Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, April 2007, pages 7-9 Special
Report Bushs Policy of Escalation May Extend Beyond Iraq By Rachelle
Marshall An Iraqi man holds his mother, who fainted after her
son was questioned and nearly detained by U.S. Army soldiers from the 5-20
Infantry Division during the launch of Operation Arrowhead Strike Six in
Baghdads northern Shaab neighborhood, Feb. 6, 2007 (AFP Photo/David Furst).
No major American leader doubts that America must remain the locomotive of
the world.Columnist David Brooks, New York Times, Feb. 1.
No one loves armed missionaries.Robespierre, to the French National
Assembly, 1791.
A RECENT COVER of the Economist magazine pictured George Bush as a demented
cavalry officer waving a sword and shouting Charge! to the troops behind him
as he rides his horse over a cliff. It is an apt illustration of current U.S.
policy in the Middle East, where the Bush administration is escalating military
action in two wars and threatening to launch a third.
Harvard historian Stanley Hoffman warned in a November 2001 article for The
New York Review of Books that a war directed against the Taliban would be the
wrong response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Such an action, he wrote, risks
sending us into an Afghan quagmire of disastrous proportions, causing a huge
new exodus of miserably poor people, and creating revulsion and perhaps revolt
among the Pakistanis, or at least some faction of them.
Nearly six years later, victory in Afghanistan is further away than ever.
Attacks on U.S. and NATO forces have tripled; the number of U.S. troops in the
country has increased from 9,500 to 26,000; and in mid-February Bush called on
NATO allies to provide a larger force in preparation for fierce fighting this
spring.
A resurgent Taliban has bases among tribes in western Pakistan and again
controls large portions of the country, but American and NATO troops also face
resistance from warlord militias and Afghan villagers who have traditionally
fought against invading armies. San Francisco Chronicle reporter Claudio Franco
trekked for nine hours into the mountains to interview a Taliban commander, and
concluded, the sons of anti-Soviet fighters...are prepared to outwait any
occupation force.
There is no basis for Bushs belief that the United States will be able to
impose its will on a country where the Persians, the British, the Russians, and
the Soviets with 100,000 troops have failed. Equally irrational is his promise
of victory in Iraq. An operation that began with lies is now kept going with
fantasies. The new way forward, Bush announced last January, which called for
sending 21,000 more troops to fight an unwinnable war, is only his latest
fantasy.
Bush was convinced he could force change in the Middle East, despite warnings
by Middle East scholars, State Department analysts, and even the CIA that Iraq
was likely to disintegrate into chaos if the United States tried to oust Saddam
Hussain. The consequences of Bushs hubris have been played out in tragedy over
the last four years, as the invasion and its aftermath destroyed the Iraqi
state and left a vacuum that was filled by sectarian violence.
Sending more soldiers into this cauldron will do nothing but ensure that more
Americans and Iraqis will die. Combat soldiers are not trained to make peace or
bring about stabilization. Nor will the additional troops make Iraqis more
secure. When soldiers on patrol believe they are in danger they call in air
strikes that too often kill anyone within range. In early February Iraqi troops
in Najaf called for help when they spotted a number of strangers moving across
the landscape. The warplanes that responded killed 263 people who were later
found to be members of a religious tribe on their way to a shrine. A few days
later American soldiers mistook the headquarters of Iraqi President Jalal
Talabani for the hideout of an al-Qaeda bomb-making cell, and killed nine
Kurdish guards.
Bushs new strategy for victory requires Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki to
deploy more Iraqi troops in Baghdad, disband the militias, and achieve
reconciliation between Shii and Sunnis, but Al-Malikis government has been
paralyzed for months. Most of the time the parliament cant raise a quorum
because more than half the members have left the country for their own safety
or are boycotting the sessions. The death squads that have carried out the the
most brutal atrocities are linked to the Interior Ministry, and the most
powerful militia, the Mahdi army, is controlled by the Shii cleric Moqtada
al-Sadr, who provides Al-Maliki with his largest base of support. Other
militias are deeply embedded in neighborhoods where they provide services such
as garbage collection as well as security.
With the start of the new offensive on Feb. 7, additional checkpoints, blast
walls and barbed wire barriers quickly appeared throughout Baghdad, bringing
traffic to a halt, while low-flying helicopters and fighter jets roared
overhead. An Iraqi officer, Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, announced he had taken over
the Defense and Interior ministries and that the government intended to open
mail, monitor phone calls, and evict thousands of squatters.
An Iraqi tribal leader predicted that if the additional U.S. troops only use
force, like before, they will make many more problemsbut such concerns did
not register with an American military spokesman, who said the incoming forces
would carry out targeted killings and large-force operations. The
assassinations of several high-level militia commanders by the army have
already angered many Iraqis, who see such actions as an infringement on Iraqs
sovereignty. In large-force operations soldiers sweep through neighborhoods
searching homes and rounding up all males old enough to carry a gun. It is
clear why at least 78 percent of Baghdad residents say they would feel safer if
the Americans left.
Bush claims the war in Iraq is a decisive ideological struggle, in which
the security of our nation is in the balance, but the actual enemies in Iraq
are either the participants in Iraqs domestic civil war or Iraqis who want our
troops out of their country. When American and Iraqi forces recently conducted
a joint operation in Baghdad they encountered fierce resistance but couldnt
tell who was shooting at them. The sergeant in charge said it could have been
Sunni insurgents, Shii militia fighters or the Iraqi soldiers who had
disappeared into the alleys during the battle.
Occupation authorities apparently also regard some Iraqi political parties as
the enemy. In early January U.S. troops destroyed the headquarters of the
National Dialogue Front, a secular party that has 11 seats in parliament, and
seized its files. Two bodyguards of party leader Saleh al-Mutlak were killed.
The army claimed the building was a safe house for al-Qaeda, but Al-Mutlak and
his followers said they were actually trying to organize a coalition with
Sunni, Shii and secular groups that would replace Al-Maliki with a more
effective Iraqi government and force an American withdrawal. They called the
attack on their headquarters an attempt by U.S. officials to block this effort.
The fact that an overwhelming majority of Iraqis want the Army to leave their
country makes no difference to Bush. In calling for a military escalation, he
has also ignored American public opinion, defied Congress, rejected the advice
of his top generals, and brushed off the bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Bush may
be playing for time, hoping the Democrats who replace him can be blamed for the
inevitable defeat. He may also be planning a more dangerous gamble.
A More Dangerous Gamble In Gaza City, women watch a funeral
procession for a Palestinian killed in factional fighting (Photo: Mohammed
Omer).
Bush issued an unmistakable warning to Iran when he promised in his State of
the Union speech to seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced
weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney
warned on Fox News in January that The threat that Iran represents is growing.
Its multidimensional. Deputy Secretary of State John D. Negroponte echoed
Cheneys warning a week later when he told the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee that Iran could do serious harm to U.S. interests in the region. We
dont believe their behavior, such as supporting Shii extremists in Iraq,
should go unchallenged, he said.
On Feb. 11 three Pentagon officials who insisted on remaining anonymous
showed reporters a pile of explosive devices that contained markings indicating
they were made in Iran. The event reportedly had been planned and orchestrated
for months by top-level Bush administration officials in order to make their
charges against Iran seem credible. At his press conference on Feb. 14 Bush
said, I can say with certainty that the Quds Force, a part of the Iranian
government, has provided these sophisticated IEDs that have harmed our troops.
When the United States found who was responsible, he added, we will deal with
them.
Last November the senior commander in the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid,
said that ending the conflict required political and diplomatic action, and he
urged the administration to reach out to Syria and Iran for help in stabilizing
Iraq. Abizaid, who has a graduate degree in Middle East Studies, was soon out
of a job. He was replaced by Admiral William J. Fallon, who at his Senate
confirmation hearings in January accused Iran of attempt[ing] to deny us the
abilty to operate in this vicinity. Fallon assured senators that the United
States could hit back at Iran by hampering its oil shipments in the Persian
Gulf.
Placing an admiral in charge of all American forces in the Middle East made
sense in view of Bushs decision to send two more aircraft carriers and a large
support fleet to the Gulf.
The carriers are equipped with cruise missiles capable of reaching targets in
Iran.
Washington also is stationing more anti-missile batteries off Irans coast
and has pressured international banks and businesses to cut off all dealings
with the Islamic republic.
Despite the Pentagons exhibit of Iranian-made explosive devices, Gen. Peter
Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said he was not convinced that the
Iranian government was providing them. In fact, logic points the other way. The
Iranians do not want a country in turmoil on their borders and have cooperated
with Iraqi officials in measures to calm the situation. Irans ambassador to
Iraq, Hassan Kazemi Qumi, announced in late January that Iran was planning to
open a national bank in Iraq and was working with the Iraqi government on
reconstruction plans. Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish Iraqi member of parliament,
declared bluntly, The Iraqi government doesnt think Iran is the enemy.
Lawrence Wilkerson, former Secretary of State Colin Powells chief of staff,
revealed on the BBC in January that in 2003 Tehran had proposed to the Bush
administration that it would help stabilize Iraq, end military support for
Hezbollah, and provide more transparency regarding its nuclear activities if
Washington lifted sanctions against Iran and dismantled Iranian opposition
forces based in Iraq. Dick Cheney vetoed the deal. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice, who was national security adviser at the time, referred to
Irans offer on National Public Radio last June. What the Iranians wanted,
she said, was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be
about the United States and Iran.
What the Iranians actually want was described by Irans ambassador to the
United Nations, Javad Zarif, in a Feb. 8 New York Times op-ed column. Zarif
called for regionwide cooperation to contain the current crisis in Iraq and
prevent future ones, and stressed the need to reverse the dangerous trend of
confrontation, exclusion and rivalry. Resolving Iraqs problems, he wrote,
requires prudence, dialogue, and a genuine search for solution.
Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraqs most influential Shii leaders, has said
that talks between Iran and Washington were of utmost importance both to Iraq
and to the entire region. Yet the Bush administration has ignored all such
pleas. In refusing all official contacts with Iran and Syria, the United States
stands alone with Israel in shunning two countries the rest of the world
recognizes as legitimate negotiating partners whose concerns must be taken into
account in any Middle East peace agreement.
Washingtons boycott of the democratically elected Hamas government in
Palestine is an equally serious obstacle to peace. Rices much heralded peace
summit in Jerusalem on Feb. 19 became no more than a charade when she and Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert refused to meet with Hamas leaders. Olmert and Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas agreed only that they would meet again. Americas close
ally, Saudi Arabias King Abdullah, made the futility of Israeli and U.S.
policy embarrassingly clear in early February, when he invited Abbas, Prime
Minister Ismail Haniyah, and Hamas leader Khaled Meshal to Mecca for the
purpose of forming a new Palestinian government. The meeting was aimed at
ending weeks of fighting in Gaza between Hamas and Abbas Fateh supporters in
which more than 60 Palestinians were killed.
Washington made sure the fighting would continue by providing military aid
and training to Abbas Presidential Guard. For its part, Israel released $100
million in Palestinian tax revenues to Abbas on condition that none of it go to
pay government workers. One of the deadliest battles took place when Hamas
security police in Gaza intercepted trucks delivering weapons from Israel to
the pro-Abbas fighters.
With Jordans King Abdullah presiding, Abbas and Haniyah agreed to form a
unity government in which six Fatah members will hold cabinet posts and a Fatah
member will serve as deputy prime minister. The agreement may have ended the
factional violence for the time being but it brought no relief for the
Palestinians, who continue to live as prisoners. The United States and Israel
insist that the Palestinian Authority recognize Israels right to exist,
renounce violence, and accept past agreements before they will resume aid.
Meanwhile Israel is considering rerouting the separation barrier to enclose two
more settlements, leaving an additional 20,000 Palestinians trapped on the
Israeli side.
Hamas leaders said they would respect past peace agreements, but will not
recognize Israel or renounce violence. Seldom if ever has a government been
required to renounce violence before it could be considered legitimate. Hamas
has indicated since at least 1995 that it would accept an indefinite truce with
Israel in return for Israels withdrawal to its 1967 borders. The reform
program Haniyah presented to the Palestinian legislature in March 2006 included
support for political freedom, minority rights, and the principle of two
states for two peoples.
Hamas spokesman Ghazi Hamad appealed to the Europeans to open talks with the
unity government, saying, This is the only way to have stability in the
region. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov agreed, and called on Israel
to lift the blockade of Palestinian territories. Javier Solana, policy director
for the European Union, also supported an end to the boycott. We need to enter
the conflict-resolution stage, he said, and try to end the occupation of
1967.
But such discussions cannot take place until the United States adopts a
Middle East policy based on achieving cooperative solutions rather than on
asserting American power and promoting Israels interests. As long as the
American Army is based on Irans borders, and our navy is massed off its
shores, there is danger of a new war in the region.
It is a fantasy to pretend that Iraq is a sovereign state while 140,000
foreign troops are occupying that country. It is a more dangerous fantasy to
believe that America has the right to dominate the Middle East.
Rachelle Marshall is a free-lance editor living in Stanford, CA. A member of
the Jewish International Peace Union, she writes frequently on the Middle East.
http://www.washington-report.org/archives/April_2007/0704007.html
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
---------------------------------
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/laamn/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> 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/
