thereby giving the Bush campaign immunity from much of the scrutiny it deserves. In doing so, these congressional Democrats have significantly increased the chances of a Bush victory next Tuesday. President Bush rarely fails to note in his stump speeches that congressional Democrats, including Kerry and Edwards, also saw Saddam Hussein as a threat and voted to authorize force. Indeed, not only have the Democrats missed a number of crucial opportunities to expose the disingenuous nature of Bush administration policy, they have at times repeated the lies themselves.
Below is a sampling of the claims being made by President Bush and Vice President Cheney in recent weeks leading up to the election, followed by a critique:
“I went to the United Nations in the hopes that diplomacy would work. I hoped that Saddam Hussein would listen to the demands of the free world. The United Nations debated the issue. They voted 15 to nothing to say to Saddam Hussein: disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. I believe when an international body speaks, it must mean what it says, in order to keep this world peaceful. When you say something, you better mean it. But Saddam Hussein didn't believe the United Nations. After all, he'd ignored 16 other resolutions. And so at this point in time, I realized diplomacy wasn't working.”
--George W. Bush, October 1
Saddam Hussein did disclose, in the fall of 2002, detailed documentation regarding the destruction of his WMDs, WMD programs, and offensive delivery systems as required. In addition, the U.S. government now admits that he had in fact disarmed as much as a decade earlier. So, at the time of the invasion, the Iraqi government had already disclosed and disarmed, and was thereby in compliance with the major provisions of UN Security Council resolution 1441, to which Bush refers in this quote. Diplomacy had, in fact, worked.
Unfortunately, when Bush launched the invasion anyway, every Democrat in the Senate--including Kerry and Edwards--voted in support of a Republican-sponsored resolution endorsing the invasion based upon the claim that Iraq was still in violation of these Security Council resolutions. Similarly, that same week, the House of Representatives voted on a resolution, with only ten of the 205 Democrats dissenting, declaring that “reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.” As a result, the Democrats lost an opportunity to challenge President Bush’s assertion that Iraq was still in violation of those resolutions and that force was the only alternative.
The last option for the Commander-in-Chief is to commit troops, and so I went to the United Nations. See, I believe we ought to try diplomacy before we commit troops. When the UN sent inspectors in, he systematically deceived the inspectors. We gave Saddam Hussein a final chance to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. And when he refused, I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office, a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I trust the word of a madman and forget the lessons of September the 11th, or take action to defend America? Given that choice, I will defend America every time.”
--George W. Bush, September 3
First of all, it is now well-known that President Bush had decided to go ahead with the invasion well prior to going before the United Nations.
Secondly, the UN was successful in the fall of 2002 in getting Iraq to allow inspectors to return and have unfettered and immediate access to anywhere they wanted to go. The Iraqi regime did, on numerous occasions, hide things from UN inspectors, but that was under UNSCOM in the 1990s. Under UNMOVIC, beginning in late 2002 until the United States forced them out in anticipation of the invasion, there were no reports of systematic deception of UN inspectors by the Iraqis.
Thirdly, no one was advocating trusting Saddam Hussein. That is why the United Nations demanded that the inspectors return.
Fourthly, while Saddam Hussein was certainly a brutal tyrant, there is no evidence that he was a “madman.”
Finally, having completely disarmed its WMD capabilities, Iraq was not any threat to the United States, so there was no need to “defend America” from Saddam Hussein.
Unfortunately, despite evidence to the contrary, both Kerry and Edwards also declared Saddam Hussein “a threat” and thereby helped give Bush and Cheney the excuse they were looking for to take over that oil-rich country. Though Kerry promised, when he voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq, that he could be “the first to speak out” if President Bush did not first allow the United Nations to attempt to disarm Iraq through non-military means, when President Bush pressed forward with plans for the invasion while UN inspectors were on the verge of completing their mission and determining that no such weapons existed, Kerry remained silent. When Bush launched the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq, Kerry joined his fellow Democrats in supporting a resolution declaring that the action was “lawful” and that he “commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the President.”
“Saddam Hussein had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction. And had the world turned its head, he would have made those weapons. He could have passed that capability or those weapons on to terrorists that hate us.”
--George W. Bush, October 1
Since eliminating his WMD programs, Saddam Hussein no longer had such capability. In addition, there was no indication that the world was about to “turn its head” and allow such programs to be reconstituted. While the economic sanctions on Iraq were increasingly controversial, the international community was united in maintaining military sanctions, including a strict embargo on the technology and raw materials necessary to rebuild such a program. There is also no evidence to suggest that, even when Saddam Hussein had WMDs and WMD capability, that he had any inclination to pass them on to any terrorist groups.
Unfortunately, Kerry and Edwards were among the majority of Democratic Senators who--in authorizing the invasion of Iraq and ignoring independent strategic analyses--went on record saying that Iraq was “continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability ... [and] actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, thereby continuing to threaten the national security interests of the United States and international peace and security.” The Democratic-supported resolution also emphasized the “gravity of the threat that Iraq will transfer weapons of mass destruction to international terrorist organizations.”
“We knew Saddam Hussein's record of aggression. We knew his support for terror. Remember, Saddam harbored Abu Nidal, the leader of a terrorist organization that carried out attacks in Europe and Asia .”
--George W. Bush, October 1
Everyone knew about Iraq ’s record of aggression, but thanks to mandatory disarmament initiatives by the United Nations and a strict military embargo, Iraq no longer had a serious offensive military capability.
Secondly, the State Department’s own annual report on international terrorism had failed to note any act of international terrorism by the Iraqi regime since early 1993, a full decade before the U.S. invasion.
Thirdly, while Abu Nidal--who had been in declining health for years--was living in Baghdad, his terrorist group had been moribund for more than a decade prior to the U.S. invasion. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein had him executed in 2002, the year before the U.S. invasion.
Unfortunately, Kerry and Edwards supported a resolution--along with the majority of their Democratic Senate colleagues--declaring that “ Iraq continues to aid and harbor ... international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens.”
“Saddam Hussein subsidized the families of suicide bombers. And he invaded his neighbors; he was shooting missiles at our pilots. That guy was a threat.”
--George W. Bush, September 7
First of all, the money Saddam Hussein transferred to the Arab Liberation Front--the tiny Palestinian faction that passed some funds on to families of suicide bombers--was relatively insignificant: it went to only a small minority of the families, it was less than what they generally received from U.S. ally Saudi Arabia, and it didn’t come close to covering the costs of these families’ homes, which are routinely destroyed by Israeli occupation forces in retaliation.
Secondly, Iraq did invade neighboring countries, but that was back in 1980 ( Iran ) and 1990 ( Kuwait ) and Iraqi forces had long since returned to within their internationally recognized borders (unlike some U.S. allies--such as Morocco and Israel , which invaded their neighbors and still occupy them). There was no realistic threat that Iraq would be able to do so again.
Thirdly, the only time Iraq shot at U.S. pilots was when U.S. military planes violated Iraqi airspace. Since there was no UN mandate for military enforcement of the Kurdish safe areas or the establishment of “No Fly Zones,” the Iraqis had as much right to shoot at them as would any country when enemy warplanes infringe on their territory. Unfortunately, the vote to authorize the invasion of Iraq--supported by Kerry and Edwards and a majority of their Democratic colleagues--justified the invasion in part on the grounds that “the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States ... by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council.”
Iraq was a threat back in the 1980s when the U.S. was quietly supporting Saddam, but certainly not in the years leading up to the invasion.
Unfortunately, Bush has been able to correctly point out that most Democrats in Congress--including Senators Kerry and Edwards--also claimed that Saddam Hussein was a threat, thereby giving such outrageous claims a degree of credibility they otherwise would not deserve.
“Zarqawi ... fled to Saddam Hussein's Iraq, where he received medical care and set up operations with some two dozen terrorist associates. He operated in Baghdad and worked with associates in northern Iraq , who ran camps to train terrorists, and conducted chemical and biological experiments, until coalition forces arrived and ended those operations. With nowhere to operate openly, Zarqawi has gone underground and is making a stand in Iraq . … If Zarqawi and his associates were not busy fighting American forces in Iraq ... these killers would be plotting and acting to murder innocent civilians in free nations, including our own.”
--George W. Bush, October 18
First of all, investigations by the CIA and others have shown no evidence that Saddam’s regime ever supported the Jordanian-born terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, since they saw this radical Islamist as a threat to the secular Iraqi regime. All indications are that his very brief visits to Baghdad were clandestine and that he did not have any major operations there prior to the U.S. invasion. Zarqawi’s camp in northern Iraq was in the Kurdish safe area well beyond the control of Saddam’s government. Journalists who visited the camp where U.S. officials claimed he was conducting ongoing “chemical and biological experiments” prior to the U.S. invasion found nothing remotely resembling such activity, a fact confirmed by U.S. Special Forces, which seized the area a few weeks later.
Unfortunately, despite all this evidence to the contrary, all but fifteen of the 210 House Democrats supported a resolution this September declaring that during Saddam Hussein’s rule, “the al-Zarqawi terror network used Baghdad as a base of operations to coordinate the movement of people, money, and supplies.”
Secondly, Zarqawi’s forces have grown dramatically only as a result of the U.S. occupation, with cells now operating throughout northern and central Iraq . All indications are that his goal is to rid Iraq of foreign occupation and establish his version of an Islamic state, just as like-minded jihadists did when the Soviets occupied Afghanistan in the 1980s. These jihadists came to power in Afghanistan only as a result of the Soviet invasion and occupation; they were not a threat beforehand. Similarly, jihadists were never a threat in Iraq until after the U.S. invasion and occupation. In any case, there is no evidence that Zarqawi and his followers have ever plotted or planned to attack the United States and, in any case, they do not have such a global reach in terms of operational capability.
“We'll succeed in Iraq because we've got a plan. And here's the plan: We'll train Iraqis so they can do the hard work in defending themselves; 100,000 troops are trained today, 125,000 by the end of the year. We'll continue to work with them, to give them the equipment, the training they need to defend themselves against the attacks of these terrorists.”
--George W. Bush, October 1
In reality, less than 40,000 Iraqi troops are trained and their ranks have been significantly infiltrated by insurgents. In addition, the bigger threat to the survival of the regime is not the terrorists, but the majority of insurgents who do not target civilians, but focus their guerrilla attacks on military and government installations. By claiming that the insurgency is simply composed of terrorists, outsiders and holdouts of the former regime, the administration is able to depict current operations in Iraq as part of the “war on terror” rather than the bloody urban counter-insurgency war that it is, where the primary victims are civilians.
Unfortunately, the House of Representatives--with only 56 of the 210 Democrats voting against it--passed a resolution this past June claiming that the attacks against U.S. forces have come not from a popular nationalist insurgency against a foreign occupation, but “former regime elements, foreign and Iraqi terrorists, and other criminals who are attempting to undermine the interests of the Iraqi people and thwart their evident desire to live in peace,” thereby giving credibility to the Bush administration’s insistence that the U.S. military occupation of Iraq be maintained in order to fight terrorism.
“Because of President Bush's determination in the war on terror, leaders around the world are getting the message. Just five days after Saddam Hussein was captured, Moammar Gadhafi in Libya agreed to abandon his nuclear weapons program and turn the materials over to the United States.”
--Vice President Dick Cheney, September 1
Saddam Hussein’s capture had nothing to do with Gadhafi’s decision to abandon Libya ’s nuclear weapons programs. In fact, the decision was the culmination of a two-year diplomatic effort led by Great Britain . Furthermore, having seen Saddam’s elimination of his nuclear weapons program nearly a decade earlier as well as Iraq’a subsequent invasion, it is unlikely Gadhafi took that example as a motivator for unilateral disarmament.
Unfortunately, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi led a majority of her Democratic colleagues in voting in favor of a Republican-sponsored amendment that claimed that the elimination of Libya’s nuclear program “would not have been possible if not for ... the liberation of Iraq by United States and Coalition Forces,” thereby giving credence to this dubious Republican claim that the GOP is now using to enhance Bush’s credibility.
In conclusion, the only reason this election is even close is that the Bush administration has been successful at positioning its misleading interpretations of events before, during, and subsequent to the U.S. invasion of Iraq as fact, thereby avoiding the criticism Bush’s policies deserve. It is nothing short of scandalous that the Democrats--who should be coasting toward a decisive victory at this point--have made it so difficult for themselves by perpetuating the Bush administration’s misrepresentations.
If Kerry loses on Tuesday, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves.
The Saddam in Rumsfeld's Closet by Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now!
"Man and the turtle are very much alike. Neither makes any progress without sticking his neck out." - Donald Rumsfeld
Five years before Saddam Hussein's now infamous 1988 gassing of the Kurds, a key meeting took place in Baghdad that would play a significant role in forging close ties between Saddam Hussein and Washington. It happened at a time when Saddam was first alleged to have used chemical weapons. The meeting in late December 1983 paved the way for an official restoration of relations between Iraq and the US, which had been severed since the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.
With the Iran-Iraq war escalating, President Ronald Reagan dispatched his Middle East envoy, a former secretary of defense, to Baghdad with a hand-written letter to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and a message that Washington was willing at any moment to resume diplomatic relations.
That envoy was Donald Rumsfeld.
Rumsfeld's December 19-20, 1983 visit to Baghdad made him the highest-ranking US official to visit Iraq in 6 years. He met Saddam and the two discussed "topics of mutual interest," according to the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. "[Saddam] made it clear that Iraq was not interested in making mischief in the world," Rumsfeld later told The New York Times. "It struck us as useful to have a relationship, given that we were interested in solving the Mideast problems."
Just 12 days after the meeting, on January 1, 1984, The Washington Post reported that the United States "in a shift in policy, has informed friendly Persian Gulf nations that the defeat of Iraq in the 3-year-old war with Iran would be 'contrary to U.S. interests' and has made several moves to prevent that result."
In March of 1984, with the Iran-Iraq war growing more brutal by the day, Rumsfeld was back in Baghdad for meetings with then-Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz. On the day of his visit, March 24th, UPI reported from the United Nations: "Mustard gas laced with a nerve agent has been used on Iranian soldiers in the 43-month Persian Gulf War between Iran and Iraq, a team of U.N. experts has concluded... Meanwhile, in the Iraqi capital of Baghdad, U.S. presidential envoy Donald Rumsfeld held talks with Foreign Minister Tarek Aziz (sic) on the Gulf war before leaving for an unspecified destination."
The day before, the Iranian news agency alleged that Iraq launched another chemical weapons assault on the southern battlefront, injuring 600 Iranian soldiers. "Chemical weapons in the form of aerial bombs have been used in the areas inspected in Iran by the specialists," the U.N. report said. "The types of chemical agents used were bis-(2-chlorethyl)-sulfide, also known as mustard gas, and ethyl N, N-dimethylphosphoroamidocyanidate, a nerve agent known as Tabun."
Prior to the release of the UN report, the US State Department on March 5th had issued a statement saying "available evidence indicates that Iraq has used lethal chemical weapons."
Commenting on the UN report, US Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick was quoted by The New York Times as saying, "We think that the use of chemical weapons is a very serious matter. We've made that clear in general and particular."
Compared with the rhetoric emanating from the current administration, based on speculations about what Saddam might have, Kirkpatrick's reaction was hardly a call to action.
Most glaring is that Donald Rumsfeld was in Iraq as the 1984 UN report was issued and said nothing about the allegations of chemical weapons use, despite State Department "evidence." On the contrary, The New York Times reported from Baghdad on March 29, 1984, "American diplomats pronounce themselves satisfied with relations between Iraq and the United States and suggest that normal diplomatic ties have been restored in all but name."
A month and a half later, in May 1984, Donald Rumsfeld resigned. In November of that year, full diplomatic relations between Iraq and the US were fully restored. Two years later, in an article about Rumsfeld's aspirations to run for the 1988 Republican Presidential nomination, the Chicago Tribune Magazine listed among Rumsfeld's achievements helping to "reopen U.S. relations with Iraq." The Tribune failed to mention that this help came at a time when, according to the US State Department, Iraq was actively using chemical weapons.
Throughout the period that Rumsfeld was Reagan's Middle East envoy, Iraq was frantically purchasing hardware from American firms, empowered by the White House to sell. The buying frenzy began immediately after Iraq was removed from the list of alleged sponsors of terrorism in 1982. According to a February 13, 1991 Los Angeles Times article:
"First on Hussein's shopping list was helicopters -- he bought 60 Hughes helicopters and trainers with little notice. However, a second order of 10 twin-engine Bell "Huey" helicopters, like those used to carry combat troops in Vietnam, prompted congressional opposition in August, 1983... Nonetheless, the sale was approved."
In 1984, according to The LA Times, the State Department - in the name of "increased American penetration of the extremely competitive civilian aircraft market"-pushed through the sale of 45 Bell 214ST helicopters to Iraq. The helicopters, worth some $200 million, were originally designed for military purposes. The New York Times later reported that Saddam "transferred many, if not all [of these helicopters] to his military."
In 1988, Saddam's forces attacked Kurdish civilians with poisonous gas from Iraqi helicopters and planes. U.S. intelligence sources told The LA Times in 1991, they "believe that the American-built helicopters were among those dropping the deadly bombs."
In response to the gassing, sweeping sanctions were unanimously passed by the US Senate that would have denied Iraq access to most US technology. The measure was killed by the White House.
Senior officials later told reporters they did not press for punishment of Iraq at the time because they wanted to shore up Iraq's ability to pursue the war with Iran. Extensive research uncovered no public statements by Donald Rumsfeld publicly expressing even remote concern about Iraq's use or possession of chemical weapons until the week Iraq invaded Kuwait in August 1990, when he appeared on an ABC news special.
Eight years later, Donald Rumsfeld signed on to an "open letter" to President Clinton, calling on him to eliminate "the threat posed by Saddam." It urged Clinton to "provide the leadership necessary to save ourselves and the world from the scourge of Saddam and the weapons of mass destruction that he refuses to relinquish."
In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had "available evidence" Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.
Washington now speaks of Saddam's threat and the consequences of a failure to act. Despite the fact that the administration has failed to provide even a shred of concrete proof that Iraq has links to Al Qaeda or has resumed production of chemical or biological agents, Rumsfeld insists that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."
But there is evidence of the absence of Donald Rumsfeld's voice at the very moment when Iraq's alleged threat to international security first emerged. And in this case, the evidence of absence is indeed evidence.
What conclusion can we draw? The republican party, and the United States government backed Saddam Hussein during his most dangerous and oppressive period with full knownledge of the weapons of mass destruction he possessed.
Can someone please tell me who the real threat to the stability of the world is?
The United States of America is the problem.
If you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.
Facts on the war in Iraq:
Iraqi civilians killed: 16352
Iraqi civilians killed by US led sanctions: 1,000,000
This is not a war on terrorism, this is a crime against humanity.
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.