Iraq and the Reconstuction Policies
(Here is a very good article,i want to share)

In these sad days the Muslim Ummah might have temporarily lost it´s hopes and relinquish it´s dreams to once again rule the world but nevertheless we have to seize the moment. The day after Baghdads fall was a day of sadness but also a day of cognitive awareness because never in the past has it been so clear that we need an authority which is not an agent of the super powers but a guardian of the Muslim Ummah and the Islamic ideas and thoughts. When in the past it was asked whether this bright Ummah would fight for Islam she answered without any doubt that we will fight, but now it seems like that this Ummah has lost its mental force which used to move the whole of the nation for the course of Allah.

In these days a huge responsibility is upon our shoulders and a chance to loosen ourselves from the stronghold of the super powers. In these days the main powers U.S, Britain and the EU is deciding the destiny of the Iraqi peoples future and lives. Its a vital question to have knowlegde of the plans and policies that the U.S have outlined to enforce an iron grip to hold Iraq tightly to the West´s interests. The following essay tries to unveil the policies and plans that the U.S have hidden behind a false curtain of human rights, freedom and the right to self determination for the Iraqi people.

The U.S plan towards a post-war Iraq

Long before the war broke out the Americans had a clear vision about what should be the outcome of the diplomatic relations between Britain and the EU. The U.S didn´t manage to direct her diplomatic negotiations in a clear manner and therefore had to break up and launch an attack over the UN and the legitimacy of the international community. The aAmericans long before the war broke out had decided that a regime change was the only acceptable solution and the pretext was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Nevertheless, no WMD have yet been found and nothing has been proven even though the Americans consider this war as legitimate. A clear evidence that this war had nothing to do with WMD is Colin Powell's declaration, in a BBC radio interview, that Washington might pursue "regime change" in Iraq even if the Iraqi leader complies fully with weapons inspections.

The U.S plan can be outlined by the following guiding principles:

Establishing a federal Iraq and upholding the territorial integrity of Iraq but in a manner in which there will be a three zone Iraq. “Iraq is to be divided into three zones by the interim civil administration headed by the retired American general Jay Garner... just established a foothold in the far south of Iraq. Speaking a day after a team from Mr Garner's Office for Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA)... a spokesman said the first priority was to bring in aid. "In many ways we are learning as we go," said Major Jeff Jurgensen, one of about 30 officials drawn from US government departments who will set up ORHA's southern region. Other teams will run the central and northern zones”.(Independent 10th April )
The Iraqi people will rule as soon as there is stability but the Americans will be administrators. The Iraqi rulers will be those who have an intimate relationship with the U.S and especially the CIA. The leader of the National Iraqi Congress Ahmed Chalabi, will have a leading role. Ahmed Chalabi is a well known political personality with his close relationship with the CIA. The main point here is that the interim government would be the one which hands over the oil and reconstruction contracts to American companies. The Guardian on its homepage had a report dated 3rd November 2002 where the paper unveiled that Mr. Chalabi had attended meetings with three American Oil companies. Also the former CIA director James Woolsey said “ The French and the Russians should be told that if they are helping moving Iraq to a decent government then we would do our best to ensure the new goverement and American enterprizes cooperate with them”.( Guardian report 22/12-02 )

From the above we can see that this new government will give up the Islamic Ummah´s property to the Americans.
American plans would be directed by American administrators from behind the scenes so that America won´t face the accusation that they are stealing the oil from the Iraqi people. From a political point of view America is facing a great challenge. The problem is how well the Americans explain to the people around the world that America is stealing the oil and profiting from a nations disaster.
The United States will in this connection try to expel the EU, especially, but also Britain to only have a humanitarian aid role. Even though Bush has stated that UN will have a “Vital role” to play it only means a role in questions related to humanitarian relief and aid. What one should be beware of in relation to the UN is that the Americans use the phrase “vital role” as do the British but the EU and Russia use the phrase “Central role”. From this we can derive that there is some agreement between Britain and the U.S that the EU and Russia should not have any possibility of playing a role in a future Iraq except in questions relating to humanitarian aid.
A report from the James Baker Institute has reported that “ the removal of its top leadership, is one of the key pieces of a U.S strategy”. From this it’s clear that the main aspect of the American presence in Iraq is to remove the old political medium and fulfill the upcoming vacuum by Iraqis who are pro American.
What is also central is that the Americans would describe their activities as being administrative rather then governing and that they are serving the Iraqi people until a stable government can take place. When they have securely removed the former pro-British political medium and replaced it with a very American one, they will pull out and let this new government implement American policies. The transformation phases will likely be dominated by political instability, violence and assassinations of upcoming rivals to the American agents.
Demilitarising Iraq will be a key policy so that it can never become a strong regional threat to any American regime in the Persian Gulf.
A few observations should also be made about oil and the economy. The Americans have clearly stated that they would open up Iraq and develop its economy by making trade arrangements through the IMF and giving aid through the World Bank. This policy will result in the Americans directly controlling the Iraqi economy. Once Iraq becomes a prisoner of these organisations it will be very difficult for the Iraqi people to become free again.
What is important from the above is that the Islamic Ummah must realize what a great danger the Iraqi muslims are facing. If the Muslim Ummah became silent and the Americans get the chance to fulfill their plans, then the Iraqi people will no longer suffer under Saddam but under George Bush. Some shallow minded and political naive people might argue that this is after all, better then it was before. This kind of thinking is actually an admission of intellectual and political failure. First of all the Shariah obliges the Islamic Ummah to loosen itself from the domination of foreign powers.

Allah (Subhanhu Wa Ta'aala) says:


"Allah will never allow that kuffar has the authority over the muslims”.

From a political standpoint the Iraqi people will still suffer, but it will become even more difficult to remove a regime which is praised by the White House. Which receives intelligence aid and military cooperation from the U.S and CIA. It will be even harder to get Iraq out of U.S hands when there will be a three zone weak landscape. And even harder when its economy is controlled by foreign investors and byIMF and WB policies. Not to mention the difficulty of removing a regime which would have greater legitimacy from the international community then the Baath party had earlier. So how can one say that it will be better? When in actuality it will be harder and more complicated then ever before. This American plan to reshape the Middle East would make it even more difficult for the Ummah to free the Iraqi people from the dominions of the U.S. So being so politically naive would only lead to an admission of one’s political failure and not an improvement of the Iraqi peoples’ condition. Examine Afghanistan, has it become better? Is it not even more difficult to break up Hamid Karzai´s regime when it cooperates with the U.S. and the international community recognizes it as a legitimate regime? The Ummah should realize that the only way to get out of this misery is to give the authority to a regime which actually represents the Muslims. A regime which actually gives the Muslims a comprehensive thought. And that regime can only be a rightly guided Khilafah which implements the Shariah. A Khilafah which makes Islam as a foundation for its internal and foreign policy. So we should take up our responsibility and work for establishing that Khilafah again.


“Indeed, the Imam is a shield, behind whom you fight, and are protected”.

20.US IRAQ WAR:


The 2003 invasion of Iraq, also called the Iraq War or "Operation Iraqi Freedom", is a war that beganMarch 20 2003, between the United States, United Kingdom and a coalition of their allies, against Iraq.

The invasion began without the explicit authorization of theuntied nation security council, and some legal authorities take the view that the action violated the U.N. Chater. The Bush Administration has cited Security Council resolutions from early 1990s as legal justification, though there is no clear position in any of them with regard to the use of military action against Iraq.

On 17 March 2003 in his Address to the Nation, U.S. President George W Bush demanded that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and his two sons Uday and Qusay leave Iraq giving them a 48-hour deadline . The following day, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer recinded Bush's previous statement, saying that the U.S. would invade Iraq whether Saddam Hussein left or not

United States military operations were conducted under the name Operation Iraqi Freedom. United Kingdom military operations as Operation Telic and Australian operations as Operation Falconer

After approximately three weeks of fighting, Iraq was occupied by coalition forces and the rule of Saddam Hussein and his Ba'ath Party came to an end. Subsequently, the period known as post-invasion Iraq began. Approximately 260,000 United States troops, with support from 45,000 British and smaller forces from other nations, collectively called the "Coalition of the Willing", entered IraqKuwait. Plans for opening a second front in the north were abandoned when Turkey officially refused the use of its territory for such purposes. Forces also supported Iraqi Kurdish militia troops, estimated to number upwards of 50,000. primarily through a staging area in

Facing them was a large but poorly equipped military force. The regular Iraqi army was estimated at 290,000–350,000 troops, with four Republican Guard divisions with 50,000–80,000 troops, and the Fedayeen Saddam, a 20,000–40,000 strong militia, who used guerrilla tactics during the war. There were an estimated thirteen infantry divisions, ten mechanized and armored divisions, as well as some special forces units. The Iraqi Air Force and Navy played a negligible role in the conflict.

Prelude

Since the end of the Gulf War of 1991, Iraq's relations with the UN, the US, and the UK remained poor. In the absence of a Security Council consensus that Iraq had fully complied with the terms of the Persian Gulf War ceasefire, both the UN and the US enforced numerous economic sanctions against Iraq throughout the Clinton administration, and patrolled Iraqi airspace to enforce Iraqi no-fly zones. The United States Congress also passed the "Iraq Liberation Act" in October 1998, which provided $97 million for Iraqi "democratic opposition organizations" in order to "remove the sovereign regime headed by Saddam Hussein and support a transition to democracy". This contrasted with the terms set out in U.N. Resolution 687 all of which related to weapons and weapons programs, not to what regime was in place. Weapons inspectors had also been used to gather intelligence on Iraq's WMD program, information that was then used in targeting decisions during Operation Desert Fox. At the same time Tony Blair's Attorney General Lord Goldsmith could not guarantee that an invasion in the circumstances would not be challenged on legal grounds

The United States Republican Party's campaign platform in the U.S. presidential election, 2000 called for "full implementation" of the Iraq Liberation Act and removal of Saddam Hussein with a focus on rebuilding a coalition, tougher sanctions, reinstating inspections, and support for the pro-democracy, opposition exile group, Iraqi National Congress.

In September 2000, in the Rebuilding America's Defenses (pg. 17) report, Project for the New American Century, a right-wing think tank, suggested that the United States shift to more ground-based air forces to help contain the forces of Saddam Hussein so that "the demand for carrier presence in the region can be relaxed." Upon the election of George W. Bush as president, many advocates of such a policy (including some of those who wrote the 2000 report) were included in the new administration's foreign policy circle. According to former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill an attack was planned since the inauguration, and the first security council meeting discussed plans on invasion of the country.

Notes from aides who were with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in the National Military Command Center one year later, on the day of the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack, reflect that he wanted, "best info fast. Judge whether good enough hit [Saddam Hussein] at same time. Not only [Osama bin Laden]." The notes also quote him as saying, "Go massive," and "Sweep it all up. Things related and not."

Shortly thereafter, the George W. Bush administration announced a War on Terrorism, accompanied by the doctrine of 'preemptive' military action dubbed the Bush doctrine. The September 11 commission in June, 2004 released a staff report that said it found 'no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated on attacks against the United States.'"

In 2002 the Iraq disarmament crisis arose primarily as a diplomatic situation. In October 2002, with the "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq" (Adopted 296-133 by the House of Representatives and 77-23 by the Senate), the United States Congress granted President Bush the authority to wage war against Iraq. The Joint Resolution was worded so as to encourage, but not require, UN Security Council approval for military action, although as a matter of international law the US required explicit Security Council approval for an invasion unless an attack by Iraq had been imminent — the USimminent, threat. The joint resolution allowed the President of the United StatesUnited States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq". administration argued that there was a "growing" or "gathering", rather than to, "defend the national security of the

In November 2002, United Nations actions regarding Iraq culminated in the unanimous passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 and the resumption of weapons inspections. However, UN Secretary-General Kofi nan later stated that the subsequent invasion was a violation of the UN Charter. Force was not authorized by resolution 1441 itself, as the language of the resolution mentioned "serious consequences", which is generally not understood by Security Council members to include the use of force to depose the government; however the threat of force, as cultivated by the Bush administration, was prominent at the time of the vote. Both the U.S. ambassador to the UN, John Negroponte, and the UK ambassador Jeremy Greenstock, in promoting Resolution 1441 on 8 November 202, had given assurances that it provided no "automaticity," no "hidden triggers", no step to invasion without consultation of the Security Council; in the event such consultation was forestalled by the US and UK's abandonment of the Security Council procedure and their invasion of Iraq. Richard Perle, a senior member of the administration's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee, has expressed an opinion in November, 2003, that the invasion was against international law, but argued that it was justified. There is still much disagreement among international lawyers on whether prior resolutions, relating to the 1991 war and later inspections, permitted the invasion.

The United States also began preparations for an invasion of Iraq, with a host of diplomatic, public relations and military preparations.

Rationale
In the wake of the September 11 attacks and the relative success of the U.S.Afghanistan in 2001, the Bush administration felt that it had sufficient military justification and public support in the United States for further operations against perceived threats in the Middle East. The relations between some coalition members and Iraq had never improved since 1991, and the nations remained in a state of low-level conflict marked by American and British air-strikes, sanctions, and threats against Iraq. Iraqi radar had also locked onto coalition airplanes enforcing the northern and southern no-fly zones, which had been implemented after the Gulf War in 1991. invasion of

Throughout 2002, the U.S. administration made it clear that removing Saddam Hussein from power was a major goal, although it offered to accept major changes in Iraqi military and foreign policy in lieu of this. Specifically, the stated justification for the invasion included Iraqi production and use of weapons of mass destruction, links with terrorist organizations and human rights violations in Iraq under the Saddam Hussein government, issues that are detailed below.

To that end, the stated goals of the invasion, according to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, were:

Self defence
find and eliminate weapons of mass destruction, weapons programs, and terrorists
collect intelligence on networks of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists
Humanitarian
end sanctions and to deliver humanitarian support (According to Madeline Albright, half a million Iraqi children had died because of sanctions.)
UNSC Resolution
Resolution 1205, made in 1999.
Regime Change
end the Saddam Hussein government
help Iraq's transition to democratic self-rule
Other
secure Iraq's oil fields and other resources

Many staff and supporters within the Bush administration had other, more ambitious goals for the war as well. Many propagated the claim that the war could act as a catalyst for democracy and peace in the Middle East, and that once IraqIraq represented a specific threat to the United States and to international law. Little evidence was presented actually linking the government of Iraq to al-Qaeda (see below). became democratic and prosperous other nations would quickly follow suit due to this demonstration effect, and thus the social environment that allowed terrorism to flourish would be eliminated. However, for diplomatic, bureaucratic reasons these goals were played down in favor of justifications that

Opponents of the Iraq war disagreed with many of the arguments presented by the administration, attacking them variously as being untrue, inadequate to justify a pre-emptive war, or likely to have results different from the administration's intentions. Further, they asserted various alternate reasons for the invasion. Different groups asserted that the war was fought primarily for:

Energy economics

to gain control over Iraq's hydrocarbon reserves and in doing so maintain the U.S. dollar as the monopoly currency for the critical international oil market (since 2000, Iraq had used the Euro as its oil export currency)
to ensure the US had military control over the region's hydrocarbon reserves as a lever to control other countries that depend on it
to assure that the revenue from Iraqi oil would go primarily to American interests
to lower the price of oil for American consumers
Defense and construction special interests

to channel money to defense and construction interests
in pursuance of the PNAC's stated strategic goal of "unquestionable [American] geopolitical preeminence"
Public perception

to maintain the wartime popularity that the President enjoyed due to his response to the 11 September attacks (in contrast to his father whose wartime popularity faded when the electorate began to focus on the economy)

Reconstruction

For the reconstruction, contracts were awarded to private companies. Initially companies from countries that had opposed the war were excluded from these contracts, but this decision was reversed due to protests.
Political activists and commentators allege that the Pentagon favoured companies like Halliburton, former employer of Vice President Dick Cheney, because they had connections to high-ranking members of the Bush administration


This suspicion had already been a concern during the global protests against the war on Iraq. An audit found that Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg, Brown and RootKuwaiti (KBR) may have overcharged the U.S. government $61 million, on contracts worth billions, for bringing oil products for the U.S. army into Iraq via a subcontractor, Altanmia Commercial Marketing Co.

Some also argue that foreign contractors are doing work which could be done by unemployed Iraqis, which might be a factor fueling resentment of the occupation.


Further resentment could be inflamed with the news that almost USD9 billion dollars of Iraqi oil revenue is missing from a fund set up to reconstruct Iraq.

Civilian government

The establishment of a new civilian government of Iraq was greatly complicated by the religious divisions between the majority Shi'ite population and the formerly ruling Sunni class. Moreover, many of the people in Saddam's ruling Ba'ath PartyIraq, Kurds had already had effectively autonomous rule for 12 years under the protection of the no-fly zone. were perceived as tainted by the association by some parties. In northern

On May 16, 2003, U.S. officials abandoned the plan to cede authority to a democratically chosen interim civilian Iraqi government (similar to what had happened in Afghanistan following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan) and presented a resolution to the UN to give the United States and the United Kingdom broad power and lift economic sanctions on Iraq, allowing the occupying countries authority to use oil resources to pay for rebuilding the country. Passage of the resolution allowed them to appoint an interim government by themselves.

On July 13, 2003, an Iraqi Governing Council was appointed by Coalition Provisional Authority Administration.

Elections
For several months the United States maintained that it intended to convene a constitutional convention, composed of influential Iraqis. However, European demands for an early election and Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani's insistence eventually forced the United States to let the appointed Governing Council serve this function.

In the early months of the occupation, new officials were appointed to several local and regional positions (e.g., mayors, governors, local councils). The officials were chosen from a select group of individuals (including ex-Ba'ath party officials) in an attempt to speed the return to normality and to avoid the election of people opposed to the American and British presence. Certain religious clerics and other officials were considered to be overly radical or dangerous. On occasion the appointed officials were found to behave less than admirably. On June 30, 2003, the appointed mayor of Najaf was arrested on charges of corruption.

Though some protested the lack of democracy (as proposed by Jay Garner, who wanted elections within 90 days), Iraq's long history of one-party rule had left the country ill-equipped to function democratically. In recent months, civil society at a local level has shown signs of recovery in some areas of Iraq, but much to American disquiet, it seems largely to be based around religious figures. Municipal and city elections were held in some of the southern and northern provinces.

On 15 November, the Iraqi Governing Council announced that a transitional government would take over in June from the U.S.-led powers, and that an elected government would follow by the end of 2005 once a constitution had been drafted and ratified. The transitional government would be selected in June 2004 by a transitional council formed in May 2004.

The Governing Council revealed the timetable after the United States government, in reaction to terrorist and militant activity against occupying troops and aid organisations, abandoned its earlier plan that a sovereign government would take charge only after creating a constitution and elections held. Jalal Talabani, current chairman of the council, said the transition would involve "the creation of a permanent constitution by an elected council, directly elected by the people, and also the election of a new government according to the articles of this new constitution before the end of 2005."

In March 2004, an interim constitution was created, called the Law of Administration for the State of Iraq for the Transitional Period. The document calls for the creation of an elected National Assembly to take place no later than January of 2005. The question of the election calendar became a matter of importance for Iraq and the U.S.: while a quick election would legitimise the Iraqi government and shed a favourable light on the U.S.-led occupation of the country, the prospect of violence delayed it. It was finally set for the 30th of January 2005. On the 4th of January 2005, Ghazi Al-Yaouar asked the United Nations to reconsider the electoral schedule

Sovereignty for Iraq

In a 1 June 2004, press conference, President Bush said that he was working with various world leaders to create a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the transition from the US-dominated occupation to complete autonomy for Iraq. Under this resolution, Coalition forces would remain in Iraq until the new government could establish security and stabilization: "There is a deep desire by the Iraqis — don't get me wrong — to run their own affairs and to be in a position where they can handle their own security measures." This decision may be necessary to prevent anti-democratic forces from seizing regional or national power and re-creating the kind of dictatorship which prompted the invasion of Iraq8 June, Security Council resolution 1546 was adopted unanimously, calling for "the end of the occupation and the assumption of full responsibility and authority by a fully sovereign and independent Interim Government of Iraq by 30 June 2004." in the first place. On

On June 28, 2004, the occupation was formally ended by the CPA, which transferred power to a new Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. The multinational military alliance is assisting the Allawi government in governing the Iraqis. The purpose of the Occupation of Iraq was, according to U.S. President George W. Bush, purely to bring about a transition from post-war anarchy to full Iraqi sovereignty.

Armed opposition

Despite the defeat of the old Iraqi army, guerilla attacks against the Coalition and the Iraqi transitional government continued. In the early months following the "end of major combat operations", insurgents conducted sniper attacks, suicide bombings at road checkpoints, and ambushes, resulting in about 30 American and British deaths per month.

Sometimes the attackers would say that they were motivated by revenge (e.g., an anti-coalition group claimed the four Iraqis that were allegedly shot at by British soldiers during a demonstration were unarmed and acting peacefully; six British soldiers were later killed by Iraqis). Dozens of unarmed Iraqis were shot in anti-Alliance demonstrations, mostly in the nation's Sunni Muslim areas. While Shi'a Muslim areas were mostly peaceful, Ayatollah Sayed Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim, who returned to Iraq after decades in exile shortly after the occupation began, said: "We are not afraid of the British or American troops. This country wants to keep its sovereignty and the forces of the coalition must leave it."

American forces denied the accusations of targeting unarmed civilians. They said they were fired upon and were returning fire.

Guerrilla war
In late June of 2003 there was some public debate in the U.S. as to whether the insurgency could be characterized as a guerrilla war. On 17 June, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid said that forces in Iraq were "conducting what I would describe as a classical guerrilla-type campaign against us. It's low-intensity conflict in our doctrinal terms, but it's war however you describe it." In a statement to Congress on 18 June, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz said "There's a guerrilla war there but we can win it." However, U.S. defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld, on 31 June, characterized the situation in Iraq as a "guerrilla war" and described the insurgency as consisting of five groups:

-Foreign terrorists
-Criminals
-Looters
-Iranian-backed Shi'a radicals.
-Supporters of the former Saddam Hussein regime

"That doesn't make it anything like a guerrilla war or an organized resistance," Rumsfeld said. "It makes it like five different things going on [in which the groups] are functioning more like terrorists."

CONCLUSION:

The war in iraq is still under way in the form of civilian religious confrontations.It is hoped that the war will end and the Iraqi people will finally be able to live their lives in a free atmosphere and rebuild their country on the basis of strong economical and social grounds.
It is also desired that USA should now leave the region and should give the Iraqi people to live their lives according to their own desires and beliefs without any fear of foreign intervention.Every individual has a right to live and every nation has a right to be sovereign in its own rights.Therefore any kind of interfernce in the affairs of other states should not be the objective of the powerful nations rather they should be playing a heping hand in building the weaker nations .

Dear Friends,
I hope this will help you in understanding american policy regarding Iraq and Afghanistan

Regards,

U.S. intervention from Afghanistan to Iraq


International Socialist Review Issue 25, September–October
2002
David Barsamian interviews Noam Chomsky

David Barsamian: You’re a critic of the U.S. attack on Afghanistan. I’d like you to consider the following
comments, all of which were made in late August. CNN’s Christiane Amanpour said, "There is no doubt that U.S.
intervention in Afghanistan has had a net positive effect for the Afghan people." Then Ahmed Rashid, the
Pakistani journalist and author of Taliban, told me in an interview, that there’s been "an enormous improvement
in the status of women in Afghanistan with the advent of the new government. Several million children are back
in school and 50,000 women teachers are back on the job." Finally, in another interview, Pervez Hoodboy, who
teaches in Islamabad, Pakistan, told me that the ouster of the Taliban "was a good thing for Pakistan" because
that country was in danger of being Talibanized, that is, taken over by Islamic fundamentalists. Would you
concede that the war produced benefits for the average Afghan?
Noam Chomsky: I don’t know if the word "concede" is correct, and I’m not sure about the "average Afghan."
There certainly were improvements that resulted from the overthrow of the Taliban. That’s why everyone was in
favor of the overthrow of the Taliban, except the U.S. government. Let’s keep in mind that the overthrow of the
Taliban regime was not a war aim. The war aim announced on October 12, five days after the bombing began,
was that the Taliban leadership should hand over to the United States people who the U.S. suspected of
participating in terrorist actions–the U.S. refused to provide evidence–and warned the Afghan people that unless
this was done, they would be bombed. Over two weeks later, when the war was pretty much coming to an end,
the war aim of overthrowing the Taliban regime was added. In fact, the British commander announced that the
Afghan people would continue to be bombed until they changed their regime. So, if regime change wasn’t a war
aim, we can’t even really raise that question. However, it’s a good thing that the U.S. finally came around to
joining others in opposing the Taliban regime toward the end of the war.
Then the question arises of how you should do it. Well, Afghans had opinions about this. Toward the end of
October, there was a major meeting in Peshawar, Pakistan, of a thousand tribal and political leaders, some from
inside Pakistan, some exiles, and some from elsewhere. These were all people strongly supported by the U.S.
There were some reports about this meeting in the press. They said it was a very impressive meeting of usually
contentious tribal leaders who were dedicated to overthrowing the hated Taliban. They disagreed on a lot of
things. One thing they agreed on: they pleaded with the U.S. to stop the bombing because it was harming and
destroying the country and was undermining their efforts to overthrow the Taliban regime from within. They
called on the international media to plead with the U.S. to stop harming their efforts to overthrow the Taliban by
bombing.
Just the week before that meeting, one of the most well known and highly regarded Afghan leaders, Abdul Haq–
who is also highly regarded by the U.S. and the current Afghan government of Hamid Karzai–entered Afghanistan
from Pakistan, apparently without U.S. support. He was captured and killed. Haq was regarded as one of the
great martyrs of the war against the Taliban. Just before he entered Afghanistan, Haq had an extensive interview
with Anatol Lieven of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. In the interview, he again condemns the
U.S. bombing, pleads for the U.S. to stop it, says that by bombing it is undermining the efforts he and others are
carrying out to overthrow the Taliban regime, which he regarded as fragile and hated. He then said the only
reason the U.S. was bombing is because it wants to "show its muscle." It doesn’t care anything about the
Afghans. The leading women’s group in Afghanistan, RAWA (the Revolutionary Association of the Women of
Afghanistan), which got some belated recognition after many years, also came out with similar statements,
calling for the overthrow of the Taliban and urging that this could be done from within, without devastating
attacks on the country, which were driving millions of people to the edge of starvation.
The concept of overthrowing the Taliban regime was certainly there. The U.S. joined in about three weeks after
the bombing began, rejecting the call of Afghans to help them overthrow the government by funding and offering
political support for their actions from within, and insisting on showing its muscle without caring for the Afghans.
Certainly, overthrowing the Taliban was a very reasonable approach and we should have listened to the
substantial and credible part of Afghan opinion that was talking about how to go about doing this.
Now, let’s talk about the consequences. Let’s suppose that it’s true that the consequences for Afghans were
beneficial. Do we celebrate Pearl Harbor Day every year? It’s well understood that the Japanese attack on the
colonial outposts of the United States, England, and Holland was in some respects highly beneficial to the people
of Asia. It was a major factor in driving the British out of India, which saved maybe tens of millions of lives. It
drove the Dutch out of Indonesia. That’s why there was applause for the Japanese invasion. In fact, major
nationalists, like Sukarno in Indonesia, joined the Japanese and even fought with them because they wanted to get the hated white man out of Asia. If there had been no resistance to the Japanese attack, they might not have
turned to the horrifying atrocities that did ultimately turn many Asians against them. So would we be celebrating
Pearl Harbor? I don’t think so. I certainly wouldn’t.
Let’s talk about the role of the media in manufacturing consent for war. Hermann Goering at Nuremberg had this
to say: "[T]he 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 then denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the
country to danger. It works the same in any country." Does it work that way in the United States?
SURE, LOOK around us, though it’s not to the extent you describe. Let’s take a case from the past, so we can
look at it a little more dispassionately. In the mid—1980s, during the first "war on terror," called by the Reagan
administration in much the same terms as today–with the same rhetoric, the same people in charge even–even
the administration moderates, like George Shultz, the counterpart of Colin Powell, condemned the "cancer" right
here in our own land mass–meaning Nicaragua–which is following the plans of Mein Kampf and is planning to
conquer the hemisphere. President Reagan declared a "national emergency" in 1985, which was renewed
annually, because of the dangers to the security of the U.S. from the government of Nicaragua. When the U.S.
bombed Libya in 1986, Reagan justified the attack on the grounds that the "mad dog" Qaddafi was bringing his
war home to the United States as part of the campaign to expel America from the world. Qaddafi was doing this
by sending arms to the Sandinistas, who were rampaging around the hemisphere. There was a huge effort made
to arouse the American population to fear the Nicaraguan army, which was only a two-day march from Texas.
This rhetoric had some effect, but it certainly didn’t have the effect Goering described. Opposition to U.S. attacks
on Nicaragua remained fairly high, despite the hysteria and despite the fact that there was virtual 100 percent
media support for the attack. It’s a fact worth remembering. At the peak period of the hysteria about defending
ourselves against Nicaragua, the opinion pieces–editorials and op-eds in the Washington Post and New York
Times, for example–were close to 100 percent in favor of overthrowing the Nicaraguan government. They were
split on how to do it. So the hawks said the U.S. should use more violence. The doves, like Tom Wicker of the
Times and the editors of the Washington Post, said that the U.S. terrorist attack wasn’t working too well and
therefore we should find other means to fit Nicaragua back into "a Central American mode" and impose "regional
standards" on Nicaragua. The "Central American mode" was the mode of El Salvador and Guatemala. The
regional standards in those countries were U.S.-backed state-terrorist forces that had just killed tens of
thousands of people, engaged in torture and huge atrocities, and destroyed the countries. That’s the "Central
American mode" to which we had to restore Nicaragua, but by other means. That was the doves. The hawks were
for wiping them out.
Despite the virtual 100 percent media support and the hysteria coming out of the government propaganda
agencies, the public did not fully go along. There was a very large committed mass solidarity movement, rooted
right in the mainstream of the United States. I think Goering underestimates the resiliency of democracies.
Let me ask about another Nazi figure, Goebbels, the minister of propaganda. He said the purpose of Nazi
propaganda is "to present an ostensible diversity behind which lies an actual uniformity."
He’s speaking of an organized coordinated propaganda agency. In the West it doesn’t work like that.
How does it work here?
Here the press is essentially free to do what it wants. There are efforts on the part of the government to influence
the press outcome, but they’re free to disregard it. Nevertheless, the outcomes are not unlike what Goebbels
describes. Without central authority and without any serious compulsion to follow the party line, the end result
comes out pretty much the way he described it–that is, an appearance of diversity, but with "actual uniformity."
The example I just mentioned, Nicaragua, is a fine illustration of what was called a hawk-dove controversy, which
was mainly: How do we achieve the shared objective of overthrowing the "cancer right here in our landmass" and
"restoring it to the regional standards" of the U.S. murderous terrorist states? On that, there was consensus.
There was very little disagreement within the mainstream. You have to go to the edges to find any difference,
and in the major media there is essentially no variation. It is an appearance of diversity with uniformity of goal.
It’s pretty much the same now.
The main question today is how and when to attack Iraq. In the mainstream media, you find an occasional voice
saying there might be some problem about committing the crime for which people were hanged at Nuremberg,
by attacking another country with who knows what effect without even a pretext. You have to go out as far as
House Majority Leader Dick Armey to say we shouldn’t be the kind of country that carries out premeditated
attacks against others in violation of international law and treaties. Almost no one else says that.
Let’s continue on this issue of propaganda. Eduardo Galeano, the great Uruguayan journalist and novelist, wrote
in the June Progressive magazine, "Propaganda, the Pentagon confesses, is part of the war budget. The White House has brought [in]…advertising expert Charlotte Beers…. [H]er mission is to advance the terrorist crusade
against terrorism on the world market. ‘We’re selling a product,’ explains Colin Powell."
Governments are going to do anything they can to try to whip up support for the policies they pursue.
Governments are power systems. They follow the interests of the concentration of domestic power to which
they’re committed. That’s not a surprise. What Galeano describes is particularly crass, but it doesn’t change
anything. It just brings out publicly what we expect the government to be doing. It’s illegal. The government’s
not supposed to be propagandizing the population, but it’s minor in the scheme of things.
A much more important issue is how the free institutions, which are not bound to follow government orders,
behave. This is not Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia. There’s no penalty for being independent and honest. The
question is how they respond. On their own, do they voluntarily adopt the same stance? To the extent that they
do, that is much more serious than the fact that a government is openly trying to propagandize the population. If
the government has a propaganda ministry, it’s a bad thing. A free society shouldn’t tolerate that, but it’s minor
compared to the voluntary subordination, not just of the media, but of the articulate intellectual community
generally.
Let’s go back to the past. In the First World War, the British and the Americans had very effective state
propaganda agencies. The Germans didn’t. Nevertheless, the German intellectuals overwhelmingly supported the
war. As the war began in 1914, a group of very distinguished German intellectuals from across the political
spectrum issued an appeal to the intellectuals of the world to join in support of Germany and its noble efforts to
defend civilization against barbarism. That was basically a free choice, and that’s much more severe than the
government agencies trying to get people to do things, as they did in the U.S. and Britain, with a good deal of
effect. Most of the subordination to the propaganda was completely voluntary in the U.S. and Britain.
If you look through history, that’s pretty much the way it works. There are totalitarian states where if you don’t
follow the official line, you’re going to be punished severely. Take U.S. dependencies in Central America, some of
the worst. In El Salvador, intellectuals who continued to call for peace negotiations and democracy weren’t
treated nicely. The conservative archbishop, Oscar Romero, who had become "a voice for the voiceless," was
assassinated to begin the decade of the 1980s. This decade ended with the murder of six leading intellectuals at
the Jesuit University in San Salvador. Their brains were blown out by U.S.-armed and trained members of an elite
battalion, which by then had killed tens of thousands of people. Well, that’s what it takes to try and be free and
honest in a client state of the U.S. If you did a poll of educated Americans and asked them to name the leading
Latin American intellectuals whose brains were blow out by our elite forces, essentially no one will have heard of
them or remember the incident. If it had been six intellectuals in Czechoslovakia or Poland at the same time,
you’d know their names.
THAT ILLUSTRATES the "worthy and unworthy victims’ thesis" you and Edward S. Herman develop in your book
Manufacturing Consent. There was an interesting comment made recently by CBS news anchor, Dan Rather. He
didn’t say it on his nightly news show but to the BBC. He said American reporting on the war on terrorism is far
less critical than most other places in the world. He was disturbed by the lack of questioning among journalists
and then he said reporters were intimidated, and he included himself in this, about reporting the facts, for fear of
being labeled unpatriotic.
If Dan Rather is so cowardly about being labeled unpatriotic, he shouldn’t be a newsman. Is that as bad as
having your brains blown out? It’s not nice to be subjected to vilification and defamation and lies, but anyone in
the business has to take this as a fact of life. Are you intimidated by it?
No.
If you want to be intimidated by it, you can say, "I’m a coward." If people are intimidated, they shouldn’t be in
the business.
Let me blend Shakespeare with Rudyard Kipling, the poet laureate of the British Empire, "Take up the white
man’s burden, (unleash) the dogs of war (to fight) the savage wars of peace." What is driving the dogs of war in
the Bush administration’s Iraq policy?
THIS IS something we can only speculate about. We don’t have the internal documentary evidence yet. Let’s just
label this as speculation. The claim is that Saddam Hussein is such a threat to the security of the U.S. and other
countries that we can’t let him survive. We have to destroy him by a preemptive strike. This raises obvious
questions: When did he become such a threat? Notice this comes after September 11. There wasn’t a call to
invade Iraq two years ago. Something must have happened that made him a terrible threat. Is he more
dangerous than two years ago? No. He’s less dangerous than two years ago. Even with all the effort, nothing has been found to link Hussein to September 11. This is not surprising because
Saddam Hussein and bin Laden have been enemies for years. There is no reason to believe that has changed.
However, if there are any links, they’re going to be much harder to maintain after September 11 than before, for
the simple reason of mass surveillance. That’s only the beginning. In 1990, Saddam Hussein was a far greater
threat than today. Remember all his major crimes were behind him. The gassing of the Kurds, the Iran-Iraq war,
torture, and other crimes. He was a first-class world gangster and far more powerful than he is now.
Furthermore, he was developing weapons of mass destruction at a time when his reach was far greater than it is
now. Since that time, Iraq was bombed and devastated and it has been subjected to more than a decade of
severe sanctions. These have reduced its capacity to carry out aggression. It’s subject to overflights. Regular
bombing controls a good part of the country.
What was he doing when he was really dangerous? Bob Dole, the former presidential candidate, now calls for
Congressional support for an attack. What was Dole doing when he was really dangerous? He visited Saddam
Hussein. In the spring of 1990, he led a delegation sent by George Bush I to convey greetings to him and inform
him that the person who had criticized him over the Voice of America was being removed because he was
stepping out of line. Senator Alan Simpson told Saddam his problem wasn’t with the U.S. government but with
the U.S. media, who are haughty and pampered and go off on their own. Even Congressional criticism should be
disregarded. The White House was strongly with him.
This wasn’t just talk. Right through his worst atrocities, the U.S. and Britain were providing Iraq with lavish aid.
Iraq was a major trading partner. They were providing him with the means to develop weapons of mass
destruction, including chemical and nuclear weapons, and missile systems. There was no secret about who he
was. There was a time when Saddam Hussein was dangerous, had committed major crimes, and was capable of
committing much worse ones, and those who are now saying he is too dangerous to exist were supporting him
and helping him become more of a danger.
All of this was happening right before his act of disobedience in 1990, after which he shifted overnight from great
friend and ally to the reincarnation of Attila the Hun. It’s hard to believe that the war is taking place because of
the threat that he poses. That’s not to deny that he does pose a threat. The Iraqi people would be better off
without him, but that was much more true 12 years ago than it is today. The crimes that are correctly charged to
him–like using chemical weapons against his own people–can’t be the reason for war now, because when he was
doing it, the U.S. was supporting him, knowingly. So what are the reasons for war now?
Here we have to speculate. There are two plausible answers. First, the U.S. is trying to show its muscle, and it
doesn’t care much what happens to the people of the region. It’s called establishing credibility. We have to show
we’re going to run the world, and if anyone gets out of line, we’ll smash them. We have the power to do it, and
we’ll do it.
Second, there are also domestic reasons. It’s not much of a secret that the Bush administration is carrying out a
substantial assault against the general population here, particularly future generations. The huge tax cuts for the
rich, which mainly come on line after the next election, could be a very serious blow to the American people. The
huge deficit is replaying pretty much what happened in the 1980s. The goal is to make it impossible to provide
services for the general population like medical care, Social Security, infrastructure development, or protection of
the environment. This ensures that the government will direct its massive resources to the narrow power centers
that the Bush administration serves even more intensively than the norm. That’s happening all across the board,
and the last thing they want people to do is pay attention to it. How do you do that? Here a variant of what
Goering said is more accurate. The way to keep people from paying attention is to frighten them. If people are in
fear, huddling under the protection of the savior, maybe they won’t pay too much attention to what’s being done
to them. That means constant war.
The president has made it clear. His speechwriters have made it very clear. A couple weeks ago, he said that the
war is on terror, but we’re fighting endless wars. We can’t say how many countries we’re going to have to attack
in this war on terror because there are potential threats everywhere. That’s true. There are serious potential
threats right here in the U.S., for example. Take the anthrax attack. In November and December, that was
considered a much more serious threat than September 11. The first major book after September 11–The Age of
Terror, written mostly by a group of well-known university professors–points out that the anthrax attacks were
more serious than September 11. The anthrax attack was later localized to a federal lab in the U.S., and the
commentary declined. So, by their reasoning, we should bomb the U.S. If you want to rid the world of potential
threats, you’ll have to destroy the world. If you want to be serious about reducing potential threats, not just
working for power interests, what you’ll do is look into the causes and reasons for terrorism, and try and deal
with those. The correct response to a terrorist attack is not to lash out and murder people, but try to learn what
lies behind it, and deal with the causes.
Gore Vidal used the analogy of bombing Palermo to kill the Mafia. Or if the British had bombed Boston at the time of major IRA attacks on London. That’s where the financing was
coming from. But the British finally figured out they had to deal with the grievances. It doesn’t justify terrorism,
but there are usually reasons for it. Unless you deal with them, you aren’t going to get anywhere. The head of
the Israeli secret service recently said that if you declare a war on Palestinian terror, you’re declaring a war that
will go on forever. It’s a war without end. If you want to deal with Palestinian terror, you have to deal with the
legitimate grievances of the Palestinians, namely the fact we are denying them self-determination. Twenty years
earlier, during an earlier period of Israeli atrocities in the territories, at a time when Israel still retained immunity
from retaliation from within the territories, the former head of military intelligence made essentially the same
comment. He said, "We’ll never kill the mosquitoes. We have to drain the swamp." The swamp is the failure to
deal with the legitimate aspirations of a people under military occupation.
In your description of the various reasons that lay behind driving the dogs of war in Iraq, you did not include oil.
The Times of London ran the following headline in mid-July: "West Sees Glittering Prizes Ahead in Giant Oilfields."
As the article put it, "The removal of President Saddam Hussein would open Iraq’s rich new oilfields to Western
bidders and bring the prospect of lessening dependence on Saudi oil. No other country offers such untapped
oilfields whose exploitation could lessen tensions over the Western presence in Saudi Arabia." In fact, Iraq has
the second largest oil fields, exceeded only by Saudi Arabia. One industry expert told the Times, "There is
nothing like it anywhere else in the world. It’s the big prize."
That’s all correct, and I’ve written about this topic in the past. The reason I didn’t mention it is because we were
talking about the specific reasons at this moment. Those reasons are background ones, which persist. It’s always
been obvious that, one way or another, the U.S. would try to do something to ensure that this enormous prize
would be back under U.S. control. This is as true today as it has always been.
The torrent of war talk, not just around Iraq, but as you said, other countries, seems to serve as a weapon of
mass distraction, diverting people’s attention from the corporate crime wave, from the Enron scandal and Bush’s
connection with Ken Lay, Bush’s financial dealings while he was a director of Harken Energy, from Cheney’s
involvement with Halliburton, which now has a contract with the Bush administration to do work at Guantanamo
Bay, or from the fact that Iraqi oil is still being imported by Halliburton into the United States.
Yes, they would like to distract attention away from that, but my feeling remains that they would primarily like to
distract people’s attention from the assault they are carrying against the general population. They’re undermining
the basis for a decently functioning society for most of the population, except for the very rich. That’s not a small
thing.
George Orwell’s most famous novel, 1984, introduced such expressions as the "memory hole" and "Big Brother."
Orwell wrote, "The Ministry of Truth was an enormous pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete and on its
white face in elegant lettering the three slogans of the party War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is
Strength." Do you see any parallels today with secret tribunals, secret evidence, permanent war, and government
surveillance with the kind of picture Orwell was describing?
Orwell was describing and satirizing an extreme totalitarian state. Yes, you find bits and pieces in the freer
societies and he intended that. The book was meant as a kind of allegory that was broader than the Soviet Union.
One of the immediate effects of September 11 in most countries was to provide the government with the pretext
to clamp down on its own population. Governments never like free societies. They try to impose discipline in
various ways, and here they did it in rather extreme fashion. Still, I don’t think those are the major issues. I
would turn to a less known article of Orwell’s, the unpublished preface to Animal Farm. It addressed what he
called "literary censorship" in England. He asked, how is it that in free England the outcomes in the media are not
all that different to what I’m satirizing in this account of a totalitarian monster? He mentioned two reasons. One
reason the outcomes are similar is that the press is owned by wealthy men who have every reason not to want
certain ideas to be expressed, so you get self-censorship. The second reason is just a good education. If you’re
properly educated at the elite schools, you internalize the understanding that there are certain things it wouldn’t
do to say. That’s the effect of a "proper education." This doesn’t mean just schools, but the whole system. The
higher the education you receive, the more internalized the values are, and this leads to voluntary censorship.
What was the reaction in the media to the attitudes of leading Afghan dissidents backed by the U.S. to the
bombing? These dissidents opposed the bombing, but how much of this made the press? Very little. After
September 11, there was tremendous sympathy for the victims, but there was a question of how to react. Gallup
carried out an international poll in late September 2001, asking how the U.S. should react. The main question
was: If the identity of the perpetrators is known and the places they came from, should the U.S. resort to force
or to judicial proceedings? Almost the whole world opposed bombing overwhelmingly. In Europe, it was three or
four to one. In Latin America, the region with the most experience of U.S. intervention, support for bombing was
tiny. In Panama, where support for bombing was highest, 16 percent, 80 percent called for judicial proceedings.
There were only two exceptions of the countries polled: India and Israel. Here there was a small majority in favor
of bombing, but that’s because Afghanistan has become the surrogate for their own problems–Kashmir and
Palestine. How much of this appeared in the U.S. press? Every editor knew this. A media study found one report
of 150 words in an Omaha journal, which misstated the results. The government didn’t tell them not to publish it. Every editor knows this is the kind of poll it wouldn’t do to print at a time when there are headlines saying "the
world is with us." It’s easy to give examples over and over. That’s much more serious than a ministry of truth.

__________________
[font=sans-serif]
[highlight][b][center]Luckey Devil[/center][/b]

[u]To make your dream come true, you've got to wake up.[/u]

If you fool me once shame on you.If you fool me twice shame on me.

[u]Initiative is doing the right thing at the right time without being told.[/u][/highlight]
[/font]