----- Original Message ----- 
From: "War Times" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 6:09 PM
Subject: More Occupation, New War Threats - March Month in Review


Washington's Wars and Occupations:
Month in Review #11
March 23, 2006
By Max Elbaum, War Times/Tiempo de Guerras

BUSH ESCALATES IRAQ VIOLENCE AND THREATENS MORE WARS

On the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, George Bush's Iraq policy is
less
popular than ever before. The latest Newsweek poll shows approval at only
29%, compared
to 65% opposition. A first-ever poll of U.S. troops in Iraq shows 72% think
the
U.S. should get out within the next year. Even conservatives and experts who
once
backed Bush's war are jumping ship: the latest important defection came
March 10
when New York Times reporter John Burns, back from another long period in
Baghdad,
said he felt, for the first time, "that the American effort in Iraq will
likely
fail."

Internationally, the administration is isolated. Members of the "Coalition
of the Willing" are one by one withdrawing from Iraq. Popular anger at the
U.S. is at record levels in the Middle East and across the globe.

Under the circumstances, one might guess that Washington would be looking
for a
way to retrench. Conservative hawks like William F. Buckley, concerned about
minimizing
the damage to U.S. imperial power, advise precisely that course: "The
administration
has to cope with failure," Buckley writes. "Different plans must be made."

But Bush's response is: "Stay the Course - and More." The administration
is digging in to stay in Iraq indefinitely. It is escalating the use of
violence.
It is threatening new military adventures and bullying from Iran to
Venezuela to
Palestine.

NO PULLOUT, NO LETUP

Speaking to the press March 21, Bush made it absolutely clear there will be
no pullout
from Iraq while he is President. Asked directly whether there would come a
day when
no U.S. forces are in Iraq, he responded, ''That will be decided by future
presidents
and future governments of Iraq.''

Less than a week earlier, General John Abizaid, U.S. commander in Iraq, sent
the
same message. The U.S. "may want to keep a long-term military presence in
Iraq
to bolster moderates against extremists in the region and protect oil
supplies,"
Abizaid declared. Asked if this meant keeping permanent military bases in
Iraq,
the general said he "could not rule that out." Two-weeks later, Abizaid
was rewarded with an extension of his tenure, making him the longest serving
commander
in the history of the U.S. Central Command.

Meanwhile U.S. forces are escalating, not reducing, their use of violence.
According
to an investigation published by Knight Ridder newspapers March 14: "A
review
of military data shows that daily bombing runs and jet-missile launches have
increased
by more than 50% in the past five months, compared with the same period last
year.
Knight Ridder's findings were confirmed by Air Force officials in the
region...

"The numbers also show that U.S. forces dropped bombs on more cities during
the last five months than they did during the same period a year ago...
Stories
of American missiles hitting the homes of innocents are passed between Iraqi
men
at teahouses and during Friday worship services. 'Residents worry that their
homes
will be bombed at any time,' said Hussein Ali Jaafar, who owns a stationery
shop
in the town of Balad, north of Baghdad, which was targeted by bombs or
missiles
at least 27 times between October 2005 and February 2006. 'Most of the
bombing is
unjustified and random. It does not differentiate between militants and
innocent
people.'"

OCCUPATION FUELS SECTARIAN CONFLICT

These escalating U.S. tactics will fuel - not reduce - the deadly sectarian
conflict
raging between Sunni and Shia armed groups. A must-read analysis by Michael
Schwartz
at http://www.tomdispatch.com describes the ways U.S. policy has fostered
sectarian
violence and makes the crucial point - not discussed in the U.S. media -
that the
overwhelming bulk of armed attacks (80% on average) are against the U.S.
military
and its Coalition allies, not against Iraqi civilians. The killing of
civilians
by both Shiite and Sunni sectarian groups and militias is real and terrible,
but
it is now being trumpeted by U.S. authorities as a justification for
continuing
the U.S. occupation instead of being acknowledged as in large part a result
of U.S.
occupation policies. Schwartz writes:

"All the conflicts of the present moment have metastasized and spread from
the ill-fated attempt by American-led forces to pacify Sunni communities...
Today,
not only is the country edging toward an ever-more virulent civil war, but
the Sunni
resistance is stronger than ever, registering about 100 attacks a day in
January...

"This original war remains the central front in the ongoing battle for
domination
in Iraq and it continues to cast off enough bitterness, suffering,
destruction,
and rebellion to guarantee its never-ending spread to new areas and
groups... If
the Americans sought to establish the legitimacy of the occupation by
crushing early
signs of Sunni resistance, that effort has, in the end, only helped convince
Iraqis
of the illegitimacy of the American presence. For all its failures, however,
the
occupation has succeeded in one endeavor. It has managed to undermine all
efforts
by other parties to establish their own legitimacy and therefore to build a
foundation
for a new and sovereign Iraq. If one day Iraq ceases to be, splitting
chaotically
into several entities, the way the occupation destroyed sovereignty (along
with
parts of Sunni cities) will certainly come in for a major share of the
blame."

PRE-EMPTIVE WAR, EXPANDING TARGET LIST

And it isn't just Iraq. The administration's newest National Security
Document officially
repeats the so-called Bush Doctrine, in which Washington claims the right to
launch
a preemptive war whenever it believes another country "might" threaten
the U.S.

The document targeted Iran as the most likely candidate for preventive war
treatment.
"We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran,'' it
said. Administration officials are keeping up the drumbeat of threats
against that
country, even though Iran's nuclear program complies with the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation
Treaty which Tehran has signed. Meanwhile Israel and India - nuclear powers
which
have not signed the treaty - get the go-ahead from Washington for their
nuclear
programs.

In a particularly worrying development, the Los Angeles Times reported March
21
that "U.S. intelligence officials...citing evidence from highly classified
satellite feeds and electronic eavesdropping, believe the Iranian regime is
playing
host to much of Al Qaeda's remaining brain trust and allowing the senior
operatives
freedom to communicate and help plan the terrorist network's operations. And
they
suggest that recently elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be forging
an alliance
with Al Qaeda operatives...The accusations echo charges that Bush
administration
figures made about Iraq in the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion three years
ago."

Of course Iran-Al Qaeda ties make little sense, since Al Qaeda is central to
the
killing of Iraqi Shiites friendly to Iran and has denounced all Shiites,
including
the Iranian leadership, as infidels. But the Bush administration did not let
facts
get in the way of its previous war drive. There is no reason to expect more
scruples
from them today.

Administration officials are also carrying over their demonization of Iran
to Venezuela.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told Congress last month that the U.S.
was using
an "inoculation strategy" against alleged meddling by Venezuelan leader
Hugo Chavez. Rice called Venezuela a "sidekick" of Iran and the
administration
upgraded their official assessment of Chavez' government as a "security
threat."

BLANK CHECK FOR ISRAEL

Bush is also giving a huge blank check to Israel in its effort to forcibly
impose
an illegal and unjust "solution" on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
On March 14 Israel brazenly violated an agreement it had signed (guaranteed
by the
U.S. and Britain) by raiding a Palestinian prison in Jericho and seizing a
number
of prisoners. Polls showed that even half the Israeli population believed
the attack
was in part an electoral gimmick. The other part was a signal to the
Palestinians
that the Israeli military will do what it pleases and that it has U.S. and
British
support. Israeli peace activist Uri Avnery bluntly said:

"For a politician to send the army in to collect votes is an abhorrent act.
In this action, three people were killed. Many more lives, Palestinian and
Israeli,
were put at risk....This is not the first time for [acting Prime Minister]
Ehud
Olmert to walk over dead bodies on his way to power. As mayor of Jerusalem,
he pushed
for the opening of a tunnel in the area of the Muslim shrines, causing (as
expected)
dozens of casualties."

Despite Washington guaranteeing the Jericho prison agreement, the White
House did
not utter a word of protest at the Israeli action. Nor did the Bush
administration
object when Olmert openly discarded Bush's own "road map" for peace and
announced plans to unilaterally set Israel's borders with a huge annexation
of Palestinian
land by 2010, using the route of the so-called "security fence" as his
guideline.

Israel's propaganda justification for such actions is the claim that it has
"no
partner for peace." But even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter cut through
to the heart of the matter in a March 9 opinion piece, writing that "The
preeminent
obstacle to peace is Israel's colonization of Palestine."

LATEST TORTURE REVELATION: "NO BLOOD, NO FOUL"

The New York Times reported March 19 under the headline "Before and After
Abu
Ghraib, a U.S. Unit Abused Detainees":

"...in early 2004 an elite Special Operations forces unit converted one of
Saddam Hussein's former military bases into a top-secret detention center.
American
soldiers made one of the former Iraqi government's torture chambers into
their own
interrogation cell. They named it the Black Room. In the windowless,
jet-black garage-size
room, some soldiers beat prisoners with rifle butts, yelled and spit in
their faces
and, in a nearby area, used detainees for target practice in a game of
jailer paintball...Placards
posted by soldiers at the detention area advised, "NO BLOOD, NO FOUL."
The slogan reflected an adage adopted by Task Force 6-26: 'If you don't make
them
bleed, they can't prosecute for it'... 'The reality is, there were no rules
there,'
a Pentagon official said."

ALL OUT APRIL 29 & URGENT DEFENSE OF IMMIGRANT RIGHTS

Protest and mass pressure against all this is urgent. The next big moment
for the
antiwar movement will be the March for Peace, Justice and Democracy in New
York
City April 29, initiated by United for Peace and Justice, Rainbow/PUSH
Coalition,
National Organization for Women, Friends of the Earth, U.S. Labor Against
the War,
Climate Crisis Coalition, Peoples' Hurricane Relief Fund, National Youth and
Student
Peace Coalition and Veterans For Peace. Go to http://www.april29.org for
full information.

The April 29 action includes a vital call to defend immigrant rights. New
vicious
anti-immigrant legislation may be up for a vote in Congress next week.
Contact the
National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights for background and action
information:
http://www.nnirr.org or go to http://www.immigrantrights.org


War Times/Tiempo de Guerras is an all-volunteer project fiscally sponsored
by the
Center for Third World Organizing. Donations to War Times are
tax-deductible; you
can donate on-line at http://www.war-times.org or send a check to War
Times/Tiempo
de Guerras, c/o P.O. Box 99096, Emeryville, CA 94662.






-- 
If this message was forwarded to you and you would like to subscribe,
please click here: http://www.mailermailer.com/x?oid=05376w


Email list management powered by http://MailerMailer.com


ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian  
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/

<*> 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/
 


Reply via email to