Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

War on Iraq

How to Destroy a Country in Five Years

By Patrick Cockburn, CounterPunch. Posted March 17, 2008.


This the fifth of Iraq's blood-sodden anniversaries since Bush invaded, and the country is now utterly ruined.
Advertisement

"It reminds me of Iraq under Saddam," said a militant opponent of Saddam Hussein angrily to me last week as he watched red-capped Iraqi soldiers close down part of central Baghdad so the convoy of Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki might briefly venture into the city.

Five rears after the invasion of Iraq the US and the Iraqi government both claim that Iraq is becoming a less dangerous place, but the measures taken to protect Mr. Maliki told a different story. Gun-waving soldiers first cleared all traffic from the streets. Then four black armored cars, each with three machine gunners on the roof, raced out of a heavily fortified exit from the Green Zone, followed by sand-colored American Humvees and more armored cars. Finally, in the middle of the speeding convoy, we saw six identical bullet proof vehicles with black windows, one of which must have carried Mr. Maliki.

The precautions were not excessive since Baghdad remains the most dangerous city in the world. The Iraqi prime minister was only going to the headquarters of the Dawa party to which he belongs and which are only half a mile from the Green Zone but his hundreds of security guards acted as if they were entering enemy territory.

Five years of occupation have destroyed Iraq as a country. Baghdad is today a collection of hostile Sunni and Shia ghettoes divided by high concrete walls. Different districts even have different national flags. Sunni areas use the old Iraqi flag with the three stars of the Baath party and the Shia wave a newer version, adopted by the Shia-Kurdish government. The Kurds have their own flag.

The Iraqi government tries to give the impression that normality is returning. Iraqi journalists are told not to mention the continuing violence. When a bomb exploded in Karada district near my hotel killing 70 people the police beat and drove away television cameraman trying to take pictures of the devastation. Civilian casualties have fallen from 65 Iraqis killed daily from November 2006 to August 2007 to 26 daily in February. But the fall in the death rate is partly because ethnic cleansing has already done its grim work and in much of Baghdad there are no mixed areas left. More than most wars the war in Iraq remains little understood outside the country. Iraqis themselves often do not understand it because they have an intimate knowledge of their own community, be it Shia, Sunni or Kurdish, but little of other Iraqi communities. It should have been evident from the moment President George W Bush decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein that it was going to be a very different war from the one fought by his father 1991. That had been a conservative war waged to restore the status quo ante in Kuwait.

The war of 2003 was bound to have very radical consequences. If Saddam Hussein was overthrown and elections held then the domination of the 20 per cent Sunni minority would be replaced by the rule of the majority Shia community allied to the Kurds. In an election Shia religious parties linked to Iran would win, as indeed they did in two elections in 2005. Many of America's troubles in Iraq have stemmed from Washington's attempt to stop Iran and anti-American Shia leaders like Muqtada al-Sadr filling the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The US and its allies never really understood the war they won which started on March 19, 2003. Their armies had an easy passage to Baghdad because the Iraqi army did not fight. Even the so-called elite Special Republican Guard units, well paid, well equipped and tribally linked to Saddam, went home. Television coverage and much of the newspaper coverage of the war was highly deceptive because it gave the impression of widespread fighting when there was none. I entered Mosul and Kirkuk, two northern cities, on the day they were captured with hardly a shot fired. Burned out Iraqi tanks littered the roads around Baghdad, giving the impression of heavy fighting, but almost all had been abandoned by their crews before they were hit.

The war was too easy. Consciously or subconsciously Americans came to believe it did not matter what Iraqis said or did. They were expected to behave like Germans or Japanese in 1945, though most of Iraqis did not think of themselves as having been defeated. There was later to be much bitter dispute about who was responsible for the critical error of dissolving the Iraqi army. But at the time the Americans were in a mood of exaggerated imperial arrogance and did not care what Iraqis, in the army or out of it, were doing. "They simply thought we were wogs," says Ahmad Chalabi, the opposition leader, brutally. "We didn't matter."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: iraq, fifth anniversary

Patrick Cockburn is the author of 'The Occupation: War, resistance and daily life in Iraq', a finalist for the National Book Critics' Circle Award for best non-fiction book of 2006. His new book 'Muqtada! Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia revival and the struggle for Iraq' is published by Scribner.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from War on Iraq! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Oil production goes on as the bodies pile up.
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 17, 2008 1:31 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's one story behind the current agenda of the Bush Administration: secure the oil contracts for their cronies before they leave office. That's the most likely explanation for Cheney's current high-pressure trip to Iraq.

The media is still putting this dishonest spin on the hydrocarbon law (Reuters):

"Among political issues Cheney will discuss with Iraq's leaders are a stalled hydrocarbon law, one of Washington's so-called reconciliation benchmarks meant to draw Shi'ites and Sunnis together.

The law will share revenues from Iraq's vast oil reserves, the world's third-largest, but remains deadlocked among political infighting.


In reality, the law is designed to ensure that foreign oil CEOs get to make key decisions about Iraqi oil production and access to production contracts. The Iraq oil unions, on the other hand, continue to claim that they can run their oil industry with zero foreign involvement, if they can just nationalize their oilfields (as all other Middle East countries have done.)

Currently, despite the destruction, Iraq is pumping out 1.5-2 million barrels per day - at $100 a barrel, that's about a billion dollars in revenue per week - all going to someone other than the Iraqi people. It goes on because of the massive (and totally unreported) military/private contractor task force that protects the pipelines and oilfields. You can read about that here:
IRAQ: Evidence of Fraud Found by Iraq Audit, 2006

"Under a program named Task Force Shield, the U.S. paid two security firms $147 million to train and equip tens of thousands of Iraqis to safeguard oil pipelines and transmission towers, the audit found. . ."The lack of records and equipment accountability raises significant concerns about possible fraud, waste and abuse of Task Force Shield program by U.S. and Iraqi officials."

Getting control of the oil really has to be the central goal of Petraues and Cheney - and they've settled on some pretty nasty methods for doing so, which seem to all focus on trying to terrorize the Iraqi public to the point that they are willing to accept permanent second-class occupied nation status.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The surge is working.....oh, really?
Posted by: vox persona on Mar 17, 2008 1:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does that mean it has brough back to life the roughly 4000 US soldiers who have been killed in the most grisly of ways, or brought back the hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis caught in the middle? Are the tens of thousands of our soldiers who were seriously wounded/amputees all better now? In a strategic chess world, we have a president who plays checkers....badly. Forget WMD, that could be explained away to the weak minded as 'bad intelligence'. The real lie was the repeated promise that, 'given authority' (not in the Constitution), war would only be fought as a 'last resort'. Lies, more lies, and damn lies. Never mind that Saddam was our 'go-to boy' in the region during Raygun's reign, when he sent Special Envoy Donald Rumsfeld to shake his hand and deliver instruments of death, then looked the other way as he gassed his own citizens. With all of W's ever-shifting rationales and retrioactive pretexts, it's hard to tell what that justification du jour is this week, but right up there was 'delivering democracy' to a region where 'one man one vote' could yield Shariah law, and fundamentalist Islamism. What if they 'elected a Bin Laden type, what then? Do westart over, and keep invading until we get the proper poodle puppet? Nothing about this makes sense. Our very presence exacerbates the hatred and provides the perfect jihadist recruiting tool, and we completely disregarded the fact that Bin Laden wanted us to invade, so we could topple the iron hand that kept the region from degenerating into full scale civil war. Tribal warfare goes back for many centuries in the region, did the 'surge' (escalation) solve that one? Can you imagine someone walking around with so much as a sidearm in Saddam's Iraq? They would have disappeared. Al Qaida was a threat to the secular monster that was the Beast of Babylon. There was other ways to skin that cat. We could have set up a shadow govt of opposition elements from the 3 sects, and let them take the lead in their own country, after Saddam folded like a pup tent with a few strategic strikes, leaving intact the infrastructure, instead 'shock and awe' was another term for terrorism on a massive scale on a populace unrelated to 9/11. So now whose death squads do we endorse? The ethnic cleansing is for the most part accomplished. The decisions of one man, our Decider-In-Chief, truly destroyed that country and set our fate in stone. It looks like ancient prophecy is in motion, the die is cast. Read Chapter 9 of Revelation....and a star fell from the sky, and to him was given the key to the bottomless pit. Who knows, maybe our evangelist lunatic president felt it was his duty to single handedly bring on the end times. I think he'd be happy with that. Nothing else seems to make sense. I truly feel for the Iraqi people, but if you think about it, this was their Armegeddon.....literally. Thanks W..... Mission accomplished.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Terrorist
Posted by: HeKnew on Mar 17, 2008 2:08 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration: Try 'em & Fry 'em

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mission accomplished!
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 17, 2008 2:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's face it, it was about revenge not building an "Arab Switzerland". And Iraq is now an important lesson for all: mess with the US, and the US will mess with you: get it?

It is a simplistic message but then it is meant for the Arab street, not a drawing room at Harvard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mission accomplished! Posted by: particle
» RE: Mission accomplished! Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Mission accomplished! Posted by: particle
» RE: Mission accomplished! Posted by: Quannah
» RE: Mission accomplished! Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Thank You Bobsays! Posted by: PakiBoy
» RE: Mission accomplished! Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Mission nonsense! Posted by: Iconoclast421
Five Years and the Warmongering Continues
Posted by: Roy Eidelson on Mar 17, 2008 3:36 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From a psychological perspective, it's important to consider how and why White House warmongering has proven so effective despite the tragic disaster that is Iraq today. I examine these questions in a 10-minute online video entitled “Resisting the Drums of War.” It describes how the Bush administration has promoted the misguided and destructive war in Iraq by targeting five core concerns that often govern our lives--concerns about vulnerability, injustice, distrust, superiority, and helplessness. Looking ahead, the continuing occupation of Iraq--or an attack on Iran--will likely be sold to us in much the same way. The video examines these warmongering appeals and offers suggestions for how to counter them. It’s available for viewing HERE.

P.S. For a brief but deeply troubling chronicle of the president’s public warmongering and demonization of Iran, please take a look at my 3-minute YouTube video entitled “Forewarned Is Forearmed: Bush On Iran.” It is available HERE.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great Article, but needs correction of some information
Posted by: Iraqi on Mar 17, 2008 4:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is a very good assessment by Mr. Cockburn, but he continues to promulgate the false statement that the Shiites and Kurds form 80 % of Iraq’s population. It is one of the three false pillars (in addition to the presence of Weapons of Mass Destruction, and Al-Qaida in Iraq) on which the US and UK aggression and occupation of Iraq was based upon.

The facts in accordance to the American appointed Election The Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq ( http://www.ieciraq.org/English/Frameset_english.htm ) gives Shiites and Kurds no more than 49 % of the population:

January 31, 2005 Elections: Total eligible voters: 15,450,000

Shiite Block: 4,075,295 Kurdish Gathering: 2,175,551 Total: 6,250,846 40.4 % of eligible voters

The ex Prime Minister Ayad Allawi’s Iraqiyah slate received 1,168,943 7.5 % . Even if you add this (Sunni’s who did not boycott voted for Allawi) the Total Shiite-Kurdish % will still be only. 47.9 % only.
.

December 15, 2005 Election: Total eligible voters: 15,568,702

Shiite Block: 5,021,137 Kurdish gathering: 2,642,172 Total: 7,663,309 49.2 % of eligible voters
http://www.ieciraq.org/English/Frameset_english.htm
The United Nations forced the Saddam Regime to accept that the Kurds formed 13 % 0f the population in setting the Oil for Food Program.

The Sunnis are the majority, that is why all the US forces, the Badr militia, and the Sadr Militia, and the Iranian "Jaish Al-Quds have not been able to crush the Resistance. Many Iraqi Arab Shiites are now joining the Iraqi Resistance against the US imposed sectarian Iranian bred government of sectarian politicians and clerics

Iraq needs a secular, democratic government based on the Seperation of Powers, The Supremecy of Law, and that every Iraqi is equal under the law regardless of Race, Religion, Gender, etc.
Faruq Ziada
Former Ambassador

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» So does America. Posted by: ikonoklast
Martin Luther King on the Vietnam War
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Mar 17, 2008 4:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This speech is uncanny in how it applies to today.

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Denise
Posted by: d1no on Mar 17, 2008 4:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I looked at the title of the article, I asked myself. . .is this about Iraq or the USA.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Denise Posted by: nochicagoboys
the puppeteers and the puppet
Posted by: Forrest on Mar 17, 2008 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Posted by: Forrest on Mar 17, 2008 5:43 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
March 16, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
Too Heavy a Hand
By RICHARD PERLE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/opinion/
16perle.html?ex=1363320000&en=f2e3ae6d1cf
17122&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=
permalink

Richard Perle recently wrote in the NYT:

"....Instead, we blundered into an ill-conceived occupation that would facilitate a
deadly insurgency from which we, and the Iraqis, are only now emerging. With
misplaced confidence that we knew better than the Iraqis, we sent an American
to govern Iraq. L. Paul Bremer underestimated the task, but did his best to
make a foolish policy work. I had badly underestimated the administration’s
capacity to mess things up......."

Perle et al knew exactly the bloodshed that would inevitably follow the invasion of Iraq.
Search "Richard Perle + A Clean Break"

To paraphrase Kissinger referring to the Iraq-Iran war ~Wouldn't it be great if they both
lost?~

To put words to Perle's thoughts ~Wouldn't it be great if the Sunnis and Shia killed each other?~

Funny how the puppeteers who pulled Bush's strings to invade and occupy Iraq
are now blaming the puppet!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

richard perle: traitor
Posted by: KaptainSpiffy on Mar 17, 2008 7:19 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
the grand scheme unravels and he is more than willing to point fingers. at others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dancing in the streets
Posted by: carbon-based on Mar 17, 2008 7:34 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Iraq was a monumental mistake. America is becoming known as the 500 lb bully in the neighborhood - we definitely needed a strong opposing power to keep our foreign policy in check. While it used to be Russia that was know for swallowing countries and opperssive tactics I fear we might be sliding into that role.

But the situation in Iraq still amazes me. We rebuilt Germany (and most of Europe) and Japan after a horrible emotional war.

One has to look at Iraq and wonder what went wrong. The Kurds are thriving (they just held an annaversary of Saddams gassing of one of their villages killing thousands. A statute of a father shielding his daughter from the gas was riased - I didnt see it on Alternet and wonder why?).

It is obvious that Iraq needed Saddam and his brutal practices to hold the country together. Forget about the torture and thousands missing and dead or the rape that occured by his sons over decades - they needed Saddam.

We should have left them to their own misery instead of creating a new one for them. They will never see the light and are missing the opportunity of bilking billions out of the US to rebuild their country as a better place without Saddam.

We should leave today and let the events happen as they might. When Obama takes office and pulls troops out ASAP the left will dance in the streets as militants mow down civilians by the thousands proclaiming the they are free of America..

But, the problem isn't really America .. it's themselves and they can never be free from that! Some people are just doomed to brutal control - it's all they know!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It took the Bushits
Posted by: Ellie1 on Mar 17, 2008 8:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
less time to destroy THIS country.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It took the Bushits Posted by: liberalibrarian
NO SURPRISES
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Mar 17, 2008 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush/Cheney had few backers in '03. There never was a true coalition of the willing. Across the board there were warnings by very credible people that the whole idea was absurd and would not work. Everything that could possible go wrong, did. That continues to this day. And so do the lies that worked from the very beginning. When time allows, go back on news from that time. Who said what, etc. Can't say they weren't warned. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Gifts from the bush regime-a partial list
Posted by: willymack on Mar 17, 2008 9:57 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Treason 2. Illegal brutaliation of Iraq and Afghanistan based on two sets of dirty lies. 3. 911. 4. Evnviornmental destruction 5. Continous assualt on Social Security, our public school system, and OUR public lands. 6.Illegal spying on our citizens. 7. Refusal to obey summonses and subpeonas. 8. Supression of Congress to the point where it's ineffective and impotent. 9. Stacking the "supreme" court with stooges, and last, but not least, 10. Theft of two General Elections. If we, the people, don't DO something about all this, and soon, we're history.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Iraq what about America..?
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Mar 17, 2008 2:08 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bush is destroying America in 7 years so why not Iraq..?

See what I mean..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Realist View Of the World
Posted by: braxxian1 on Mar 17, 2008 3:17 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is hardly a revelation to anyone who has followed the war from day one. The general school of thought is split into 2 camps. 1. Bush and co deliberatly managed the situation and allowed it to deterorate so that it would be a warning to other nations not to mess with the US, and an Iraq in disorder will allow the giant oil companies to gain control over the country's oil supplies .

2 They simply miscalculated the situation after the fall of Saddam and things got out of control to the point where they would be all but impossible to pull them back. Ragardless of what version you favor the US is to be condemmed for this bungling , brutal, and sadistic attack on a nation that had nothing to do with 9/11, had no WMD'S and had no links to Bin Laden. I may not be an expert in geo politics but I know BS when I smell it. This stinks to high heaven.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No End In Sight
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 17, 2008 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hey, anyone catch this wonderful documentary on 'The Passionate Eye' (CBC) last night?

Like this article, spells out the high criminal neglect the Pentagon (and Rumsfeld) inflicted upon Iraq (through Paul 'Jerry' Bremer). Remember, the White House put Iraqs future entirely into the Pentagons hands. Unprecedented, as much of what happened is.

Anyone notice how, as things began to disintegrate in Iraq in late 2003, Rumsfeld seemed to get more and more incoherent? Hmmm.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But which country is utterly ruined?
Posted by: PaulK on Mar 17, 2008 4:18 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

this piece should have been titled...
Posted by: undrgrndgirl on Mar 17, 2008 10:33 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how to destroy TWO countries in five years. (or even THREE in seven - if you count afghanistan).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Which Country?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Mar 20, 2008 3:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I saw the title for this article, my first reaction was to wonder which country the article might be about? Was it the destruction of the U.S. or the destruction of Iraq? In fact might it be the destruction of Afghanistan or perhaps the destruction of Haiti?

No doubt the destruction of Iraq is the most extreme, but sadly Iraq is not alone.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]