If You are Not Muslim in Iraq, You are Trash.
A compelling essay co-written by friend and author of American Torture, Mike Otterman.
Tag Archive for 'iraq'
The Islamic Republic may soon be targeted by the Bush administration:
There is considerable speculation and buzz in Washington today suggesting that the National Security Council has agreed in principle to proceed with plans to attack an Iranian al-Qods-run camp that is believed to be training Iraqi militants. The camp that will be targeted is one of several located near Tehran. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was the only senior official urging delay in taking any offensive action. The decision to go ahead with plans to attack Iran is the direct result of concerns being expressed over the deteriorating situation in Lebanon, where Iranian ally Hezbollah appears to have gained the upper hand against government forces and might be able to dominate the fractious political situation. The White House contacted the Iranian government directly yesterday through a channel provided by the leadership of the Kurdish region in Iraq, which has traditionally had close ties to Tehran. The US demanded that Iran admit that it has been interfering in Iraq and also commit itself to taking steps to end the support of various militant groups. There was also a warning about interfering in Lebanon. The Iranian government reportedly responded quickly, restating its position that it would not discuss the matter until the US ceases its own meddling employing Iranian dissident groups.
While dead American troops are being treated as respectfully as one would expect by the Bush cabal:
The U.S. military will no longer cremate troops returning from Iraq and Afghanistan at a Dover facility that also cremates pets, the Pentagon announced Friday evening at a hastily scheduled news conference.
Geoff Morrell, a Pentagon spokesman, said there was “no evidence whatsoever that any human remains were mistreated” or that any troops were cremated at the facility designated for pets.
Robert Fisk in the London Independent on the current crisis in Lebanon:
Another American humiliation. The Shia gunmen who drove past my apartment in west Beirut yesterday afternoon were hooting their horns, making V-signs, leaning out of the windows of SUVs with their rifles in the air, proving to the Muslims of the capital that the elected government of Lebanon has lost.
And it has. The national army still patrols the streets, but solely to prevent sectarian killings or massacres. Far from dismantling the pro-Iranian Hizbollah’s secret telecommunications system – and disarming the Hizbollah itself – the cabinet of Fouad Siniora sits in the old Turkish serail in Beirut, denouncing violence with the same authority as the Iraqi government in Baghdad’s green zone…
No, this is not a civil war. Nor is it a coup d’etat, though it meets some of the criteria. It is part of the war against America in the Middle East. The Hizbollah “must stop sowing trouble,” the White House said rather meekly. Yes, like the Taliban. And al-Qa’ida. And the Iraqi insurgents. And Hamas. And who else?
Noam Chomsky, New Statesman, May 8:
But democracy is even stronger now than it was in 1968. You have to remember that, during Vietnam, there was no opposition at the beginning of the war…The Iraq War was the first conflict in western history in which an imperialist war was massively protested against before it had even been launched.
My following article appears in today’s ABC Unleashed:
The fifth anniversary in March of the Iraq war should have given the political and media elite time to reflect on their actions since 2003. Virtually ignored by the mainstream media were stories such as life in Fallujah, where citizens remain mired in poverty and resentment.
Despite the failings of the conflict, increasingly aggressive rhetoric against Iran suggests that a military strike against the Islamic Republic is being considered at the highest levels of the American and Israeli governments.
During the recent testimony of American General David Petraeus, he consistently blamed Iran, and not al-Qaeda, for Washington’s problems in the occupied nation. Tehran now complains that US-backed rebels are provoking its borders. New evidence proves that the Bush administration wanted to target Iran soon after 9/11.
Fox News‘ Bill Reilly blindly accepted the argument that, “Iran is directly responsible for killing and maiming thousands of American troops, and it is the primary reason Iraq remains so chaotic”. Bombing should clearly commence in five minutes.
The reality of Iran’s involvement in Iraq remains confusing, however, something confirmed by Independent journalist Patrick Cockburn. Tehran’s influence is complex, though undeniable.
Cockburn fears that an American attack on Iran is not unlikely, but for reasons other than currently stated. A regional challenge to America’s hegemony is not accepted lightly. Moreover, Washington will simply not tolerate a well-armed and relatively wealthy nation, Iran, challenging its unimpeded flow of oil from various, authoritarian client states.
The fact that America now has less control over the world’s global resources is something ignored by most commentators. The great, ironic legacy of the Bush administration will be its success in increasing the decline of America’s diplomatic influence. Large swathes of the world now largely ignore State Department dictates.
Israel also finds itself in a situation largely of its own making (not unlike its colonial addiction to the settlement project). Yossi Alpher, former adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, has articulated the thinking in Tel Aviv:
“…In order to understand Israel’s response to both the current tension with Syria and Hizballah and the link between that tension and the status of Israeli-Palestinian relations, it is vital to recognize the major evolution that has taken place in recent years in Israel’s grand strategic thinking regarding the Iranian threat. Iran - not Syria and not Palestine - is today the prism through which Israeli security planners look at the region, its permutations and the threats it presents. Any effort at either war or peace with Syria is directed against Iran. The non-state Islamist actors Hizballah and Hamas represent Iranian footholds on Israel’s borders and on the shores of the Mediterranean. Israeli-Egyptian cooperation regarding Hamas relates to Iran.
“Of course, Israel still has a host of strategic threats and issues to deal with. But the prism is Iran.”
The last weeks have seen bellicose statements by various Israeli ministers, not least Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer who warned Iran that any attack on Israel would result in the “destruction of the Iranian nation”. The Iranian response was predictable. Gen. Mohammad Reza Ashtiani said that Iran would destroy the Jewish state if attacked.
The Bush administration provide valuable insights into the mindset that led Tony Blair, John Howard and a host of other leaders into the “war on terror’s” orbit. Time.com’s senior editor Tony Karon explains:
The U.S. or an ally or proxy launches a military offensive against a politically popular “enemy” group; Bush and his minions welcome the violence as “clarifying” matters, demonstrating “resolve”, or, in the most grotesque rhetorical flourish of all, the “birth pangs” of a brave new world. Each time, the “enemy” proves far more resilient than expected, largely because Bush and his allies have failed to recognize that each adversary’s power should be measured in political support rather than firepower; and the net effect of the offensive invariably leaves the enemy strengthened and the U.S. and its allies even weaker than before they launched the offensive.
Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd may be faced with a request from the White House – including from the next President, either Democrat or Republican – to support military action against Iran.
The Labor party has already stated that it intends to bring Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the International Court of Justice (something praised by the local Zionist lobby). It will inevitably fail but worryingly associates Australia with a neo-conservative foreign policy agenda, something supposedly jettisoned last year. It’s a shame our media doesn’t investigate recent claims that Israel is purchasing oil from the Islamic Republic, fundamentally undermining its claims of victimhood.
Rudd’s recent world tour was praised by the Wall Street Journal, though journalists missed a far more important gauge of public opinion. Iranians, in a recent poll, expressed scepticism towards America but a willingness to have “direct talks on issues of mutual concern” and “more access for each other’s journalists” Iranian bloggers continue to be active, despite the onerous restrictions.
Our media has a responsibility to fully investigate the claims and counter-claims surrounding Iran’s alleged nuclear program (though Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric rarely helps matters). As former US President Jimmy Carter said this week about the necessity of including Hamas in any Israel/Palestine peace deal, Tehran will inevitably need to be engaged if Middle East peace is to be achieved.
That is, of course, if what America and Israel truly desires.
After years of propagating lies about Iraq and its alleged threat to the world, the New York Times continues to publish Bush administration talking points, this time outlining the supposed menace of Iran.
Critical thinking? Don’t expect that from the “paper of record.”
Joschka Fischer, Guardian Comment is Free, May 5:
President Bush’s Middle East policy undeniably managed to achieve one thing: it has thoroughly destabilised the region. Otherwise, the results are not at all what the US had hoped to accomplish. A democratic, pro-western Middle East is not in the cards.
But, while things are not developing as American neoconservatives had intended, they are nevertheless developing. The historical failure named the Iraq war, the demise of secular Arab nationalism and the soaring oil and gas prices have wrought profound changes in the region. From Damascus to Dubai, from Tel Aviv to Tehran, a new Middle East is now emerging.
I was recently interviewed by Peshawa Muhammed of the Kurdistani Nwe Newspaper, the publication of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan in Iraqi Kurdistan (Noam Chomsky was also interviewed recently.) The article ran on May 4:
Peshawa Muhammed: Five years on, how do you assess the current US policy in Iraq? Which option do you think can finally put an end to the ongoing fiasco; partition or keeping Iraq united?
Antony Loewenstein: The Iraq war is one of the greatest crimes of my lifetime. After more than five years, the death of over 4000 American troops, over a million Iraqis and millions of displaced refugees, the decision to invade and occupy the nation remains a disaster on all levels. The majority of polls in Iraq since 2003 find citizens believe life under Saddam, as brutal as it was, remains preferable. Foreign troops must leave the country as quickly as possible and the future of Iraq decided by Iraqis alone. I am against partition because it appears most citizens oppose it. The international community has a responsibility to assist the Iraqi government to get back on its feet. The current regime in Baghdad’s Green Zone is an illegitimate puppet of Washington, creating Shia death squads to obliterate potential enemies. Ethnic cleansing must stop.
Muhammed: Previously, Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has admitted that securing oil supplies is a key factor behind the presence of Australian troops in Iraq. How do you explain the Australian objectives in the Iraq War?
Loewenstein: Australia, like many so-called allies in the war against Iraq, joined the Bush administration out of compulsion, fear and gutlessness. The previous Australian government, led by Prime Minister John Howard, was an unashamed fan of Bush and his “war on terror” policies – by pure coincidence, he was in Washington on September 11, 2001 – and believed that “democracy” should be imported by bombing and occupying a nation. Oil was certainly a key reason for the war as was securing a new, post-Saudi Arabia staging post in the Middle East. The US embassy in Baghdad, the largest in the world, indicates that America never had any intention of leaving.
Muhammed: If Iraq eventually fails as a state, what alternatives are there for the future of Iraqi Kurdistan and what assumptions are made by each alternative? Will Independent Iraqi Kurdistan be a viable option?
Loewenstein: The idea that Iraq is a state is clearly the invention of the Western powers just under one hundred years ago. Iraqi Kurdistan has the right to autonomy and independence, if a fair and free vote is taken. Of course, Turkey and the central Iraqi government oppose such a move, but it is probably inevitable. It is encouraging that Iraqi Kurdistan has benefited from the invasion and largely prospered. A ray of light in a sea of darkness.
Muhammed: Nothing or little is known about Australian-Kurdish relations. To the best of your knowledge, how does Australia view the Kurdish question in Iraq?
Loewenstein: There is a stable Kurdish population in Australia that receives little media coverage or discrimination, as far as I know. When the largest protest in the country’s history took place in 2003 against the Iraq war, the Kurds here were one of the few groups, aside from the Howard government, to encourage America to invade. In terms of Australian attitudes towards the Kurdish question, this is a difficult question. There is general sympathy for groups that are legitimately calling for a homeland – such as the Palestinians – but the issue receives little attention. My gut feeling is that there would be concern over creating a Kurdish state and increasing instability in the region.
Muhammed: What will happen of the coalition forces withdraw from Iraq prematurely? Regardless of the causes of the war and its eligibility, don’t you think it is the responsibility of the invading forces to restore peace and order before leaving Iraq?
Loewenstein: The international community certainly have a responsibility to assist the Iraqis, but poll after poll has found since 2003 that a majority of Iraqi people want foreign troops to leave. Indeed, much of the insurgency is directed at foreign troops. I fear that the Western powers will continually say that the country is too unstable to withdraw troops, therefore ensuing an endless occupation (something seemingly suggested by Republican presidential nominee John McCain.) There are other ways to support the country other than American troops, such as food aid, infrastructure support, financial compensation and the UN.
Muhammed: What are your general recommendations and advice for the future US Policy in Iraq?
Loewenstein: The US operates under the delusion that it had and continues to have the right to occupy Iraqi indefinitely. The countless examples of abuse committed by US troops against the Iraqi people must be compensated. Lessons must be learned, namely that the mentality that led the country to invade a nation that didn’t threaten it in any way has been counter-productive, weakened Israel, emboldened Iran and allowed China and India to continue to challenge Washington’s dominance of the globe, not a bad thing, in my opinion.
Raw Story provides necessary context to the latest missive from US Vice President Dick Cheney:
George W. Bush has made the world a more hopeful place.
This from Vice President Dick Cheney, who spoke to a crowd of Oklahoma Republicans Friday evening.
“When the history is written, it will be said this is a safer country and more hopeful world because George Bush was president,” Cheney said, according to Oklahoma’s Tulsa World.
Of Iraq, Cheney quipped: “Our strategy is the right strategy. The only way we can lose is to quit.”
If the US departs, he said, it would show America “doesn’t have the stomach for a fight.” Cheney himself received five draft deferments to avoid service in the Vietnam war.
To justify a US presence in the wartorn region, Cheney cited the Russian experience in Afghanistan.
“We were engaged in that country, lending support to the mujahadeen against Soviet forces,” he said. “Afterwards, everybody walked away and forgot about Afghanistan. What followed was a civil war and the emergence of the Taliban. In 1996, Osama Bin Laden was invited into Afghanistan. He trained thousands of terrorists, some of whom were part of the attacks here on the United States.”
He didn’t mention the the US pulled out of Afghanistan as well, after the defeat of the Soviets, or that US business, including those in Texas during George W. Bush’s term as governor, engaged in business with the Taliban regime.
Corpwatch reveals why the the American mission in Iraq is going so swimmingly:
When U.S. troops or embassy officials want to track and investigate Iraqis — such as interrogating prisoners accused of terrorism, doing background checks on potential employees, or even to chat with ordinary citizens on the street — the principal intermediary is a relatively obscure company named L-3, that is just over a decade old. Although it is not as well known as companies like Halliburton , it is now the ninth-largest military contractor in the United States. Based in Manhattan, it is headquartered on the upper floors of a skyscraper on Third Avenue, a few blocks from the United Nations. The bulk of this work is done by a recently acquired L-3 subsidiary: Titan Corporation of San Diego.
The company’s principal role is to recruit, vet, hire, place and pay these personnel. The U.S. military oversees and directs the day-to-day work, but L-3 and Titan play a key role in staffing and maintaining what was once considered an inherently governmental function: the acquisition and analysis of human intelligence during war. All told, L-3 and Titan are now being paid approximately one billion dollars a year for this work, with a cumulative total approaching $3 billion since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Speaking of military contractors and the hapless Iraqi government…
Paul Wolfowitz, former U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, clarifies some “misconceptions” about the Iraq war:
The fact is, however, that we did end up with an occupation authority for a full nine months, and I’m afraid that the label occupation sticks to us even to this day, although the occupation ended in June of 2004.
Yes, skeptics, the occupation is over. What are people still getting so excited about?
The recent launch of new Israel lobby in the US, J Street, is an encouraging sign. Its message is fairly conventional - two states for two peoples - but it’s far more moderate than the current loudest voices in the room, the hardline Zionist extremists (the situation in Australia is little different, hence the success of the initiative I co-founded, Independent Australian Jewish Voices.) A growing number of Jews around the world are sick and tired of being defined by policies that only speak of invasion, occupation and violence.
Co-founder of J Street, Jeremy Ben-Ami, explains why his group is to important:
“Some of the loudest voices that are beating the war drums are those of either neocons who happen to be Jewish, or established Jewish community leaders who happen to be neocons. This is very disturbing. And it applies not only to Israel but to the whole Middle East — whether it’s American policy towards Iran, or maybe it had some role in the leadup to the war in Iraq. And I think this has made people say, ‘Wait a minute, I may never have been interested in Israel, I may never have been interested in the Jewish community, but these folks are speaking in my name and driving us towards wars and policies that I don’t want to be responsible for.’”
Until the Jewish community accepts that a small group of unrepresentative band of Zionists led the US (and Australia and Britain) into a criminal and futile war against Iraq (and Muslims in general), nothing will change. Jewish blogger Phil Weiss writes:
This is yet another sign that some day soon, or not so soon, the Jewish community will search its soul on the responsibility of Jewish neocons for the greatest foreign-policy debacle of the new century, the responsibility of non-neocon Jewish intellectuals and journalists in giving the neocons cover, and the role of Zionism in Jewish ideas about American power.
My latest New Matilda column is about the Bin Laden family and its influence in the world:
The Western world still understands little about the motivations behind the September 11, 2001 attacks nearly seven years after the fact. American journalist Steve Coll, a Pulitzer Prize winner, foreign correspondent, Washington Post managing editor and contributor to the New Yorker, details in his acclaimed 2004 book, Ghost Wars: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan and Bin Laden, from the Soviet invasion to September 10, 2001, that the events of that fateful September day were both predictable and would probably not have happened without the former assistance of the CIA.
“As the years passed”, he argues, “these radical Islamic networks adopted some of the secret deception-laden tradecraft of the formal intelligence services [Western and Pakistani], methods they sometimes acquired through direct training.”
In his new book, The Bin Ladens: The Story of a Family and its Fortune, Coll continues his thesis about the expansive Bin Laden family and its intimate relationships with the highest echelons of the American political elite. Osama Bin Laden is only one small part of the puzzle, his influence greatly exaggerated by a Western media keen to find a bogeyman for the rise in Islamic fundamentalism.
Sharing a dinner and a laugh with a war criminal (namely George W. Bush.)
My following article appears in today’s ABC Unleashed:
The recent rigged election in Zimbabwe has highlighted the impotence of the international community. Bloggers and activists continue to emphasise the need for President Robert Mugabe to relinquish his hold on power, a position shared by Washington.
But not unlike the Burmese uprising in 2007 that saw China maintain a close relationship with the military junta, Mugabe enjoys the patronage of the Chinese regime. It is the kind of bond that increasingly defines global affairs.
Although a Chinese ship laden with weapons is headed for Zimbabwe and faces difficulties in unloading its cargo, Mugabe knows that, along with numerous other dictators, the rising superpower views its natural resources as a boon to be mutually shared.
The International Herald Tribune explained in 2005:
“While the talk is of democracy sweeping the [African] continent, some experts believe that China’s rising influence in Africa may power its blend of free-market dictatorship, particularly among African leaders already reluctant to turn over power democratically.
“‘We might see the Chinese political system appealing to a lot of states whose elites and regimes are more in line with that sort of thinking,’ said Chris Maroleng, a Zimbabwe expert at the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria. ‘It’s really a conflict of two systems, one based on regime security and the other, almost Western, which talks of human security - good governance and human rights.’”
Although China’s standards for trading are undoubtedly different to the West’s, it’s a delusion to presume that Washington, London, Australia and Europe solely engage on the basis of ensuring admirable human rights. America’s unyielding backing of Saudi Arabia – one of the most brutal dictatorships in the Middle East - is but one example of greed coming before women’s equality.
The Independent recently reported that Chinese troops were seen on the streets of Zimbabwe in a clear sign of unity with the Mugabe regime. The paper articulated that the world should get used to this new kind of colonialism:
“As for Mr Mugabe, he marked Zimbabwean Independence Day yesterday by complaining of neo-colonialism and how Britain wants to retake control of Zimbabwe. He and other African leaders should think more carefully. There is a danger of their countries becoming a victim of a re-colonisation. But the threat is not from the West. It comes from the East.”
The inherent fear in the current debate revolves around the declining influence of America during the Bush years, something that I welcome. Although the country remains capable of shaping events far better than any other, the calamitous Iraq war proves that resistance to America’s imperial designs is growing. Countless books are being written that discount Washington’s power in the world, a premature stance. Mark Leonard, author of What Does China Think?, argues that the “China Model” is attractive because America’s policies have becoming annoyingly intrusive:
“Where American policy-makers champion the Washington Consensus, the Chinese talk about the success of gradualism and the ‘Harmonious Society’. Where the USA is bellicose, Chinese policy-makers talk about peace. Whereas American diplomats talk about regime change, their Chinese counterparts talk about respect for sovereignty and the diversity of civilizations.”
Although this is an overly simplistic explanation, a vast number of dictators find its message highly appealing. Author Ian Buruma writes that, “a dogmatic insistence on isolating dictators, such as the Burmese junta, does little to oust them, and actually diminishes America’s influence.”
Intriguingly, many Western commentators who insist on challenging China’s global rise are strong supporters of Washington-led military projection. It’s as if they wish citizens of repressive nations would look at the last eight years of American foreign policy and see nothing other than benign invasions and occupation. Recent polling in the Middle East finds public opinions towards the superpower has fallen since 2006.
This is neither an argument to ignore the plight of the Zimbabwean people nor simply calls to acquiesce in the rise of a values-free foreign policy. It is vital, however, to critically analyse our own global worldview, and improve it, before passing harsh judgement on China’s undoubted appetite for natural resources.
How else can we explain our kow-towing to Saudi King Abdullah? “The sad, awful truth,” wrote Robert Fisk in 2007, “is that we fete these people, we fawn on them, we supply them with fighter jets, whisky and whores.”
The face of Iraq in 2008, an explosion of honour killings:
In the latest such case, it was reported yesterday that a 17-year-old girl, Rand Abdel-Qader, was stabbed to death last month by her father for becoming infatuated with a British soldier serving in southern Iraq.
In Basra alone, police acknowledge that 15 women a month are murdered for breaching Islamic dress codes. Campaigners insist it is a conservative figure.
Violence against women is rampant, rising every day with the power of the militias. Beheadings, rapes, beatings, suicides through self-immolation, genital mutilation, trafficking and child abuse masquerading as marriage of girls as young as nine are all on the increase.
Reconciliation is the word on many lips, but a fundamentalist brand of Islam has been unleashed in the occupied nation.
Stephen Kinzer, Guardian Comment is Free, April 23:
Trying to figure out who won the Iraq war is a challenging parlour game. Nearly every faction, group and nation has lost. The only evident victors are Iran, the Kurds and a handful of giant American corporations.
It is slowly becoming clear, however, that there is another winner: Latin America. With the United States so totally consumed by the Iraq conflict, it has no time, energy or political capital to crack down on challenges south of the Rio Grande. Sensing their historic chance, many Latin nations have embarked on experiments that the US would in past eras have instantly stepped in to crush.
The independence that many Latin American countries have shown in the last five years borders on outright defiance of US power. Yet to a degree unprecedented in modern history, Washington is allowing them to do as they please.
Well, not quite as they please.
Being a war blogger (and getting everything wrong.)
US Vice President Dick Cheney issues a typically bellicose pronouncement about the “war on terror”:
An ideological struggle is underway and in that struggle we can be confident we are doing the right thing. We are confronting the violence, protecting the innocent, liberating the oppressed, and aiding the rise of freedom and democracy as America has done so many times in the past.
The reality of “liberating the oppressed” is actually utterly removed from Cheney’s lies. The divide and conquer Iraqi strategy and the “surge” is in fact inspired by Israeli tactics:
The explosion of walls and enclaves reinforced by aerial violence across Iraq suggest that the primary counterinsurgency lessons being followed by the U.S. military in Iraq today derive less from the lessons of “Lawrence of Arabia” than from Israel’s experiences in the Occupied Palestinian Territories over the past decade.
