Hi. The 'rich text' of this email provides a more nuanced reading. I say this because the number of kb's herein more than double what they would be with the 'plain text' I normally use. Either way, it's the same words. I was going to send the 'Ten Common defenses' alone, before receiving the startling article from the Observer, just below. Combined, they are memorable. Ed
----- Original Message ----- From: Richard Appelbaum To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 11:34 AM Subject: Re: Ten Common defenses of the US presence of Iraq To which we might also add: Abuse worse than under Saddam, says Iraqi leader · Allawi in damning indictment of new regime · Bush prepares way for US troop pull-out Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday November 27, 2005 The Observer Human rights abuses in Iraq are now as bad as they were under Saddam Hussein and are even in danger of eclipsing his record, according to the country's first Prime Minister after the fall of Saddam's regime. 'People are doing the same as [in] Saddam's time and worse,' Ayad Allawi told The Observer. 'It is an appropriate comparison. People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same things.' In a damning and wide-ranging indictment of Iraq's escalating human rights catastrophe, Allawi accused fellow Shias in the government of being responsible for death squads and secret torture centres. The brutality of elements in the new security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police, he said. Allawi, who was a strong ally of the US-led coalition forces and was prime minister until this April, made his remarks as further hints emerged yesterday that President George Bush is planning to withdraw up to 40,000 US troops from the country next year, when Iraqi forces will be capable of taking over. Allawi's bleak assessment is likely to undermine any attempt to suggest that conditions in Iraq are markedly improving. 'We are hearing about secret police, secret bunkers where people are being interrogated,' he added. 'A lot of Iraqis are being tortured or killed in the course of interrogations. We are even witnessing Sharia courts based on Islamic law that are trying people and executing them.' He said that immediate action was needed to dismantle militias that continue to operate with impunity. If nothing is done, 'the disease infecting [the Ministry of the Interior] will become contagious and spread to all ministries and structures of Iraq's government', he said. In a chilling warning to the West over the danger of leaving behind a disintegrating Iraq, Allawi added: 'Iraq is the centrepiece of this region. If things go wrong, neither Europe nor the US will be safe.' His uncompromising comments came on the eve of Saddam's latest court appearance on charges of crimes against humanity. They seem certain to fuel the growing sense of crisis over Iraq, both in the country itself and in the US, where political support for the occupation continues to plummet. Allawi was selected to serve as prime minister of the first interim government, before last January's first national elections. Admired in both Downing Street and the White House as a non-sectarian politician committed to strong centralised government representing all Iraqis, Allawi's supporters struggled in last January's elections, where they were eclipsed by Shia religious parties, some of which have been implicated in the violence. Recently, however, his reputation has enjoyed a resurgence as he has tried to build alliances with Sunni political groups ahead of next month's national elections. His comments come as a blow to those hoping that Iraq was moving towards normalisation under the new government. In a speech on Wednesday, Bush is expected to hail the improved readiness of Iraqi troops, which he has identified as the key condition for withdrawing US forces. But the proximity of the latest round of elections appears to have only intensified political murders and intimidations, including members of Allawi's own list, who have been killed and attacked by political rivals. Despite denials of wrongdoing by the Ministry of the Interior, which has been implicated in much of the abuse, a series of damaging disclosures, including the discovery of a secret detention centre run by the ministry, has heaped embarrassment on the Iraqi government and its foreign supporters. The intervention by one of Iraq's most prominent political figures promises to turn human rights abuses into a key election issue. Allawi's scathing assessment of the collapse of human rights in Iraq under the country's first democratically elected government came amid an angry denunciation of the involvement of the Iraq government's institutions in widespread disappearances, torture and assassinations. He added that he now had so little faith in the rule of law that he had instructed his own bodyguards to fire on any police car that attempted to approach his headquarters without prior notice, following the implication of police units in many of the abuses. Allawi saved his strongest condemnation for the Ministry of the Interior, whose personnel have been accused of being behind much of the abuse: 'The Ministry of the Interior is at the heart of the matter. I am not blaming the minister [Bayan Jabr] himself, but the rank and file are behind the secret dungeons and some of the executions that are taking place.' Responding to the former prime minister's comments, Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman, said: 'It is inconceivable in the higher reaches of the command of the multinational forces that there was not an awareness of what is being done by some Iraqis to their own countrymen. 'The assertions by Mr Allawi simply underline the catastrophic failure to have a proper strategy in place for the post-war period in Iraq.' Michael Schwartz wrote: HERE IS A NOTE FROM A READER OF MY RECENT 'IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWAL' ARTICLE, WITH A LIST OF TEN THINGS I LEFT OUT OF MY COMMENTARY. THE TEN QUESTIONS ARE COMMONLY EXPRESSED BY PEOPLE AND MEDIA REPORTS, SO I TOOK THE TIME TO OFFER MY RESPONSES TO EACH OF THE 10 CRITICISMS I read your article on withdrawal of American troops and questioned the lack of discussion of the following. 1. Nothing was mentioned about improvements in Iraq (elections, water and energy, schools) No Saddam to fear! Water, energy, and schools are worse off than before the US attacked. Ditto hospitals, highways, and oil production. Elections are a positive, but have not produced the ability of the people to make real choices about their future: one critical example, the political coalition that is now in power ran on a platform promising their voters that they would set and enforce a timetable for US withdrawal. As soon as they took power, they reneged on this promise (apparently under pressure from the US). They have also failed to fulfill any other campaign promises about restoring services, etc, and the Shia citizens are becoming more and more disillusioned with the current government. Shia now are about 70% in favor of US withdrawal. Why is our government unwilling to fulfill the wishes of the majority of Iraq 2. Nothing was mentioned about Iraqis that want the U.S. to remain (especially the Kurds and majority of Iraqi women) It is true that the Kurds favor the US remaining (they constitute about 20% of the population). However, they do not want any US troops in their territory (and there are none). They have their own militias there. So they have what the other sections of the country want. They desire a US occupation for someone else, not themselves. I know of no study that indicates that women favor the U.S. presence; I would be most interested to be referred to such a study. (In fact, my understanding is that women who are upset over the erosion of their rights since the fall of Saddam largely blame the U.S. for installing the current government and allowing it to abridge their rights.) 3. Nothing was mentioned about the benefits of the U.S. military gaining valuable experience and knowledge daily Certainly the US gains experience, but at the expense of many deaths (2,000) and injuries (15,000) (And, beyond this, the New York Times just had a front page article (Sat 11/26) saying that a recent army study shows that 17% of all personnel sent to Iraq have "serious symptoms of depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder." Since about a million U.S. troops have now seen service in Iraq, that is 170,000 with severe mental problems.) And this does not count the 25,000 to 40,000 Iraqi civilians dying each year -and the multitudes injured. Certainly there is a better way to gain experience than this. Moreover, this experience is so demoralizing to the military that many of the best soldiers are leaving at the end of their tours, instead of staying on in active or reserve status. This is undermining the viability of the military, long term. (See NY Times 11/18/05) 4. Nothing was mentioned about the future benefits of a strong democracy in the Middle East We can all agree that a strong democracy in the Middle East would have huge benefits for Iraq and for its neighbors, as well as for the rest of the world. If I thought that our actions there were actually helping to bring this about, I might think that these benefits outweighed the many problems that we are creating. However, even the top Americans on the ground in Iraq are now telling the president that any thought of anything resembling democracy there is visionary at best. I have just written an article in which I describe the behavior of the Iraqi military, under the direct command of our army. It leveled a village, killing many innocent civilians, as a way of punishing it for allowing insurgents to hide there. Actually, the village had harbored Iraqi army members who had just been defeated by the insurgents. But, either way, we are training an army that engages in state terrorism-punishing civilians for the actions of those who oppose it. Even Iwad Allawi, the former prime minister installed by the U.S., says that the political leadership we have installed in more corrupt and more vicious than Saddam (today's Washington Post). There is no sign of democracy developing under the U.S. occupation. 5. Nothing was mentioned about the future benefits of oil reserves. While I agree with you that this war was intended to give American oil companies privileged access to the Iraq oil reserves, I disagree that such access would have helped the American people. The oil companies have a long history of (pardon my language) screwing the American people in order to obtain huge profits-the latest example being their massive price increases after Katrina. Moreover, such privileged access would deprive the Iraqis of their right to use the oil to their own benefit. Our best bet is to buy our oil on the open market, put our research money into conservation and renewable fuels instead of military adventures, and avoid trying to get "control" of something that doesn't belong to us. 6. Nothing was mentioned about what fundamentalist Muslims would like to achieve. First, I disagree with your designation of the terrorists who attacked the World Trade Center as "fundamentalist Muslims," as though all fundamentalist Muslims participate in or support terrorism (that would be like characterizing those who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building as "fundamentalist Christians."). Second, I disagree that I didn't mention the terrorists in Iraq. I had a whole discussion about how the leadership of the Zarqawi wing of the resistance wanted to use terror to establish an Islamist state that would oppress the Shia (and probably much worse). And I also pointed out that the U.S. actions are strengthening Zarqawi and weakening the nationalist resistance whose primary goal is to expel the U.S. The longer the U.S. stays, the more the Islamic terrorists in Iraq will gain strength. 7. Nothing was mentioned about the results of the U.S. evacuation from Southeast Asia (over a million killed within 5 years). I think you have your facts wrong here. The histories I have read about the War in Vietnam say that the war itself killed about three million Vietnamese, mostly through U.S. military action. And that the bloodbath that was always predicted never took place-that the deaths may have numbered in the thousands or even ten thousands, but that they were tiny compared to the daily toll taken by the war. If I am wrong about this, please provide me with cites to sources that document the million-death figure. (If you want cites to my sources, I will be happy to send them) 8. Nothing was mentioned about the reputation of the U.S. if it retreats. Don't forget the quotes about Somalia from Osama Bin Laden. "Cut and Run". Here we agree. If the U.S. withdraws, this retreat will undermine U.S. credibility when the it. threatens to use military power to force another country to submit to U.S. demands. But I have two observations that you will probably disagree with. First, this has already happened. The most crystalline case is Iran, which was much more compliant to U.S. demands before the Iraq invasion than it is now, once it has seen how the Iraqi resistance has frustrated the U.S. military. (In fact, the invasion of Iraq has probably done more to strengthen the oppressive Iranian regime, domestically and in the Middle East, than any set of events in the past 25 years. See my recent article on this in TomDispatch.) So, if you are worried about U.S. reputation, you want the U.S. to cut its losses now, instead of continuing to flounder in Iraq and therefore make it clear that we are-to use the old Vietnamese epithet-a paper tiger. Second, I think it is a good thing if the world is not intimidated by U.S. threats of military invasion. I do not believe that good has come from U.S. military adventures; quite the contrary, the Bush Administration (and the Clinton , Bush I, and Reagan Administrations before it) have used U.S. military power to impose bad policies all around the world. We would be much better off with the multi-polar world that many Americans advocate, in which no country (including the U.S.) could impose itself on others without at least the support of a great many other countries. And we would be far better off if the U.S. stopped spending more on military than the rest of the world combined (!!) and started spending more of that money on things that would actually improve the welfare of our people. We would be much better off that way. 9. Nothing was mentioned about Germany, Japan, Korea, and the former Yugoslavia. Should we get out of those? Where was the pre war planning to get out of all those locations. Did Lincoln have a pre war plan to leave the South? If you are arguing that some wars, and some interventions and some occupations are a good thing, I agree (without evaluating the particulars of the examples you offer). That does not mean that all of them are good. The invasion, occupation, and destruction of Iraq is not either justified or moral. 10 Nothing was mentioned about 9/11, were we attacked by fundamentalist Muslims? How do we change their attitudes? This comment is sounds like you think that changing the attitudes of those who are fighting the U.S. involves "whipping their ass." You never change attitudes that way. Every sociologist who studies terrorism agrees on this point: it derives from the misery that so many people are forced to live in. It is misguided and criminal, but it nevertheless derives from complaints people have about their daily lives, and about the impossibility of living a decent life. The best way to change attitudes would be to take a fraction (a fraction!!) of the money we are now spending on the war and on the military and put it into foreign aid. One example: a panel of expert development economists just delivered a report to the UN saying that for $40 billion we could bring the income of the poorest people of the world up to a level that would eradicate the famines and mass starvation that are currently spreading from one continent to another. That project, if enacted, would do more to reduce terrorism than all the "anti-terrorist" activities of the U.S. government including the entire defense budget (about $400 Billion a year), the $200 billion for the war in Iraq, and the $80 or so billion for the Department of Homeland Security. MS Director, Undergraduate College of Global Studies Professor of Sociology University at Stony Brook Stony Brook NY 11794 Phone: (cell) 516 356-4078 Cell Phone: 516 356-4078 Fax 631 331-6120 -- ----------------------------------------- Richard P. Appelbaum, Ph.D. Professor, Sociology and Global & International Studies Director, Institute for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Research (ISBER) Co-Director, Center for Global Studies University of California at Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, CA 93106-2150 phone: (805) 893-7230 fax: (805) 893-7995 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.isber.ucsb.edu ------------------------------------------ "What does a war in Iraq cost a week? A billion? Maybe a billion a day? The budget for the National Cancer Institute is four billion. That has to change. " - Lance Armstrong, cancer survivor, 7-time tour de France winner [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- LAAMN: Los Angeles Alternative Media Network --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subscribe: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Digest: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Help: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive1: <http://www.egroups.com/messages/laamn> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Archive2: <http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
