Liberating Iraq and Other Lies

national | anti-war / imperialism | opinion/analysis

Thursday December 15, 2005 17:21

by Haffajaffa

organiseireland at yahoo dot ie

Liberating Iraq and Other Lies

…whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … 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 pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.
--- Hermann Goering at the Nuremberg Trials

For centuries, pillage by invading armies was a normal part of warfare … Nowadays, at least in more civilised countries, we do not let armies rampage for booty. We leave the pillaging to the men in suits, and we don’t call it pillaging anymore. We call it economic development.
--- Brian Whitaker, the Guardian

Those who don’t remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
--- George Santayana, ‘Life of Reason’

Our ‘elected’ leaders are liars and hypocrites. We rolled our eyes in superior disbelief last year when George Bush jr. was ‘legitimately’ elected emperor of the world for the first time (Gore won in 2000). Last May only 27% of the British electorate (apparently possessing goldfish-like memories) elected an insidious liar and war criminal to be prime minister for another five years.
Despite the desperate myths spread recently from the bowels of the neo-Labour party machine, Tony Blair and his morally degenerate cabal have the blood of many innocents on their hands. Last October the highly-regarded Lancet medical journal published its comprehensive survey of Iraqi households to put a figure on civilian casualties since the invasion began of 100, 000, a shocking and disgusting total, immediately dismissed by the government as flawed research (can’t trust those damn towel-heads, eh?), and a toothless and consent-manufacturing mass media generally ignored or quickly buried the story.
The last few weeks have seen momentous events threaten to unravel the Blair administration’s neatly packaged web of deceit. Covered properly elsewhere in this publication, the London bombings on 7 July brought the oxymoronical ‘war on terror’ and its consequences starkly and brutally home. These particular evil-doers were British citizens, so with no foreign country to carpet bomb into oblivion the only response the government can come up with is to lurch ever more to the Right, murdering innocent people and eroding civil liberties as they go.
An increasingly ridiculous Blair denies that the illegal invasion of Iraq and its turbulent aftermath has anything to do with the attacks on Britain, despite the Royal Institute of International Affairs warning to the contrary. And the small matter, again relatively suppressed by the media, of Al-Qaida’s second in command appearing on television to state explicitly that the prime minister’s “policies brought you destruction in central London and will bring you more destruction.”
It is a blindingly obvious fact that the terror wrought on the Iraqi people by the British/US war machine has enraged many potential Islamist militants and has engendered terror (on a much smaller scale) in return. The authoritative report published 20 July by Iraq Body Count and Oxford Research Group details non-combatant civilian casualties since the invasion began, with a grand total of almost 25, 000 dead. A far cry from liberation - the authors warn the country is descending into chaos with an average of 34 Iraqi civilians dying each day.
This study should be more embarrassing to Blair and more difficult to ignore, since the analysis is based on media reports, and official figures from the Iraqi ministry of health and mortuaries (the coalition, of course, “don’t do body counts”).
The coalition invaded Iraq allegedly to advance freedom and democracy (and conveniently forgotten lies like non-existent WMDs) but we now know the real truth behind the propaganda machine - the occupation (and the US and UK foreign policy that underscores and predates it) is the root cause of the ‘terror’ problem. It has bred more violence, resistance and instability, replacing one formerly compliant dictatorship with a fresh new puppet administration ensuring US and British economic, political and military interests are served.
Though vehemently denouncing the ordinary working class Iraqis who raided banks and businesses in the initial chaos after Baghdad’s ‘liberation’, September 2003 saw the large scale looting of Iraq become official Bush administration policy. Juicy $500 billion Iraq reconstruction contracts were handed out to American firms without being put to tender, like awards for loyalty, amongst Bush and Cheney’s favourite campaign-contributing cronies such as the Halliburton and Bechtel corporations.
Whilst Iraqi oil is the most prized asset and the first thing they secured, it is only part of the spoils of war and the neo-conservatives’ occupation agenda. Iraqi public services devastated during a decade of war and sanctions have been privatised by colonial decree. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) pro-consul Paul Bremer immediately permitted 100% ownership of businesses by foreign companies, who then expatriate their profits.
It is worth noting ‘Defence’ secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Bremer made sure the reconstruction of Iraq is paid for by the ‘liberated’ country themselves. A UN Security Council Resolution passed on the eve of invasion declared all confiscated Iraqi assets, leftover Oil for Food Programme billions, and resumed Iraq oil export revenues, were to be used “in a transparent manner, for the benefit of the Iraqi people.” But the CPA promptly began its US crony cash-out, and are now under investigation for disgraceful ‘financial impropriety’ (false accounting – remember Enron?) and ‘misappropriating’ tens of billions of dollars.
Around the same time, the CPA lowered the wage base for Iraqi public sector employees (the majority of the Iraqi workforce) from rates set when the US troops first arrived in Iraq. Since then housing and food subsidies have also been abolished, and numerous anti-Trade Union laws have been retained. In December 2003 the occupiers and their lackeys attacked and closed down the headquarters of the Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions in Baghdad, which has remained non-operational ever since. Current unemployment is as high as 70%, which condemns the majority to a life of misery, hunger and isolation, especially since there are no welfare benefits.
The poor wages and safety conditions have led to an upsurge in class struggle labour activity such as strikes and occupations. In Nassiriyah last year, the workers of the aluminium factory saw off the Mahdi Army which had attempted to occupy and turn it into a military base, not to mention numerous wildcat strikes in cities across Iraq, mainly in electricity generating stations. The CPA was forced to back down in their insistence on wage reductions. In Um Qasr and other ports workers’ committees have been set up. Women have joined the Organisation for the Freedom of Women in Iraq in their thousands, raising the slogan ‘No to Occupation and the veil’. These groups, especially the militant and vibrant unemployed movement, were often the first to confront the occupation utilising all forms of collective direct action. This is consistent with an Iraqi tradition of class struggle, from the widespread popular unrest of 1958 to the mass rebellion to overthrow Saddam in 1991 in which conscripted soldiers, Kurdish rebels and Iraqi civilians participated (whom the US deserted). Rebels seized Basra, Kabala, Najaf, Kurkuk and other major cities. Mosques and symbols of the Ba’athist regime were destroyed as riots, insurrection and demonstrations rocked the Iraqi elite. In some areas self-organised workers councils (shoras) were set up to run things.
In calling for the end of the occupation of Iraq, we must not hide our principled opposition to tactics such as indiscriminate car bombings carried out by groups within the so-called Iraqi resistance, including all Islamist groups who despite their
differences over tactics have the same basic aims: to establish a regime founded on Sharai law, with strict sexual apartheid. They hate atheists, secularists, other religious groups, feminists, organised workers, socialists and communists and they devote columns to denouncing them in their papers. In Basra, Islamist parties have set up an “emirate” where women are rarely seen in the street and where alcohol and nightclubs and even picnics are forbidden. Where local Islamic groups such as the al-Sadr army have gained power the offices of the Unemployed Union of Iraq, the Workers Communist Party and Women’s Movement have frequently been targeted and attacked.
In the short term, we must provide what solidarity and assistance we can to those who are struggling for a genuinely free and equal Iraq. The best solution to the crisis is for the Iraqi working class to destroy the power structures that have oppressed them for so long, to resist not just the military occupation but the local fundamentalists, nationalists, Ba’athists and demagogues who wish to carve up Iraq for their own ends. We have watched and participated in the mass demonstrations across the world against this war to no avail and yet the war rages on with devastating consequences for all of us.
Instead of grovelling to unresponsive politicians and Trade Union bureaucrats, we need to build an aggressive campaign based on self-managed collective direct action, civil-disobedience and international solidarity. One that brings the campaign to the doorsteps of those gangsters and profiteers that have benefited from the plunder of Iraq’s resources, and an incompetent or compliant media that has helped legitimise the war. In the Republic, Shannon War port has actively assisted the US death machine with the re-fuelling of war-planes carrying weapons of mass destruction and transporting troops and arms. We need to engage in general anti-militarist agitation to encourage those serving in the occupation forces to resist and disobey orders. Fundamentally, we need to learn from history that marching from A to B (or wearing wristbands and listening to pop concerts) never causes meaningful change and that the State never concedes anything without some form of collective struggle.
Most importantly, a movement which does not seek to abolish the existing power structures which create war is a sham! In struggling for the end of the occupation of Iraq we must eradicate the very global structures of capitalism and its protector the state which ensures the dominance and exploitation of the majority by a privileged minority. US General Smedley Butler who served in the US army was all too familiar with this:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major General; I spent most of my time being a high class
muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
The trumpeted ‘handover of power’, and the coalition and its puppet media-lauded elections, rather than marking a shift towards democracy, replaced a formerly compliant regime with a representative body too afraid or impotent to deny the new rulers of the world their plundered authority. And Bagdad is burning.

paul michael

save preference

Comments (25 of 25)

Jump To Comment:

C'mon lads

by Quality Control

Thu Dec 15, 2005 19:43

Proper spaces between paragraphs please. You're not making any of your articles easy to read.

Cliche alert

by Noel

Fri Dec 16, 2005 09:51

What, no mention of Halliburton?

All present and correct

Fri Dec 16, 2005 09:52

My apologies; Halliburton is there.
What was I thinking?

Final and Conclusive

by Flynn

Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:27

Yesterday the people of Iraq voted 10 million strong in their first parliamentary elections.

Had the Bush administration listened to the Anti-War movement, Iraq would still be ruled by Saddam Hussein.

The Iraqi people having taken political control of their country can now take control of the defence and security of their country as their army and police grow in numbers and experience.

Consequently the US and Coalition forces can begin to withdraw their forces.

The Iraq War has been utterly vindicated and its opponents should be ashamed and objects of ridicule.

A proud new chapter can be written into US and world history.

re: Flynn

by Joe

Fri Dec 16, 2005 13:50

I don't know if your keeping count but is that the 5th or 6th time you war mongers have now declared victory?

Count the victories!

Fri Dec 16, 2005 13:55

1 - fall of Baghdad
2. - end of major combat operations
3 - capture of Saddam
4 - killing of Saddams sons
5 - first elections
6 - constitutional vote
7 - second elections

And that is leaving out the taking of Falluja, twice. I wonder if Bush took on Comical Ali as an advisor?

Most wars end once, at this rate the war in Iraq will end every six months for eternity

Count the enemy's victories

Fri Dec 16, 2005 14:09

I suspect Joe is a little piqued at the all too obvious successes of President Bush and the coalition.
But thanks for reminding us of the victories along the road to democracy. No doubt there will be many more in the future.

More important thant "victories"

by Shannon

Fri Dec 16, 2005 14:48

Sure, lets just keep counting those victories, Noel. We'll forget about the 2,100 plus American soldiers lost in the process. The hell with the 25,000 plus Iraqi dead. Don't know about you, but those numbers put a huge damper on any celebrating that might be done for those "victories" claimed in a war that we should never have entered.

the Official number is now 30,000 civilians

by redjade

Fri Dec 16, 2005 15:20

THE PRESIDENT: How many Iraqi citizens have died in this war? I would say 30,000, more or less, have died as a result of the initial incursion and the ongoing violence against Iraqis. We've lost about 2,140 of our own troops in Iraq.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/12/20051212-4.html

-- --

NOTE: Bush said civilians - not Al-Q and other combatants

10 x 3000 of 911 = ?

Flynn: I pray for you..

by Sideshowbob

Fri Dec 16, 2005 15:46

I will say a prayer for you over xmas as i pray for all the thousands killed and injured on this latest american escapade. I'm all for democracy but let me ask one thing.

Was iraq the only bloody country in the world that did not have a democracy?

No.

What about all the other countries with repressive regimes. Do you want me to start listing them, cause i'll be here a while.

Then why the blatent american fixation with conquering iraq. They even made up complete lies, anything, any excuse to get in there. Only stupid people do not realise that the whole thing was a sham. An american ploy to further its own gains in the middle east. They didn't give a sh*t about the iraqi people and still don't. Iraq is a worse place now to live in than before. Its fine for you there flynn in your armchair. You idiot. And now, its all ok. Any sacrifice in the name of democracy. No. Democracy is not the be all and end all, as good as it is.

Where to next fool, N. Korea or are you too afraid to go in there cause they might put up a better fight and have no oil for 'dubya' bush to bring home to pappa bush..

But its all ok now, cause the iraqis were able to vote yesterday..

Sideshowbob,

Fri Dec 16, 2005 17:57

You've made some very true points. It's long been my belief that we entered Iraq for two reasons. First the Oil. Bush has a lot of money in oil. It's no surprise to many of us here in USA that our gas prices keep rising. Bush is getting very wealthy here.

I'm not so sure about the second reason. It's either to thumb his nose at his father...kind of a I can win the war that you were too scared to complete (Desert Storm) type thing. Or it's a gift to his father....you tried and failed, so I'll finish what you tried to accomplish for you as a gift. Either way, it sucks.

As for where we go to promote democracy next...probably not Korea...already got our arses smacked there.

History 101

Fri Dec 16, 2005 19:25

So Shannon, remind me how 'we' got our arse smacked in Korea.
Unless the 'we' you refer to are the communists who were forced to finally accept the 38th parallel - agreed in 1945.

Perhaps you are confusing Korea with the Vietnam war. You know the one you self-hating Americans hope the Iraq success story will turn into.

Delusion on a grand scale

by Richey

Fri Dec 16, 2005 19:46

Noel and Flynn, can you really keep a straight face when you present the elections as a triumph for US policy?

Here are the facts: Paul Bremer didn't want to hold elections. He wanted to appoint handpicked tribal leaders, who would then choose an Iraqi government. Sistani called for mass demonstrations to pressurise the US and force them to hold elections.

Hundreds of thousands of people came out and protested, so Bremer backed down and held elections. Their puppet Allawi was heavily defeated, and a pro-Iranian Shia coalition won the elections hands down. One of the main points of their programme was an immediate timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops (Bush and Blair immediately announced that they would ignore the wishes of the Iraqi people and keep their troops in Iraq as long as they wanted to).

Now the Sunnis have also decided to engage in the electoral process, because they see it as a way to get the Americans out of Iraq. Last month, the elected Iraqi government held meetings with the patriotic elements in the Iraqi resistance, and acknowledged that they had a right to resist the occupation. They could almost certainly come to an agreement with the sane wing of the insurgents, if they were allowed to do so by the US.

For the last two years, every opinion poll has shown that the majority of Iraqis want foreign troops out of their country. Now two elections have demonstrated the same thing. It's time for your beloved "liberators" to go.

Noel

Fri Dec 16, 2005 21:41

Don't consider that war much of a success considering the number of lives lost and the fact that we shouldn't have been there. As for confusing it with the Vietnam "Police Action," not a chance. My father was drafted into that one.

Self-Hating? Nope, not at all. I'm very proud of the fact that my father had the courage to do what his president forced him to do regardless of the fact that he didn't agree with the war. He went and faught rather than turning tail and running and having some faceless stranger take his place. If your refering to our men and women in Iraq now, I certainly don't hate them. I pray daily that they come home soon. It's the moron in the White House that I detest. As Richey just said, it's time for us to come home.

Korean War? Won?

by Siabon

Sat Dec 17, 2005 03:38

Just out of curiosity, how does one consider a war won when there are aproximately 1,500,000 allieds, 2,500,000 Chinese and North Koreans, and more than 7,000,000 civilian lives lost, or when the war began and ended on the 38th parellel. All either side managed to accomplish was a lot of killing.

by saoirse

Sun Dec 18, 2005 08:02

Liberating Iraq and Other Lies
same as the highly rated and intelligent book
which i'm sure you all read----you're all just
soooooooooo sophisticated and elite now in eire nua !
""lying liars and the lies they tell ""
guess the stone fact that seventy percent got out and voted on thursday means NOTHING.
you'd rather have them being starved under the UNs oil for FRAUD and being under sadmNs ba'athist regieme.
oh you're just so smart and clever.
too damned stupid to be able to know who's sending you YOUR INFO.
educate yourselves.
google : oil for food
salman pak
al tuaitha
UNs resolutions
sadam
ba athist
gulf war 1 and the resolutions
then post.
really want to get down ?
research what your idol clinton had to say about iraq,sadam,al qaeda,terrorism etc.
then keep going on all the american politicians,senate,house and the UN again.
either they're ALL LIARS --
or
what ?

democracy my arse

by kintama

Sun Dec 18, 2005 18:58

The notion that these elections prove that democracy has now arrived in Iraq is laughable when it is clear that the democratic wish of the majority of Iraqis is for an end to occupation.
Caroline Hawley a BBC correspondent in Iraq for some time but now moving on has provided some telling insights into the occupation and 'victories' like Fallujah.She recalls standing outside the ruins of houses in Fallujah flattened by a US air strike in which lay the bodies of 36 people including five young children. With regard to the respect in which the occupied are held by US troops she spotted the reverential comment' Die Ragheads' written on a portable toilet in an American base. But as a metaphor for US involvement in Iraq her spotting of an aptly named head of military intelligence in Abu Ghraib torture centre is brilliant. The name of the miscreant one Colonel 'Foster Payne' I kid you not.

Surrendering to Democracy

Sun Dec 18, 2005 22:29

"the democratic wish of the majority of Iraqis is for an end to occupation."

Newsflash to Kintama - when the democratically elected representatives ask the coalition forces to leave that's exactly what will happen.

I suspect these democratically elected representatives know a thing or two about the security situation in their own country - if they judge the time is right then the time will be right.

I suspect they'll be sincerely grateful to President Bush and Prime Minister Blair for liberating their country too.
We in Ireland should be proud of our small but significant part in that.

You have Got to be Kidding!

Mon Dec 19, 2005 13:46

You honestly believe our troops will be withdrawn when asked to by coalition forces? Who in the hell have you been listening to?

On December 14th, Bush stated "Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country,” he said. “These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq.”

OUR governemnt is to determine these objectives. Not the newly elected Iraqi govenment.

Supporting the troops

Mon Dec 19, 2005 14:34

Shannon,

When the dwindling insurgency is either mopped up or the Iraqi police/army can safely deal with it then the Iraqi government will ask the coalition to leave.

Ignore what you read at Amerikkka-Bush-Chimpy.com about US imperialism. Having Guam does not make an empire.

noel

by wow

Mon Dec 19, 2005 14:38

why are you not at the yid embassy today?

Reread what I typed

Mon Dec 19, 2005 14:50

Noel, You might want to reread what I typed. The quote is not from some "Amerikkka-Bush-Chimpy.com" web site or anything. It is a quote from the speech Bush made on December 14th while at Woodrow Wilson Center Wednesday in Washington. These our the words of our president.

As for the Iraqi people....try this on for size: Most Iraqis disapprove of the presence of U.S. forces in their country, yet they are optimistic about Iraq’s future and their own personal lives, according to a new ABC News poll conducted with Time magazine and other media partners.

News flash, Noel: they do want us out. We declared victory about two years ago. We're still there. The main reason given was the need to train Iraqi troops so they could protect and govern themselves. They've elected peolpe for their government, so governing shouldn't be a problem. As for the training, it takes us about six months to train our men and women to be combat ready. Why is it taking so much longer to train the Iraqi troops?

Maybe your not all that conserned about the fact that we've young men and women dying over there, but I am. I've friends who joined after 9-11 over there. I'd like them home in one piece, soon.

A job worth doing

Mon Dec 19, 2005 15:28

Wow,
Taking a sicky from my job at the Yid embassy today. I find anti-Semite neanderthals like yourself make me ill.

Shannon,
The people of Iraq want the coalition forces to withdraw - they also want security and peace.
If the coalition forces were to leave tomorrow would security and peace follow?
Would the Jihadis all pack up their decapitation kits and head back to Syria and Saudi?
The Iraqi people and it's newly elected representatives know the answer. When the time is right for Iraq the coalition forces will be asked to leave.

Completely missing the point

Mon Dec 19, 2005 17:33

Noel, once again, I ask you to reread the quote I posted. In case you're having trouble with it, here it is again, directly from the president's mouth:

"Victory will be achieved by meeting certain objectives: when the terrorists and Saddamists can no longer threaten Iraq’s democracy, when the Iraqi security forces can protect their own people and when Iraq is not a safe haven for terrorists to plot attacks against our country,” he said. “These objectives, not timetables set by politicians in Washington, will drive our force levels in Iraq.”

Please pay VERY close attention to who is determining the end of this occupation. The objectives mentioned are:
1. Terrorists and Saddamists no longer a threat to Iraq's democracy
2. Iraqi security forces can protect their own people
3. Iraq is no longer a safe haven for terrorists plotting attacks against our country.

These objectives are set by the USA president. NOT the newly elected Iraqi government. You cannot tell me you HONESTLY BELIEVE that Bush is going to listen to this newly elected government. "Our inteligence reports indicate terrorists activities," he'll tell us, or "they are still a threat to our nation." He's no plans for troop withdrawal. Every time congress discusses a timetable for getting out of there, he and other republicans balk. As much as I love and support my friends over there, I detest this war, and the fact that our president has no plans for bringing them home.

A few other interesting quotes from Bush

Mon Dec 19, 2005 17:59

Yesterday, Bush gave a speech from the Oval Office. Thought I'd add them.

“Not only can we win the war in Iraq, we are winning the war in Iraq.” Interesting comment considering he declared victory two years ago.

From an article written by By GEORGE E. CONDON JR., Copley Washington Bureau Chief:
Speaking only days after what appears to be a highly successful election in Iraq, he said that this goal of a democratic Iraq now seems to have been realized.

“This election will not mean the end of violence, but it is the beginning of something new: constitutional democracy at the heart of the Middle East,” he (Bush) said.

He predicted “more testing and sacrifice” and more American deaths before he can withdraw American forces.

Sunday night, as in all of his recent speeches, Bush cast himself as a leader determined to keep American troops in Iraq as long as it takes to secure a clear victory. Less clear was the definition of victory – either a definitive defeat of the insurgents or a strengthening of Iraqi forces to the point where they can take over for the Americans in battling the insurgents.

What I, and many fellow Americans want is some sort of timetable or clear indication as to when we are going to be finished in Iraq. I understand that you cannot just destroy a government (Saddam's) and then run. You have to help the people who's country you've destroyed. But there should be a clear indication as to when and how this is going to be done. We don't have that.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Public Inquiry

Human Rights in Ireland

Liberating Iraq and Other Lies

Comments (25 of 25)