Khaled described the workings of a loosely organized network of former Baath Party members, Iraqi soldiers, intelligence officers and other die-hard Hussein supporters who have been responsible for an unknown number of the attacks that have killed 29 U.S. soldiers and injured dozens since May 1. He said the network operates in cells of five or six members that answer to a secret leadership structure. It goes by various names -- the Fedayeen, the Iraq Liberation Army, Muhammad's Army -- and Khaled said only a handful of people know its full reach. He said its members draw inspiration from Hussein and from the belief that the ousted Iraqi leader is alive and will regain power once U.S. troops are forced to leave.
What has the United States marched its troops into? A quagmire? An abattoir? I respectfully disagree with other sites that the U.S. should bring the troops home by Christmas. While I resent that the men and women I met while in the war were lied to and put in harm's way for a myriad of shifting rationales, the fact of the matter is that Iraq is a mess. Pulling out the troops now would make it even worse, if you can believe that. Iraq is a dangerous place, full of dangerous men. Saddam's regime terrorized his people leaving resentments, fury and the urge for revenge. If the U.S. pulled out before the country was stabilized, there would be a civil war that might spill over into Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia. The Kurds would be massacred as Turkey and Iran move in to protect their interests. The Persian Gulf would be impassable. Energy infrastructure from Basra to Baku in Azerbaijan would be destroyed, slower or otherwise impaired. The world's economy would grind to a halt. And the real danger to the West, al Qa'ida, would be able to operate much more freely. That's not to say there aren't any alternatives, but none of them are very good. Turning Iraq over to a U.N. trust to be administered and policed by the body is a popular one. That's a tough call, however. Iraq would be the biggest project of this kind ever undertaken by the United Nations, and its track record is mixed. Any realistic U.N.-sanctioned force needed to establish security would have to include a sizable portion of Americans -- if only for logistical purposes -- who would be even less welcome in Baghdad a second time around. Avoiding additional ill will would probably require placing American troops under an Islamic command, possibly Turkish or Pakistani. Can anyone really imagine any president, Republican or Democrat, doing that? Many, many opposed this war -- I did. I thought it was a mistake of colossal magnitude -- still do. U.S. troops face 10 to 25 attacks _a day,_ and, as Khaled implied, it will get likely worse. The choices available are all bad. Simply put, *the Americans can't stay, but neither can they leave.* What they call "liberation," _tahrir_ in Arabic, too many Iraqis are calling _ihtilal,_ -- "occupation," with the overtones of the Christian Crusades, the Mongol sacking of Baghdad in the 13th century, the divvying up of the region between Britain and France after World War I and the Israeli presence in Lebanon and the occupied territories. As Salon.com writer Nir Rosen says:
The most common refrain one hears from Iraqis these days is: "They came as liberators and now they are occupiers." The significance of the liberation vs. occupation debate can get lost in translation here, but its immense political implications were evident in a June 2 meeting, hosted by the Coalition Provisional Authority, for nearly 300 tribal leaders of all religions and ethnic groups. Hume Horan, a political advisor to Bremer, also was present. Horan, a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia and fluent Arabic speaker, addressed the audience in Arabic about the coalition's efforts and its need for Iraqi support. After Horan finished speaking, Sheik Munther Abood from Amarra thanked President Bush for removing the Baath regime of Saddam Hussein and stated that he had seen the mass graves full of dead Shias in the south and was firmly opposed to Saddam. He then asked Horan if the coalition forces in Iraq were liberators or occupiers. Horan responded that they were "somewhere in between occupier and liberator." This was not well received by the audience. Sheik Abood stated that if America was a liberator, then the coalition forces were welcome indefinitely as guests, but that if they were occupiers, then he and his descendants would "die resisting" them. This met with energetic applause from the audience. Several other sheiks echoed the same sentiment. Then the meeting deteriorated and a third of the audience stood up and walked out, despite efforts by Horan and other organizers to encourage them to stay. At which point the meeting ended. It was not a public relations success.
Is it any wonder people like Khaled find support? "The guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea," Mao once said. (He also said, "Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive factor; it is people, not things, that are decisive." Khaled and people like him are proving Mao right.) All Americans should be aware of the agonizing position Team Bush has put them in. There are few good solutions to this that will a) benefit the Iraqi people and respect their dignity and sovereignty, and b) keep the region stable and secure while reducing American casualties. The answers that do look viable -- pumping massive quantities of aid and money aimed at rebuilding the country's infrastructure and dealing with Iraqis on their terms and not on the Americans' -- don't seem to on the table in Washington and Baghdad. Perhaps it's just not in this White House's political DNA to deal with anyone except at gunpoint. ("Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." -- Mao, again.) Former CENTCOM commander Tommy Franks says the world is facing a four-year presence in Iraq. So, electing a Democrat into the White House in 2004 won't be a solution. As I've argued above, the chaos and anarchy that would result in a premature pullout will force any president to maintain a sizable presence in Iraq. (Americans should still turn Bush and his cronies out on their collective ass, though. The list of reasons to do so other than Iraq are encyclopedic.) The comments from Khaled, Franks, Horan and Sheik Abood remind me of the apocryphal story told of the encounter between an American colonel and his North Vietnamese counterpart at the Paris Peace Conference. "You know," the American said, "you never defeated us on the battlefield." His counterpart responded: "That may be so, but it is also irrelevant."
The Bush administration seems to have prepared a substantial ‘poison pill’ for its successors. This consists of, on the one hand, the deficit and on the other, Iraq, which has the potential to drag on for a lot longer or to die down, smoulder and then flare up again. And meanwhile America’s credibility abroad is in tatters, which will make getting things done in future just that much harder.
If Bush wins again in 2004, I expect he will adopt diversionary tactics to distract attention away from ongoing problems, but those may have the effect of simply worsening the problems in the long-run, or creating new ones. If a Democratic candidate wins, s/he will face the challenge of digging the country out of the mess that Bush and friends have got it into. I don’t know how eager I’d be to run for office under those conditions.
We should just admit that we truly are in a World War III. This is both a scary and exciting time to be alive in the greater scope of world history. Not that I wish this were the case. I’m on the side of peace but the interdependence of one nation’s state of affairs upon another’s is very fascinating to this armchair political scientist.
World War IV if you count the Cold War as World War III…
What a mess. Hard choices face us and as you stated, none of them good. I still can’t believe that the operation couldn’t have been handled better than it has been. This has the all the earmarks of too many chefs spoiling the broth…with the ‘head chef’ (aka Bush) not giving the leadership that this should have had. Where are the dialogues between our leadership and theirs? It certainly doesn’t seem prominent if it does exist. We should be seeing the tribal leadership/sheiks in talks with our people, getting publicity, aggressive rebuilding plans being announced with specific ideas (along with actual projects being started and demonstrated/publicized). Am I missing them? Do these exist?
Remember when certain green party members stated that there was no difference between Gore and Bush??? Well I wonder what they are thinking now. Gore would have sent troops into Afganistan but I doubt he would have attacked Iraq. Bush is systematically dismantling American’s Rights. He is ensuring the deaths of many G.I’s. Iraqi women are being raped at a much higher rate. And now the lovely Islamists are making the womens lives more miserable and repressive by enforcing strict sharia law. You don’t hear about this from our media except for the News Hour with Jim Lehr PBS (best channel) He is totally destroying the middle and lower classes. They are destroying labor to compensate big business for all of the bizillions of money they have given bush. Now this bastard is trying to take away over time compensation. They are going to be able to re-classify job categories for anyone making over 22K a year. Bush has such impeccable timing…changing the labor laws as middle american families are struggling to make ends meat. I feel sorry for the next democrat that beats bush because they are going to inherit his MESS! They are going to be the next Lyndon Johnson. God help us all!
One thing we have to face is that these guys are going to have to have a place in whatever government results from this mess, or they will turn on it, too. We can’t just dismiss them as a group. And neither we nor the UN nor NATO nor a reconstituted Iraqi government can kill them all or round them all up. How do we bring them in? CAN we bring them in? If not, civil war is inevitable.
“We should just admit that we truly are in a World War III. This is both a scary and exciting time to be alive in the greater scope of world history”
that is the dumbest piece of shit i ever heard
WW? what how could you say that this is a world war?
Well, gosh Steve … could it be that Farid made the statement about “world war” because Farid believes it to be true? And, if Farid believes it to be true, do you think you might ask why Farid believes it to be true before you go broadcasting your churlish ignorance by spewing coarse expletives in the midst of poorly articulated, unpunctuated speech?
I’m with Farid. This is a world war.
It is a clash of civilizations: Western vs. Islamic, unfortunately.
To chris (anonymous@anonymous.net), I disavow the comments posted anonymously below MY comments. Tweren’t me. Further, I agree with your assessment of the anonymous comments.
Personally, I think it could very well become a world war, and the train is headed in that direction. Advanced Calculus notes that is a clash of civilizations. I see it in more religious tones, though, as Judeo-Christianity vs Islam. But it is only a limited clash at this point. More strictly, it is a clash between evangelical Protestant Christianity and Zionism vs the Arab world. Being a pure ignorant agnostic, I don’t have a dog in that fight. But I do have a personal stake in the outcome.
Some odd alliances are forming. Pakistan, an Islamic republic, is an ally. Other states surrounding Afghanistan are Islamic republics, too, and are, if not allies, ambivalent. Afghanistan itself is likely to become an Islamic republic, too, if their constitutional council members are to be believed.
(If you follow the news from the Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty web site, you know that there is increasing tension between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Border clashes and a battle [not quite war] of words. The Pashto nationalists are ascendant. The Taliban are back, and we’re negotiating with them. The warlords are biding their time.)
Saudi Arabia? The government is an ally; the people, an enemy. Israel and Palestine? A powderkeg, as usual. The Road Map, with its million-mile-long border encompassing settlements with cherry-stemmed roadways, is likely doomed.
Well, I shot off the track there a bit - I’m on my second martini. Hope the chris who dropped the note on me reads this and finds out that, in the words of Voltaire, while I disagree with the things Mr. Anonymous said, I will defend to the death his right to broadcast his churlish ignorance by spewing coarse expletives in the midst of poorly articulated, unpunctuated speech.
We muddle on.
If war aims are stated which seem to be concerned solely with Anglo-American imperialism, they will offer little to people in the rest of the world … The interests of other peoples should be stressed … This would have a better propaganda effect. (From a private memo between Council on Foreign Relations and U.S. State Department, 1941)
The Iraqi State has been demolished, under the irrepressible weight of American bombs and United Nations silent acquiescence.
What was sold as a mortal battle against “weapons of mass destruction,” has morphed into a fight against “Saddam”, to “liberate” the Iraqi oppressed; those who were bombed weeks ago will soon host a horde of American companies which will earn billions to rebuild the shattered infrastructure (shattered by over 12 years of UN diplomatic and Anglo-American aggression).
Are there ‘weapons of mass destruction’?
Who cares? That was yesterday; this is today, the corporate media seems to be suggesting. The American people seem more interested in what will be on TV tonight than the reasons why war is waged, in their name.
There is a reason why Americans seem to not give a damn. First, because the bombed and blitzed were Arabs (which is the polite term we use, rather than the British ‘wog’, or the American ‘sand nigger’). Second, this isn’t the first time that the government used a lie to bring their citizens to a war fever.
Just over a decade ago, when the U.S. wanted to whip the American people into a killing frenzy, they brought out the ‘Kuwaiti stolen incubators’ story, complete with a weeping maiden who tell a chosen coterie of congressmen about the ruthless raids of Iraqi troops into Kuwaiti hospitals. The administration’s tales of horror tore into the guts of every mother and father, and before long, American troops were sending tens of thousands of Iraqis to paradise on the Highway of Death back to Baghdad. Of course, the maiden’s story was a false media ploy which garnered airtime all around the earth. The ‘maiden’, a member of the Kuwaiti ruling family, the al-Sabah’s, wasn’t even in the country at the time of the Iraqi incursion; one, incidentally, that happened because the U.S., through its Ambassador April Glaspie, gave personal assurances to President Hussein that the U.S. would “have no opinion on… your border dispute with Kuwait.”
After Gulf War I, then-General Colin Powell lamented at the loss of American whipping boys; “Think hard about it. I’m running out of demons. I’m running out of villains.” (Toronto Star, April 9, 1991). To U.S. eyes, Saddam Hussein was deeply useful, one way, or another. When the Islamic Revolution sent the late ‘Shah’ into retirement, the U.S. cuddled up to Hussein, and armed him to the gills to wage a vicious proxy war on the Iranians. For almost a decade, the two nations engaged in a mutual bloodfest, which sputtered to an end after a million people were dead.
They now need what’s under Iraqi sands much more than they needed Hussein, and they had to manufacture a reason for war that would send chills down American spines. Enter: “weapons of mass destruction.”
Like the ‘incubator’ story (which pictured Iraqis throwing Kuwaiti children onto cold hospital floors, while looting the joint of incubators), the evocation of “weapons of mass destruction” played on American fears kindled by the fires of 9/11.
And now, after weeks of sand-sifting by the armed forces, and with no iota of such weapons found, the Bush Administration insists that the war was waged to “liberate” the Iraqis from a brutal tyrant. The very forces that supported his tyranny decades ago, now insists it wants to ‘free’ the people from it.
What about the wars to come? Iran? Syria?
What sweet lies will the U.S. propaganda machine spin for the American people?
Which lies will work (again)?
Copyright 2003 Mumia Abu-Jamal
Has any one forgot the first scenes of the Mad Max III, colapsing world as a result of a human greed ? Word demokracy has lost it`s credibility. Insted globalisation is a therm of future.
For everyone who is blind, it is the end of the world as we used to know !
Eleya
Thanx for the astute insight into the ongoing problems of Iraq. I take the point that the US may cause more harm to the Iraqi peoples if it withdraws now. I wonder however, if continuing occupation of Iraq may actually unite the Iraqis as never before, ie the “common enemy” factor.
As many of you have noted- I think the US is making some of the same mistakes that were made in an earlier jaunt a la Vietnam ( Viet Cong Movement not NVA ). Here’s some of the evidence:
(1) US force build-up; US combat troops are increasing ( now - July 2003 at 148K) with some decrease on UK side. Clearly forces on the ground are not sufficient to achieve the longer term objectives = democratization and ” self determination. It appears that security and getting things back to ” normal” are the focus. I think that the recent ” policy decision” to keep combat troops in Theatre has been made in full recognition that “opposition forces” are getting stronger and more bolder. Besides - do you really want to let combat troops back into CONUS and let word leak out about the real SITREP in Iraq? I expect that by the end of 2003, you can expect total US forces to be around 170-180K.
(2) Since US force structure during Vietnam was based on the Draft - you’re not going to see that process ( I hope) but you might expect to see increased Reserve Units activate - as a counterpoint to Draft and deploy either to free up Regular Units or operate in more ” garrison” roles in Iraq. Perhaps you will start to see domestic resistance by Reservist on Iraqi Orders ( probably too early)
(3) Vietnamization Augmentation: The US has already started down this model with the establishment of the NEW Iraqi Army. Expect troop strengths to rise well above 10K and see the counter reaction by Iraqi ” rebels”.
(4) Cambodian incursions: Expect to see ” hot pursuit” incidents to rise into surrounding countries {Syria - Iran - Turkey - Jordan}. Naturally the risk here is ” escalation of the conflict” to neighboring states and increased chances that some hard-ass general will suggest and get approval for some ” secret operations” that will change more minds of the local ” Arab Street”.
(5) Viet Cong & the Party: What already exists in place are thousands of Baathist functionaries and other ” Fighters” ( Shiites, Fadayeen, Ex-Military, Families of KIA, WIA from either Gulf War 1 or 2) that all feel they have sufficient gravitas to ” resist the occupation or fight for revenge”. Clearly, the ” Heroic Fighter” example” is one replete in Arabic and Persian culture both religiously and historically ( colonialism). Although each of these diverse movements may tear each other apart (absent a common enemy ), the US has given them a focal point that multiplies the larger threat.
(6). Outside ” Brother In Arms” Support: As in Vietnam, the outside contributions by other nations, groups or movements may become a significant factor in how long a resistance to US occupation can be sustained. Certainly, as these Movements become more established, their (regional) image could play an important role in generating support ( recruits and/or money) for the Heroic Fighters of Iraq. Local rulers and elites in surrounding countries will think two or three times before aligning themselves too closely with the USA’s regional and Iraqi policies - if their citizens feel that the Heroic Fighters of Iraq are the rightful benefactors of their country’s support.
(7) Domestic Political Erosion. Like Vietnam, the ” Bring ‘em On” attitude was the first bloom of US cockiness and confidence before US political support faded and domestic ” strife” rose. Here in the globally connected and internet linked world, that change in support is already starting to be seen. The timeliness of the next election ( 2004) will probably accelerate the whole ” discussion” but could result in a no win for the US anyway as ” Abandoning Iraq ” is probably not an option. This factor is probably where the Vietnam model loses its relevance as how or what the USA does here is probably new ground ( in terms of policy). There are so many options and avenues that the USA could take here that it clearly would be a guess as to how it would turn out.
(8) Fall of Saigon 1975. Unless the USA intends to stay for years and years ( like in Germany ), whatever regime that is put in place by US Forces will by its own birthright - fall from grace. Hopefully, a NEW regime would take something from the previous but it could go radically left or ultra religious.
COMMENT:
NONE of this is ANY business of the United States other than the FACT that it is the United States that brought about the conditions that create the opportunity for chaos!
Iraqis do not NEED the USA and the IRAQIS are consistently DEMANDING the USA leave IRAQ!
What don’t you get? What it is that you get is all those phony reasons for invasion and occupation! Your rationale proffered for US troops remaining in Iraq fits quite well with the rationale embedded in the “phony reasons” dogma. Unlike the poor, ignorant and stupid in the United States, the mentality that government is the “parental” guidance that is necessary for their welfare is not a “state of mind” shared by the Iraqis. In fact, the Iraqis know who they are-it is the citizens of the US who lack knowledge and any comprehension of that fact.
Leave the Iraqis alone and they will take care of themselves (believe that or not)! Furthermore, Iraq had a government and whether the US and/or any of its citizens thought ill of that government is immaterial. What is material is that the US (what the US citizens are not getting) has the audacity to force its will upon a people and then miserably fail to resonate is its false description of the Iraqi government upon the rest of the world, which is precisely what the rest of the world’s people were stating prior to the conflict and warned of the consequences the US is currently facing. Even in the face of the disaster, the US is still clinging to the attitude, “it knows best what is good for other people and what is in their best interest”. Does it require a rather brutal and absolute humiliation to the US, before it will ultimately get the “big picture”? People are capable of doing for themselves and the Iraqis are determined that the US will not govern them and keep its paws on Iraq’s natural resources. Unfortunately, there will be so many more lives added to list of dead because of “mass” distribution of conversations such as your proposition proffered here. It is sad, indeed! The tragedy of the unending nerve-racking pain the US troops must endure, facing a realization that they were lied to and deceived into projecting such harsh brutality upon a “defenseless” people; and, in the face of that, they must remain amidst the horror and confront those who survived that horror. No, it is not a pretty picture for any of the participants.
Now, the thing the US troops and the Iraqis have in common is that both sides are forced into a predicament neither desires and defenseless to do anything about! HOW SAD! Especially for the US troops, who put their lives on the line for what they perceived as being for the defense of their country and countrymen and those same countrymen will not even come to their rescue-knowing that they were sent under false pretenses! Aren’t you ashamed of yourself? Get up off of your bottom and GO fight for those TROOPS! Get Washington to BRING THEM HOME! Iraq never asked for them (US and UK troops), do not want them (US and UK troops) and most of all, DO NOT NEED them (US and UK troops)!
Additionally, America must give up its ill-gotten gain-oil and the overthrow of a legitimate government. That is why the rest of the world refuses to assist in restoration of Iraq and will not submit troops until the “official” Iraq government is in place-not a group of handpicked persons that are selected by the United States. It would be a great thing should the US get the “big picture” without further humiliation and degradation of the United States and the people of the United States. It would be the “right” thing to do!
Lastly, the government of Saddam Hussein must be restored! The war was illegal and built upon lies and deception. Calling for US troops to remain because of “dangerous men”, “chaos” or any other episode resulting from the illegal war waged against Iraq is a continuation of the deceit and an effort to keep all that ill-gotten gain-oil. How pathetic! Integrity just walked out the door when America cast her eyes upon the sea of oil and gas, to be placed under her exclusive control, but the world has spoken to the contrary; this “exclusive control” of Iraq’s oil by the United States will not hold, especially with the world’s aid. It is so sad that America can’t get that without further death and destruction.
RE: the government of Saddam Hussein must be restored! … Integrity just walked out the door when America cast her eyes upon the sea of oil and gas …
Hey-hey, now, do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Recall that Hussein was installed only thru the aid of the U.S. and other powers-that-were at the time. As such, his government could not be called legitimate, and the Iraqis should be left alone to set up their own, new government in order to achieve legitimacy.
Point 2: LEGITIMACY. That’s what we need in the U.S. Integrity walked out the door promptly on election day when Bush began his ridiculous takeover of our government. It is not “the United States” or “America” causing all the chaos and destruction. It is Dubya & Co. The rest of us are protesting, signing impeachment petitions and pouring all of our disposable income into anti-war and pro-people endeavors. Do NOT blame Scrub’s sins on us all.
Your first link on “says the resistance is organized, growing and ruthless” now goes to some nonsensical cartoon. I wonder why.