An intifada is brewing in Iraq, and American troops are about to stop being liberators and will be forced to embrace their inner occupiers. And many Americans don't give a damn.
Twenty soldiers have died in fighting or accidents since May 1, the day Bush declared the major fighting over. Five have died this week alone.- One was killed yesterday in an ambush on a military convoy about 25 miles north of Baghdad, according to CENTCOM
- "Two US soldiers died and nine others were wounded Tuesday in a second day of guerrilla attacks in the flashpoint town of Fallujah, west of Baghdad, later claimed by a group apparently loyal to Saddam." [AFP] The two killed were listed as Staff Sgt. Michael B. Quinn, 37, of Tampa, Fla. and Sgt. Thomas F. Broomhead, 34, both of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. Nine other troops were injured.
- Maj. Mathew E. Schram, 36, of Brookfield, Wis., was killed Monday after gunmen ambushed his military convoy in Hadithah, about 110 miles northwest of Baghdad. [AP]
- Also on Monday, a soldier was killed on the outskirts of Baghdad when his Humvee came under attack. American troops have since been scouring the neighborhood looking for the assailants.
And yesterday, riots in the town of Hit drove U.S. troops out of town. The reasons for the violence are unclear, but it may be related to the use of Iraqi police units to aid Americans in house-to-house searches for weapons and the appalling living conditions in which many Iraqis now find themselves.
"They forced women and children to leave their houses!" shouted Esmael Rabee, a construction worker who made his voice heard above the shouts of those who had crowded around the lone foreign reporter [from the Times.] on the scene. "They violated the dignity and honor of our women. We won't accept this violation."
And, "They said they wanted to liberate Iraq, but this all shows it is just a game," said Saleh Dayeh, a political science teacher interviewed in the nearby town of Mohammedi. "Petrol is the property of the Iraqi people, but now the Americans are stealing it. They are taking our property, our petrol and doing nothing for us." (Gasoline now costs about 20 times what it was under Saddam Hussein.)
"The war has not ended," said Lt. Gen. David McKiernan, chief of U.S. ground forces in Iraq. [Chicago Tribune] In the same article, the Trib said U.S. forces were gearing up for a major operation in central Iraq to clear out Saddamists. "We want to get rid of these scumbags," Maj. Gen. James Mattis, commander of the 1st Marine Division, said.
These actions are happening in a belt stretching from Fallujah in the east to Hit in the west. Fallujah is well known as a violent, dangerous place among Iraqis and it was a Saddam stronghold, according to an email I received. (The sender requested anonymity.)
On top of all this, the Pentagon is having trouble convincing other countries to join in the fun. Only two dozen countries have pledged 13,000 troops to aid in policing post-war Iraq, far short of the "tens of thousands" the Pentagon was hoping for in order to allow a drawdown of American troops by fall. Poland is the most enthusiastic, sending 1,500 troops and receiving a command in central-south [or northern] Iraq. British troops are down to 15,000 (from a peak of 45,000 during the war.)
The danger is that without enough troops to do the job, overwhelmed Americans will shoot first and ask questions later, just like the British did when they occupied Mesopotamia in the 1920s while creating the Hashemite Kingdom of Iraq. From my experience with Americans there, the troops are tired, war-weary, trigger-happy and -- frankly -- ignorant of the country. Marines didn't know who the Kurds were. They had no idea of the geography of the country, not to mention its customs and morals. While there are more troops and patrols in Baghdad, there was almost no contact between average Iraqis and Americans. Things may be better now.
What does all this mean? The immediate answer is that U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's plans for a small ground force, popular support and an ruling infrastructure largely untouched were laughably wrong. Iraqis have taken to speaking their minds with a vengeance: The don't want Iraqi police "protecting" them, they expect basic services to work and they want the feeling that they haven't traded one evil, brutal ruler for a neglectful, easily distracted one. They also don't want to feel like they're simply pawns in a great game as Dayeh implied.
Some might say they must be patient. Some might ask who the hell cares what Iraqis think? (Which is basically what an email I received said. The author added that if a few Iraqis have to die for American security, "So be it." Nice note, you savage.)
But what I find most disturbing is the lack of concern among many Americans, who are shirking their responsibility to demand answers from the White House as to why this looks like it's turning into a collassal cock-up. Does it bother the war's supporters that the whole WMD thing is vanishing in a puff of propaganda? (Dept. Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz said in Vanity Fair that "for bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction, because it was the one reason everyone could agree on.") The "biological laboratories" strike me as a flimsy reason for war, considering the CIA itself says it doesn't expect to find the presence of any bioweapons agents. "We suspect that the Iraqis thoroughly decontaminated the vehicle to remove evidence of BW agent production," the report says. That's silly. If the Iraqis thought the trailers were going to be captured, why waste time and energy on decontamination? Blowing them up would have been just as effective. If they didn't expect them to be captured, there should be some traces of "BW agents" -- assuming they were used to actually produce biological agents.
But no matter: According to a poll by the Program on International Policy Attutudes, 41 percent of Americans either think the U.S. has found WMDs (34 percent) or are unsure (7 percent.) Sixty-eight percent of Americans still support the war, although only half were somewhat (29 percent) or very (21 percent) certain that "when the US government presented the evidence to justify going to war with Iraq, it was ... not being misleading." Five percent were unsure.
That means 45 percent of America thinks it was lied to, but President George Bush gets props from 74 percent of the country for his "strong leadership."
[The poll was conducted with a nationwide sample of 1,265 respondents May 14-18. The margin of error was plus or minus 3-4%, depending on whether the question was administered to the whole sample or half the sample. -- from the press release.]
Also, there seems to be a collective amnesia in 20 percent of the population. One in five Americans believe, despite repeated pre-war statements from the White House and 24-7 red-eye coverage of Iraq, that the primary reason for going to war was "the fact that Saddam Hussein was an oppressive dictator."
I actually met one of the Bush supporters at a party on Friday. He's a smart guy and he means well. And I stand with him in his gladness that Saddam Hussein is out of power. But when I asked him if he minded being lied to as a rationale to go to war, he said no. What mattered was that Saddam was gone. Echoing Wolfowitz, he said the WMD angle was just what was needed to sell it.
Jesus. How do you argue with that?
Steven Kull, director of PIPA, said that the desire to support the war in the face of White House lies is driving some Americans to avoid news of the aftermath, to avoid "having an experience of cognitive dissonance."
So here's what we're looking at. Iraq is turning into a tarbaby in the middle of a briar patch, a significant minority of Americans don't know and may not want to know the truth about the war, and the crosshairs of the American war machine are swiveling to the east toward Tehran. (But don't expect another war before next year's election. Even Gen. Rove thinks three wars in one term might be a bit much.)
While the Iraqi resistance to American occupiers gets underway, there's a desperate need for Americans to resist future moves to unjustified war. Lives -- American and otherwise -- are in the balance. Remember that next November.
Every time I read you, Chris, I’m reminded of why I have the email alert activated. Extremely well written and researched. Good Journalism. With your permission, I’d like to link to your article.
Chris, thank GOD there are people like you reporting out there. You are one of the few ‘voices in the wilderness’ that say something other than the parroted party line. I will be linking to this article, also, and forwarding on to my daughter. Her husband, my son-in-law Meran Abdullah, is in Northern Iraq as I write this, in Kurdistan as he calls it. He is from the north himself originally. He’s there doing translation and interpreter work for a DoD contractor, has been there for a few weeks now with no end in sight. We are all very concerned with where the country is going (USA and Iraq both)…I am sick to my stomach with the way our government arrogantly espouses high values and at the same time are hypocrits with others…
The state of the U.S. today is pretty depressing, isn’t it? Those who can clearly see the danger that is upon us are flabbergasted at how unconcerned and ill-informed our neighbors are. Once a week a group of us stand out on a street corner in our local town and hold a “peace vigil” with protest signs. This is the first time I’ve ever done anything like this … and let me tell you, some of what gets shouted at us from passing cars is appalling. Like this gem: “Iraqis deserve to die. They’re less than human!” That from a man with two children in the car with him. What indeed is happening to us?
By the way, I hate to make your sad story even sadder, but I’ve done much research into coalition military deaths in Iraq since March 20th … not an easy task considering our own government makes no effort to keep a list. I’m afraid 32 American soldiers have died in Iraq since May 1st. The Daily KOS at
http://www.dailykos.com/archives/002872.html#002872
generously posted my figures this afternoon.
This is one little thing that we can all do … stay informed and on top of the situation. Thanks so much, Chris, for helping us all to do just that.
Pat, I echo your last comment. We do indeed need to stay informed. One thing that I’ve been hearing from more than a few friends and acquaintances is that they have stopped reading the newspaper or watching the news. Worse, these are the folks who I know were shocked by the invasion and the bellicose attitude of the Bush administration. Has anybody else been hearing these sentiments?
Chris, I also echo Pat’s appreciation for what you’re writing. Thanks for the help.
Those who feared EXACTLY this result talked ourselves blue in the face to citizens who did not give a damn prior to this ill-advised, poorly conceived war; it is not surprising they still don’t give a damn. It flies in the face of nature to expect good things from such a political climate.
I will never understand how Americans can stomach having a leadership comprised of a rich, spoilt underachiever supported by yes-(wo)men and tunnel-eyed megalomaniacs with hearts set on their own grandeur and fortunes. The American beer-n-Cheetos mentality has allowed these ghouls to seize control of our country, and the Scrub admin will indulge its lying, self-righteous whims as far and as long as it is allowed. With the U.S. as the world’s superpower, I cannot even imagine what could save us from ourselves now. The phrase “I told you so” wouldn’t begin to express what I’d like to tell the warmongers right now, even if they were listening (which they are not.)
It will not take long for Dubya to begin casting about for serious scapegoats to blame. His last resort will be that since he is blameless and called by God to his position, God must be punishing the rest of us sinners who will not follow Dubya by allowing terrible events to occur. After which ALL hell will break loose.
I agree with all comments so far. The thing that we all forget, because we are so horrified at the dreadful situation the Iraqi people have been left with, (also not forgetting Afghanistan, abandoned by us after we decimated that country) ..we forget that Bush and co do not care. They don’t care because they are getting what they want. We may be talking about oil.. or power in the middle east of a different kind. Time will tell. If I am right, Tehran is just one stop along a very long road of aggression and terrorism.. on the part of the “coalition of the willing”. It wont end until either a) Bush gets ousted in 2004, or b) He and his cronies have marched across Iran, Syria and half of Saudi Arabia as well (and Egypt as far as the Nile)..whichever comes first.
Adventures like these so predictably peter out into a more-or-less permanent (albeit often unreported) state of impoverishing, brutalising and bloody belligerence. We are obliged either to believe the starry-eyed idealogues responsible for this tragedy simply had no idea, or that their strategy had incorporated continuing strife (with its attendant pretexts) into their plans. Either way, this festering horror is now perpetuated by a tide of smug xenophobic nationalism and wilful ignorance, and we can but hope fine work like yours helps dampen darkly destructive emotions that reflect appallingly on the bulk of a privileged Anglo-Saxon world in crisis.
Adventures like these so predictably peter out into a more-or-less permanent (albeit often unreported) state of impoverishing, brutalising and bloody belligerence. We are obliged either to believe the starry-eyed idealogues responsible for this tragedy simply had no idea, or that their strategy had incorporated continuing strife (with its attendant pretexts) into their plans. Either way, this festering horror is now perpetuated by a tide of smug xenophobic nationalism and wilful ignorance, and we can but hope fine work like yours helps dampen darkly destructive emotions that reflect appallingly on the bulk of a privileged Anglo-Saxon world in crisis.
Why not just blow up the two mobile labs found? Because even then there would be evidence of chemicals. They HAVE to be decontaminated, you dolt. How many chemical labs does it take to produce enough bio-chemical agents to kill thousands? Answer: ONE. You people act like if we don’t find 15 thousand chemical weapons then everything was sooo cool that we had no reason to take out Saddam. Ask the relatives of the more than 350,000 people who were tortured, maimed, and killed if we shouldn’t have gone in there. Go ahead…ask them. You continue to spout off about everything that’s gone wrong. Try a little honest and 2-sided reporting for a change Chris. Or would that deplete the amount of money you receive from all you little Frenchie Friends who have the audacity to call themselves American Citizens? Hopefully, you’ll wake up and realize that the incomplete information you’re putting out there does nothing but harm and divide. While your’re quoting Paul Wolfowitz, why don’t you quite the entire statement he made instead of the part that justifies your existence on earth? Answer the questions Chris..go ahead…I dare you.
Minor quibble: I thought the Polish command was going to be in northern Iraq.
And thanks Keith, you’ve just inspired me to add to Chris’ war chest.
Vaara— According to Deutshce Press-Agentur, it’s command of the region between Baghdad and Basra, which is central-south… Polish News Agency says either in the north or in central-south region. I’ll add that it’s in one of those two regions.
Keith— Your comments basically prove my point. When WMD aren’t found in any significant amount — which were the war’s stated raison d’etre (couldn’t resist the French phrase, sorry) — you fall back on Saddam’s brutality, conveniently ignoring that you were misled. Or perhaps you don’t care, now that America stands triumphant. There is no doubt that most people in Iraq are very, very happy that Saddam is out of power, but the question I raise is, was the means to achieve that result worth the damage to American credibility? You might also want to check out Fred Kaplan’s piece on Slate about the BW trailers: http://slate.msn.com/id/2083760/
Rob Schapp:
“Or would that deplete the amount of money you receive from all you little Frenchie Friends who have the audacity to call themselves American Citizens”
Is it me, or does that comment have racism in it. For the record, Rob, I am an American citizen who thinks that Chirs’s reporting is one of the few few that hold merit and have a respect for the truth. On top of that, I also feel that when you group massive amounts of diverse people with many differing viewpoints, and turn them into one stereo type in which to vent all of your personal anger and problems towards, it is wrong. I don’t need to give the list, but in just case someone doesn’t get it: The Blacks, The Jews in WWII (extreme example), and now the French (to a MUCH lessor degree, but it is still the same thing).
I have nothing against someone making a good case for or against why we went to war, but to name call the “Frenchies” is repulsive, childish, and absurd.
I’m very sorry Rob Schapp, it was Kieth Randolph who held the position agaist French people.
My apologies…
Gerald
Mr. Schapp:
Here are the quotes from the transcript of the interview with Wolfowitz that mention WMD:
Wolfowitz: —The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but (interruption of the conversation)…
there have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there’s a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two.
The transcript is fascinating. I haven’t read the actual article, but see no need to. I agree it’s more than odd that we have found no WMD, but I’m not ready to say the administration lied about Iraq having WMD. We all know they did have such weapons because they were discovered after GW1. They had plenty of opportunity to produce documentation of destruction but they did not. What should reasonable people conclude?
The administration never said WMD was the only reason for war. They said it was the most important concern, of several concerns. Sec. Powell, in his UN presentation, spoke quite specifically about the terrorist training camp in Kurdistan,which we found and destroyed; and about the Al Qaeda terrorist who had, if I remember correctly, been treated in a Baghdad hospital (I believe that person was just recently arrested in Baghdad).
I just don’t believe they sold us a complete fabrication.
Now, that being said, I do agree the ongoing debacle is tragic and unforgivable. The utter lack of preparation for dealing with what clearly we knew to be the living conditions of the people even before our troops went in is an indictment for which Bush should be held fully accountable.
Here’s some interesting and encouraging reading.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F06%2F01%2Fwsteyn01.xml
Chris, have you seen the recent Asia Times article on
“The Saddam Intifada”?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EE28Ak02.html
Is this really what we should be focusing on? It seems the question on many minds here is “Were we intentionally deceived?” when it should be “Is the world a better place now?”
Were we intentionally deceived? It seems the answer to this is most likely yes. The administration clearly exaggerated the strength of its intelligence regarding WMD. Yes, we may yet find them, but I’m sure we’ve already followed up on the leads that the administration was using to prop up the case for war. If they do turn up at this point, it will be due to intelligence gathered on the ground post-war, not any that was used to justify invasion.
Do I care that we were deceived? absolutely. this is major egg on the face of the administration. It, in fact, appears to be the beginnings of a significant scandal that may have a real impact on the 2004 election.
Conservatives (like this Keith Randolph) will continue to bleat about the righteousness of the war in spite of increasingly clear evidence that GWB was not completely forthright about his motivations for war. They are consumed by a tribalistic necessity to defend his behavior, however dishonest and even, yes, unamerican it gets. They will perform ridiculous rhetorical contortions to defend “America” even when she has slipped up. They have always done this and as such should be ignored.
But these issues are essentially politics. All this makes for great fodder on the red vs. blue boards, but in an honest discussion of this war, shouldn’t we be focusing on other things? Yes, GWB and friends have been dishonest in selling this war, but if the net effect of all this is positive, I’m satisfied. I still think that the administration is deceitful and should not serve another term, but I am satisfied with the consequences of the war.
Reconstruction has been difficult so far, but has certainly not yet failed. If we pull this off, and Iraq can even form a not-completely-dysfuctional democracy, the country will be better off than under a brutal, fascist dictatorship. And yes, it is tragic that civilians died during the war, but the harsh reality is that another decade of Saddam’s fascist dictatorship would have killed no fewer.
I think that by dismissing the positive effects of this war with statements like “There is no doubt that most people in Iraq are very, very happy that Saddam is out of power, but…” we are guilty of the same close-mindedness of many Bush supporters. Is it worth damaging America’s reputation to (eventually) improve the lives of millions?
I say yes.
Okay, Raging etc. (nice try, Jerquebal). While all of the world outside the Ba’ath Party celebrates Saddam’s death, virtual or actual, there is a bit of dissonance in the argument that the end was justified by the means. I cut-and-paste a dispute between me and a fellow American on the BBC’s web site (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3033959.stm, click on Martin Bell’s comments).
Peter R had this to say: I believe that Martin Bell has the same character as a Neville Chamberlain. In ten years we will have to search history’s dustbins to find any reference to Bell’s belief (implied) that the Iraq citizens and their children would prefer existence under Saddam and his sons rather than liberty. Liberty is never free, and those who pay the price do so for their children.
To which I replied: Peter R doubts that Iraqis and their children would prefer existence under Saddam and his sons over liberty. They proved that they did by not acting to procure their own liberty for the nearly 30 years of Saddam’s reign. Remember, we fought for our own liberty from the British 227 years ago. The Confederacy fought for liberty from the Union and lost. Last century, we fought twice in Europe, first against an empire and then against the Third Reich, which was trying to take all of Europe, and had eyes to take or tame the whole world. We lost 30,000+ men fighting China in Korea, and then went to fight world communism in Vietnam, even after Lyndon Johnson stated that we shouldn’t send American boys to fight for South Vietnamese boys. Now, it appears that our own administration is trying to take or tame the whole world (http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html). Iraq will not be free until we leave. More and more, it looks like we are in no hurry to leave.
Someone (kyte) said
“we are so horrified at the dreadful situation the Iraqi people have been left with, (also not forgetting Afghanistan, abandoned by us after we decimated that country)”
Are we on the same planet? Even Salam Pax says that without a US invasion, Saddam and sons would have ruled Iraq until the end of time. And do you have any idea what “decimation” means?
Here’s an article by a peace activist who left Iraq before the war because he didn’t like what he saw, and has since returned. He describes the people as complaining about current conditions, yes, but as being happpy to have the Americans as long as we want to stay because they are afraid of their own potential leaders.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030602-042705-8259r
Regarding the “lack of concern among many Americans, who are shirking their responsibility to demand answers from the White House…” I have been emailing my senators, congressman, and the White House for weeks about the fact that we are responsible for stabilizing Iraq and getting basic services going. I want to know what is being done and why is it taking so long, and I have gotten no answers from any of them. Am I the only one doing this and is this why I hear nothing from my representatives in Congress? Please, everybody, start emailing, snailmailing, or telephoning your members of Congress about the obvious lack of organization for the rebuilding of Iraq. We are responsible, we can’t allow this mess to continue to stagnate, and if the Congress finds out we are impatient with lack of planning they will have to demand an accounting of the administration. Remember, next year is an election year.
I’m now living in the USA was born and lived for 16 years in EAST Berlin and 10 years in a UNITED Berlin my Grandfather died in WWII my father was active in the underground against the east german government I myself was demonstrating on the streets of east berlin.
Three things I learned from all this.
History prooves it.
Thats why I feel so sorry for people like Rob Schaap
the fall of the wall proves that.
80 Million people freed themselves, and yes it took 40 years and people gave their life for it, but they were attacked not the attacker!
Quote of the day: “They were from Syria, Jordan, and one was even from France,” said Mohammad Mohammad, a man sitting next to Saleh. “Of course they were going to kill the Americans, everyone hates the Americans.”
(Re: the American attack on a suspected terrorist training camp five and a half miles from Rawah, Iraq on 6-12-03). Here’s the article, if you care to read it in its entirety.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/6084224.htm
Well, we’ve really shown the world what freedom is and why we were justified in declaring war on Iraq to free the people from Hussein, haven’t we? It gets sicker and scarier by the day.
Worst of all is that this was pretty forseeable if you knew anything about the country. Even I could see this coming: http://www.beekiller.net/Truth/566/index.html
I’m just worried about what’s coming next.
“Even Salam Pax says that without a US invasion, Saddam and sons would have ruled Iraq until the end of time.”
Yes, but Saddam made sure the electricity was (most) always on in Baghdad. (By hanging on meathooks any men who messed with electrical distribution equipment. And their families, for good measure.)
Good man, Saddam Hussein. One of the many fine leftist leaders that the 20th century was blessed with.
Mr. Bahner forgets that Saddam Hussein was installed in power by the CIA and given billions of dollars and weapons including chemical and biological weapons precursors by Ronald Reagan and GHW Bush.
Leftist? The reality is somewhat different.
The Republicans are indifferent to having told lies because that is how the Party functions. In one of the great ironies of history, it has become, as Michael Lind pointed out, Leninist in nature, gathering more and more raw power to itself until at last the facade of democracy will collapse to reveal the sick and twisted innards.
What has enveloped Washington and the elite media is a Culture of Lies, a malignant narcissism that refuses to admit error and a malignant longing for power masked, ironically, as libertarianism.
As Orwell pointed out, constant war is needed to keep people from thinking about what is happening. Lies are essential not so much to persuade people, but as a means of indoctrinating them into a corrupt process— the Party says that Eastasia has always been our ally, and so that is true even though your brother was killed fighting them.
Orwell called it “doublethink”. The Republican Party calls it “loyalty”.
Well said and keep up the good work !
See my Iraq Intifada page for other articles - including a good analysis by Daily Telegraph journalist, Sean Rayment, on the contribution the tactics used by the US occupation forces have made to the problem.
Well said and keep up the good work !
See my Iraq Intifada page for other articles - including a good analysis by Daily Telegraph journalist, Sean Rayment, on the contribution the tactics used by the US occupation forces have made to the problem.