Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Seven Hair-Raising Realities About the Iraq War

By Michael Schwartz, Tomdispatch.com. Posted August 22, 2006.


A short guide to understanding a flood of new Iraqi developments -- and the fate of both the American occupation and Iraqi society.
082206story2
Seven Hair-Raising Realities About the Iraq War
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg



With a tenuous cease-fire between Israel and Lebanon holding, the ever-hotter war in Iraq is once again creeping back onto newspaper front pages and towards the top of the evening news. Before being fully immersed in daily reports of bomb blasts, sectarian violence, and casualties, however, it might be worth considering some of the just-under-the-radar-screen realities of the situation in that country. Here, then, is a little guide to understanding what is likely to be a flood of new Iraqi developments -- a few enduring, but seldom commented upon, patterns central to the dynamics of the Iraq war, as well as to the fate of the American occupation and Iraqi society.



1. The Iraqi Government Is Little More Than a Group of "Talking Heads"



A minimally viable central government is built on at least three foundations: the coercive capacity to maintain order, an administrative apparatus that can deliver government services and directives to society, and the resources to manage these functions. The Iraqi government has none of these attributes -- and no prospect of developing them. It has no coercive capacity. The national army we hear so much about is actually trained and commanded by the Americans, while the police forces are largely controlled by local governments and have few, if any, viable links to the central government in Baghdad. (Only the Special Forces, whose death-squad activities in the capital have lately been in the news, have any formal relationship with the elected government; and they have more enduring ties to the U.S. military that created them and the Shia militias who staffed them.)



Administratively, the Iraqi government has no existence outside Baghdad's heavily fortified Green Zone -- and little presence within it. Whatever local apparatus exists elsewhere in the country is led by local leaders, usually with little or no loyalty to the central government and not dependent on it for resources it doesn't, in any case, possess. In Baghdad itself, this is clearly illustrated in the vast Shiite slum of Sadr city, controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army and his elaborate network of political clerics. (Even U.S. occupation forces enter that enormous swath of the capital only in large brigades, braced for significant firefights.) In the major city of the Shia south, Basra, local clerics lead a government that alternately ignores and defies the central government on all policy issues from oil to women's rights; in Sunni cities like Tal Afar and Ramadi, where major battles with the Americans alternate with insurgent control, the government simply has no presence whatsoever. In Kurdistan in the north, the Kurdish leadership maintains full control of all local governments.




As for resources, with 85% of the country's revenues deriving from oil, all you really need to know is that oil-rich Iraq is also suffering from an "acute fuel shortage" (including soaring prices, all-night lines at gas stations, and a deal to get help from neighboring Syria which itself has minimal refining capacity). The almost helpless Iraqi government has had little choice but to accept the dictates of American advisors and of the International Monetary Fund about exactly how what energy resources exist will be used. Paying off Saddam-era debt, reparations to Kuwait from the Gulf War of 1990, and the needs of the U.S.-controlled national army have had first claim. With what remains so meager that it cannot sustain a viable administrative apparatus in Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country, there is barely enough to spare for the government leadership to line their own pockets.



2. There Is No Iraqi Army




The "Iraqi Army" is a misnomer. The government's military consists of Iraqi units integrated into the U.S.-commanded occupation army. These units rely on the Americans for intelligence, logistics, and -- lacking almost all heavy weaponry themselves -- artillery, tanks, and any kind of airpower. (The Iraqi "Air Force" typically consists of fewer then 10 planes with no combat capability.) The government has no real control over either personnel or strategy.




We can see this clearly in a recent operation in Sadr City, conducted (as news reports tell us) by "Iraqi troops and US advisors" and backed up by U.S. artillery and air power. It was one of an ongoing series of attempts to undermine the Sadrists and their Mahdi army, who have governed the area since the fall of Saddam. The day after the assault, Iraqi premier Nouri Kamel al-Maliki complained about the tactics used, which he labeled "unjustified," and about the fact that neither he, nor his government, was included in the decision-making leading up to the assault. As he put it to an Agence France-Presse, "I reiterate my rejection to [sic] such an operation and it should not be executed without my consent. This particular operation did not have my approval."



This happened because the U.S. has functionally expanded its own forces in Iraq by integrating local Iraqi units into its command structure, while essentially depriving the central government of any army it could use purely for its own purposes. Iraqi units have their own officers, but they always operate with American advisers. As American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad put it, "We'll ultimately help them become independent." (Don't hold your breath.)



3. The Recent Decline in American Casualties Is Not a Result of Less Fighting (and Anyway, It's Probably Ending)



At the beginning of August, the press carried reports of a significant decline in U.S. casualties, punctuated with announcements from American officials that the military situation was improving. The figures (compiled by the Brookings Institute) do show a decline in U.S. military deaths (76 in April, 69 in May, 63 in June, and then only 48 in July). But these were offset by dramatic increases in Iraqi military fatalities, which almost doubled in July as the U.S. sent larger numbers of Iraqi units into battle, and as undermanned American units were redeployed from al-Anbar province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency, to civil-war-torn Baghdad in preparation for a big push to recapture various out-of-control neighborhoods in the capital.





More important, when it comes to long-term U.S. casualties, the trends are not good. In recent months, U.S. units had been pulled off the streets of the capital. But the Iraqi Army units that replaced them proved incapable of controlling Baghdad in even minimal ways. So, in addition, to fighting the Sunni insurgency, American troops are now back on the streets of Baghdad in the midst of a swirling civil war with U.S. casualties likely to rise. In recent months, there has also been an escalation of the fighting between American forces and the insurgency, independent of the sectarian fighting that now dominates the headlines.



As a consequence, the U.S. has actually increased its troop levels in Iraq (by delaying the return of some units, sending others back to Iraq early, and sending in some troops previously held in reserve in Kuwait). The number of battles (large and small) between occupation troops and the Iraqi resistance has increased from about 70 a day to about 90 a day; and the number of resistance fighters estimated by U.S. officials has held steady at about 20,000. The number of IEDs placed -- the principle weapon targeted at occupation troops (including Iraqi units) -- has been rising steadily since the spring.



The effort by Sunni guerrillas to expel the American army and its allies is more widespread and energetic than at any time since the fall of the Hussein regime.




4. Most Iraqi Cities Have Active and Often Viable Local Governments



Neither the Iraqi government, nor the American-led occupation has a significant presence in most parts of Iraq. This is well-publicized in the three Kurdish provinces, which are ruled by a stable Kurdish government without any outside presence; less so in Shia urban areas where various religio-political groups -- notably the Sadrists, the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), Da'wa , and Fadhila -- vie for local control, and then organize cities and towns around their own political and religious platforms. While there is often violent friction among these groups -- particularly when the contest for control of an area is undecided -- most cities and towns are largely peaceful as local governments and local populations struggle to provide city services without a viable national economy.



This situation also holds true in the Sunni areas, except when the occupation is actively trying to pacify them. When there is no fighting, local governments dominated by the religious and tribal leaders of the resistance establish the laws and maintain a kind of order, relying for law enforcement on guerrilla fighters and militia members.



All these governments -- Kurdish, Shia and Sunni -- have shown themselves capable of maintaining (often fundamentalist) law and (often quite harsh) order, with little crime and little resistance from the local population. Though often severely limited by the lack of resources from a paralyzed national economy and a bankrupt national government, they do collect the garbage, direct traffic, suppress the local criminal element, and perform many of the other duties expected of local governments.



5. Outside Baghdad, Violence Arrives with the Occupation Army




The portrait of chaos across Iraq that our news generally offers us is a genuine half-truth. Certainly, Baghdad has been plunged into massive and worsening disarray as both the war against the Americans and the civil war have come to be concentrated there, and as the terrifying process of ethnic cleansing has hit neighborhood after neighborhood, and is now beginning to seep into the environs of the capital.



However, outside Baghdad (with the exception of the northern cities of Kirkuk and Mosul, where historic friction among Kurd, Sunni, and Turkman has created a different version of sectarian violence), Iraqi cities tend to be reasonably ethnically homogeneous and to have at least quasi-stable governments. The real violence often only arrives when the occupation military makes its periodic sweeps aimed at recapturing cities where it has lost all authority and even presence.



This deadly pattern of escalating violence is regularly triggered by those dreaded sweeps, involving brutal, destructive, and sometimes lethal home invasions aimed at capturing or killing suspected insurgents or their supporters. The insurgent response involves the emplacement of ever more sophisticated roadside bombs (known as IEDs) and sniper attacks, aimed at distracting or hampering the patrols. The ensuing firefights frequently involve the use of artillery, tanks, and air power in urban areas, demolishing homes and stores in a neighborhood, which only adds to the bitter resistance and increasing the support for the insurgency.



These mini-wars can last between a few hours and, in Falluja, Ramadi, or other "centers of resistance," a few weeks. They constitute the overwhelming preponderance of the fighting in Iraq. For any city, the results can be widespread death and devastation from which it can take months or years to recover. Yet these are still episodes punctuating a less violent, if increasingly more run-down normalcy.




6. There Is a Growing Resistance Movement in the Shia Areas of Iraq



Lately, the pattern of violence established in largely Sunni areas of Iraq has begun to spread to largely Shia cities, which had previously been insulated from the periodic devastation of American pacification attempts. This ended with growing Bush administration anxiety about economic, religious, and militia connections between local Shia governments and Iran, and with the growing power of the anti-American Sadrist movement, which had already fought two fierce battles with the U.S. in Najaf in 2004 and a number of times since then in Sadr City.



Symptomatic of this change is the increasing violence in Basra, the urban oil hub at the southern tip of the country, whose local government has long been dominated by various fundamentalist Shia political groups with strong ties to Iran. When the British military began a campaign to undermine the fundamentalists' control of the police force there, two British military operatives were arrested, triggering a battle between British soldiers (supported by the Shia leadership of the Iraqi central government) and the local police (supported by local Shia leaders). This confrontation initiated a series of armed confrontations among the various contenders for power in Basra.



Similar confrontations have occurred in other localities, including Karbala, Najaf, Sadr City, and Maysan province. So far no general offensive to recapture the any of these areas has been attempted, but Britain has recently been concentrating its troops outside Basra.




If the occupation decides to use military means to bring the Shia cities back into anything like an American orbit, full-scale battles may be looming in the near future that could begin to replicate the fighting in Sunni areas, including the use of IEDs, so far only sporadically employed in the south. If you think American (and British) troops are overextended now, dealing with internecine warfare and a minority Sunni insurgency, just imagine what a real Shiite insurgency would mean.



7. There Are Three Distinct Types of Terrorism in Iraq, All Directly or Indirectly Connected to the Occupation



Terrorism involves attacking civilians to force them to abandon their support for your enemy, or to drive them away from a coveted territory.



The original terrorists in Iraq were the military and civilian officials of the Bush administration -- starting with their "shock and awe" bombing campaign that destroyed Iraqi infrastructure in order to "undermine civilian morale." The American form of terrorism continued with the wholesale destruction of most of Falluja and parts of other Sunni cities, designed to pacify the "hot beds" of insurgency, while teaching the residents of those areas that, if they "harbor the insurgents," they will surely "suffer the consequences."





At the individual level, this program of terror was continued through the invasions of, and demolishing of, homes (or, in some cases, parts of neighborhoods) where insurgents were believed to be hidden among a larger civilian population, thus spreading the "lesson" about "harboring terrorists" to everyone in the Sunni sections of the country. Generating a violent death rate of at least 18,000 per year, the American drumbeat of terror has contributed more than its share to the recently escalating civilian death toll, which reached a record 3,149 in the official count during July. It is unfortunately accurate to characterize the American occupation of Sunni Iraq as a reign of terror.



The Sunni terrorists like those led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi have utilized the suicide car bomb to generate the most widely publicized violence in Iraq -- hundreds of civilian casualties each month resulting from attacks on restaurants, markets, and mosques where large number of Shia congregate. At the beginning of the U.S. occupation, car bombs were nonexistent; they only became common when a tiny proportion of the Sunni resistance movement became convinced that the Shia were the main domestic support for the American occupation. (As far as we can tell, the vast majority of those fighting the Americans oppose such terrorists and have sometimes fought with them.) As al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri wrote, these attacks were justified by "the treason of the Shia and their collusion with the Americans." As if to prove him correct, the number of such attacks tripled to current levels of about 70 per month after the Shia-dominated Iraqi government supported the American devastation of Falluja in November 2004.




The Sunni terrorists work with the same terrorist logic that the Americans have applied in Iraq: Attacks on civilians are meant to terrify them into not supporting the enemy. There is a belief, of course, among the leadership of the Sunni terrorists that, ultimately, only the violent suppression or expulsion of the Shia is acceptable. But as Zawahiri himself stated, the "majority of Muslims don't comprehend this and possibly could not even imagine it." So the practical justification for such terrorism lies in the more immediate association of the Shia with the hated occupation.



The final link in the terrorist chain can also be traced back to the occupation. In January of 2005, Newsweek broke the story that the U.S. was establishing (Shiite) "death squads" within the Iraqi Ministry of Interior, modeled after the assassination teams that the CIA had helped organize in El Salvador during the 1980s. These death squads were intended to assassinate activists and supporters of the Sunni resistance. Particularly after the bombing of the Golden Dome, an important Shia shrine in Samarra, in March 2006, they became a fixture in Baghdad, where thousands of corpses -- virtually all Sunni men -- have been found with signs of torture, including electric-drill holes, in their bodies and bullet holes in their heads. Here, again, the logic is the same: to use terror to stop the Sunni community from nurturing and harboring both the terrorist car bombers and the anti-American resistance fighters.



While there is disagreement about whether the Americans, the Shia-controlled Iraqi Ministry of Defense, or the Shia political parties should shoulder the most responsibility for loosing these death squads on Baghdad, one conclusion is indisputable: They have earned their place in the ignominious triumvirate of Iraqi terrorism.




One might say that the war has converted one of President Bush's biggest lies into an unimaginably horrible truth: Iraq is now the epicenter of worldwide terrorism.



Where the 7 Facts Lead




With this terror triumvirate at the center of Iraqi society, we now enter the horrible era of ethnic cleansing, the logical extension of multidimensional terror.



When the U.S. toppled the Hussein regime, there was little sectarian sentiment outside of Kurdistan, which had longstanding nationalist ambitions. Even today, opinion polls show that more than two-thirds of Sunnis and Shia stand opposed to the idea of any further weakening of the central government and are not in favor of federation, no less dividing Iraq into three separate nations.




Nevertheless, ethnic cleansing by both Shia and Sunni has become the order of the day in many of the neighborhoods of Baghdad, replete with house burnings, physical assaults, torture, and murder, all directed against those who resist leaving their homes. These acts are aimed at creating religiously homogeneous neighborhoods.



This is a terrifying development that derives from the rising tide of terrorism. Sunnis believe that they must expel their Shia neighbors to stop them from giving the Shiite death squads the names of resistance fighters and their supporters. Shia believe that they must expel their Sunni neighbors to stop them from providing information and cover for car-bombing attacks. And, as the situation matures, militants on both sides come to embrace removal -- period. As these actions escalate, feeding on each other, more and more individuals, caught in a vise of fear and bent on revenge, embrace the infernal logic of terrorism: that it is acceptable to punish everyone for the actions of a tiny minority.



There is still some hope for the Iraqis to recover their equilibrium. All the centripetal forces in Iraq derive from the American occupation, and might still be sufficiently reduced by an American departure followed by a viable reconstruction program embraced by the key elements inside of Iraq. But if the occupation continues, there will certainly come a point -- perhaps already passed -- when the collapse of government legitimacy, the destruction wrought by the war, and the horror of terrorist violence become self-sustaining. If that point is reached, all parties will enter a new territory with incalculable consequences.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Michael Schwartz is a professor of sociology and faculty director of the Undergraduate College of Global Studies at Stony Brook University.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from World! 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:
News Flash!
Posted by: ericthefool on Aug 22, 2006 12:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Luckily the JonBenet Ramsey case is the #1 news story now, and they found those "Terrorists" with electrical components and hydrogen peroxide. Funny how so many people doubt that this Karr fellow is lying but quickly rush to racial profiling at the insistance of our government and news media.

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

» Say No to JonBenet coverage Posted by: porgygirl
» RE: News Flash! Posted by: mrcentrist
News Flash!
Posted by: ericthefool on Aug 22, 2006 12:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Luckily the JonBenet Ramsey case is the #1 news story now, and they found those "Terrorists" with electrical components and hydrogen peroxide. Funny how so many people doubt that this Karr fellow is lying but quickly rush to racial profiling at the insistance of our government and news media.

Oh and the Iran response to their nuclear program tomorrow...

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

Hah!
Posted by: TT2 on Aug 22, 2006 12:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You thought that was TOUGH? Just wait untill the FUN starts with Iran;=)

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

» RE: Hah! Posted by: TT2
Any fool can see..sickofsleaze
Posted by: ladybug1@carrollsweb.com on Aug 22, 2006 3:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that this is all old news, watch something besides Faux news and you can figure it out yourself. I predicted most of this when Bush got war fever. It's obvious Bush only went to class for his BS in history to get his "gentleman's C". Or does the BS stand for bullshit?

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

» RE: Any fool can see..sickofsleaze Posted by: Edward George
no shadow of doubt
Posted by: rsaxto on Aug 22, 2006 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is now no shadow of doubt in the minds of unbrainwashed decent people that the world's #1 creator of terrorism is the Cheney/Bush administration. Therefore, the prime mechanism of fighting terrorism must start with the impeachment of the Bushies and continue with the creation of a genuine global peacekeeping organization.

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

» gathaiga Posted by: gathaiga
» Practical or Not? Posted by: edith
» RE: Practical or Not? Posted by: mrcentrist
No one questioned Bush on his comment that Iraq had nothing to do with 911
Posted by: marklar on Aug 22, 2006 4:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just fucking astonishing that the corporate media isn't in flames over Bush all but repenting his sins and admitting to his lies about no WMD's or Iraq ties to Al-quida and 911. Is everyone in the White House Press Corp besides Helen afraid of
Rove?

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

The real issue is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
Posted by: jreinhart1 on Aug 22, 2006 7:27 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The US and the west has lost Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Azerbajan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstantajikistan and Kyrgyzstan to the SCO. It may well end up loosing Gorgia and Armenia. These are the oil and gas fields around the Caspian Sea that the US went to war in Iraq for in the first place. There is no hope for the US to ever regain the confidence of Iraq or Afghanistan. It is totally pointless to continue with the war in Iraq unless Bush is hoping for the creation of an independent Kurdistan. Considering the overwhelming rejection of a Kurdish state by Turkey, Iran and Iraq, it may never come to exists without more civil war, death, destruction, pain and suffering for several more years. The US and UK are the Sadists using their military and covert operations in all of this and should be recognized as criminal act, but the UN is a worthless, toothless organization and Europe is a willing group of loosers hoping for the US to grab any oil it can from the region.

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

Raising hair
Posted by: BlueTigress on Aug 22, 2006 7:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I saw the subject line of the headline dump in my e-mail, I thought they meant that someone in Iran was mandating some weird hairstyle reg.

Silly me.

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

Thank you, Alternet
Posted by: lamva3 on Aug 22, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is so little real info available about Iraq - thank you for this article. Better to know some horrible truths than be led around by calculated hysteria-mongering.

I am meeting more and more people - ordinary people, not "intellectuals" - who don't read/watch conventional "news" because the content is so poor.

Thanks for offering some clarity.

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

Everything that we're told is bulls**t.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Aug 22, 2006 9:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The information presented in this article is very good, and even tantalizing, in that if the experience in self-government in outlying cities is any indication, Iraq could very well stabilize itself if we leave. That would indicate that a phased withdrawal would be the logical path for the U.S. to follow.

But it doesn't matter.

Logic doesn't matter; Iraqi sovereignty doesn't matter; ever-mounting American and Iraqi deaths do not matter. What matters is why Bush went there in the first place: to get rid of Hussein, the black-gold cowboy who was messing with the worldwide price of oil, and hence corporate profits, and to control the release of Iraqi oil (that is, limit it), again to shore up profits. Greg Palast makes a very good argument for this motive in his book, "Armed Madhouse." It is an enlightening, well-documented, and frightening, read. If he is right, and I for one am convinced he is, we're never leaving Iraq, short of being thrown out. I'm afraid that there will be no change to the disastrous course we are following until something really horrible occurs. We have a pig-headed, simpleton president being goosed by powerful oil companies and their anti-Christ partner in crime, Dick Cheney, to grab middle east oil at any price – my fear is that that price will eventually cost Americans everything. America has quite literally been highjacked by greedy madmen – madmen who control what people believe by controlling the mainstream media, and who control the outcome of elections via fraud and a bought-and-paid-for legal system. We are in 'way more trouble than we realize.

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

add the imminent corporate take-down of the free internet.....
Posted by: peridot on Aug 22, 2006 9:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and we won't even be able to commiserate.

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

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Aug 22, 2006 10:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Iraqi government is little different from the Vichy government imposed by the Nazis in France in WWII. This caused frenchmen to kill frenchmen when the Free French of the Interior killed traitors. If there had been no occupation of France there would have been no Free French or no killing.
I cannot understand why the American people allow Bush to continue this insanity.

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

» RE: gramps Posted by: edith
What So-Called Liberal Media?
Posted by: davidt on Aug 22, 2006 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Even if it was revealed that Condi gave Duh a BJ in the Oval Office the media would put a compassionate conservative spin on it.

By the way, the biggest untold story is that Laura has moved OUT of the WH because Condi & Duh are together. Condi actually addressed Duh as her husband at a speech. You can see the quote at rense.com.

The media with few exceptions, aka Keith Olbermann & Stephen Colbert, Stewart & Maher run hot & cold depending upon their self-perceived residence in the Land of Steadycheckdom, are stepping out of the Mainstream Mind-numbing Militia to poke some hot needles in the correct eye-sockets.

Will Stewart have the brass to interview the makers of Loose Change 2 when they are in NYC on the weekend of the 9/11 tragedy? I doubt it. Despite the fact that one of the guys is a young vet of the war in Afghanistan who hails from Oneonta, NY and the other two can't be far away.

But the tide is changing. Who ever thought the GOP die-hard Joe Scarborough would have a program titled "Is George Bush An Idiot?" Of course, the answer is a quantified YES. Where would Duh be now if he wasn't cleansed by the Lapdog media? Long-gone and probably in the pillory being pelted with rocks in the shape of bibles.

But the Kingdom Comers are still firmly in the fold. This is a story that should be hammered on over and over in the media. Most Americans have no idea that we are well on the way to living in a theocracy. Dominionists, who believe THEY have the "divine right" to rule non-believers, are everywhere just like a cancer. And NOTHING but the strict promulgation of the Bible in American public policy will satisfy them. In fact in a really enlightening book Kingdom Coming by Michele Goldberg you find out that they have machine in place that resembles the old Hitler Youth.

If they are not met head-to-head Americans might have folks showing up on their doorsteps who function as Biblical Control Monitors--enforcing their agenda with the aid of a proseletyzed vigilante/legal/municipal authority.

This is not a paranoid delusion.

What is really sick is that the Biblical Hierarchy have complete freedom to interpret and enforce but don't personally have to obey. Best examples I can think of are DeLay & Pat Robertson.

This authoritarian "susceptibility" is well-outlined in John Dean's new book Conservatives Without Compassion (?) The bogus persecution of the Clinton's, policies that devastate the environment, tax-cuts for the undeserving, cake for the rest, the war in Afghanistan and the sadistic & incompetent occupation in Iwreck are ALL excused by the Dominionists because this leads to the Rapture. Simple rule is Don't Think, Obey the Bible and Relax.

David T. Gray
Claremont, NH

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

Iraq War leading to real catastrophy
Posted by: yellow on Aug 22, 2006 12:36 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The blog confirms much of what I've been reading and hearing about the progress of the war. One of the key long-term effects of the war and occupation that is related to the violent ethnic cleansing is the denationalization of Iraqi society. During Saddam's rule just the opposite was the case with his radical meglomaniacal centralization of politics. Today politics in Iraq has become radically local with the town or village becoming the main unit of political and social organization. Because of the brutality and incompetence of the US occupation, most Iraqis have come to trust only those local authorities they trust. Randi Rhodes's broadcast on the Air America Radio news program has recently cited an opinion poll done by a conservative Republican think tank showing that over three quarters of Iraqis want the US out, distrust the US created Iraqi Army, and only trust the local authorities and sectarian militia for the provision of vital social services and protection.

In the absence of progress in remodernizing this once highly modern Middle Eastern country (only Israel was more technologically and socially modern) people have fallen back on their local communities less out of romantic nostalgia than the political vaacum creating this necessity. While it has been somewhat the goal of the Bush Administration to weaken the former nationalist/developmentalist Sunni center which wanted to centrally control as much of Iraq's resources for internal development (palaces and the military notwithstanding), the planned chaos that has emerged from this strategy has now become self-defeating! The North and South Oil Companies, which remain newly divided parts of the original nationalized operation under Saddam, may have made generous Production Sharing Agreements with US oil Majors and even allowed some privatization of newly discovered oil wells but the long term effects of splitting up the country will be costly, violent political instability for years to come. There was little or no resistance to the early British creation of Iraq out of the diverse areas of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra in the aftermath of WWI and the Sunnis, Shi'ites, and Kurds didn't than conflict with one another. In fact, all were united in a continued struggle for national independance and local control of the oil resources. Now the US occupation has successfully exploited sectarian tensions between the three main groups, which began to emerge during Saddam's dictatorial rule, into full blown civil war. This can only lead to disaster for the country and the region.

In the end the denationalization of Iraqi society can only embolden Iran, impoverish and weaken Baghdad, and leave the region open to more violent instability. The occupation must be replaced by multilateral efforts to reverse this trend now. Obviously the devil is in the details! But staying the course can only lead to a worsening of the already miserable situation.

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

Lies, damned lies, and polling results.
Posted by: Sojourner on Aug 22, 2006 12:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only thing any two Iraqis can agree on is that they want the foreign troops to leave. I don't need a poll to tell me that.

The only reason there was little sectarian violence while Hussein governed is because his army would have responded with murderous genocide--of both sides to the conflict.

To draw the conclusion, as Schwartz does, that the civil war in Iraq could have been avoided is BS. Actually, it could have been avoided by the provisional government immediately after invasion but only had it partitioned the country.

People would rather struggle for power. So there will be endless killings of both Iraqis and Americans before the country is partitioned. Who's taking bets? I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is.

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

Why Bush doesn't want to leave Iraq
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Aug 22, 2006 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I suppose there are a number reasons; the geopolitical wet dream of the neocons was to have a giant American power base in the heart of the Mideast - permanent colonial control of the Mideast and the Caspian region and their oh-so-juicy-desirable oilfields, from which high vantage point they would control the price and the flow of the world's oil supplies.

No sane person seems to believe in that grand and apocalyptic vision of American Reichdom (the PNAC types still seem to harbor secret hopes of conquest, however), but the oil banks and traders still want to control the region's oil using 'more civilized means'. If the US military packs up and leaves Iraq at this point, you can bet that whatever new Iraqi government moves in will insist on renegotiating all oil contracts. The Bushies and their backers have thus sought to install a friendly puppet government that will sign anything placed in front of them, and they have tried to provide military and security services to ensure that their handpicked lapdogs will be able to maintain their grip on power after US military troops leave.

So, that's Bush & Cheney's definition of 'success and victory" in Iraq, which they hide behind the "Freedom Campaign" - the original name was the accurate one: Operation Iraqi Liberation.

Why will US and Iraqi soldiers and civilians continue to dies in Iraq? So ExxonMobil and ChevronTexacoUnocal can continue to enjoy world-record profits - why else?. That's the noble cause that US soldiers die for every day - sorry to answer that question for all the mothers of the dead, but that's the real answer: the one that Bush doesn't dare mention. As soon as the words 'oil' and "Iraq" pass his lips in the same sentance, he knows his goose is cooked.

Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld would say that they are "Keeping us safe from the terrorists" by "fighting them 'over there'"? After allowing 9/11 to take place? And then allowing all those Saudis to leave the country without being quetioned? Right after the greatest terror attack ever to take place on US soil, carried out by 15 Saudis and their friends (all from upper-middle class backgrounds), the one flight that leaves the country is full of wealthy unquestioned Saudis? Do you see anything wrong with this picture, in terms of 'standard police investigative practices' ? Ever see Bush Sr. lick the booties of the Saudi princes? Shameful, isn't it?

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

IRAQ WILL DISSOLVE AS IS MEANT TO BE
Posted by: sofla100 on Aug 22, 2006 2:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We are seeing the beginnings of the dissolution of the articifical state of Iraq. An artificial state created by the British empire and held together by Saddam. The new reality will be Iran incorporating Iraq's Shiites, with Iran's boundary expanded to included current Eastern Iraq. Saudi Arabia will incorporate the Sunni's, to include the current territory of Western or Southern Iraq. And a new country to be created, called Kurdistan, currently the northern part of Iraq. Now, no amount of military firepower or fake US puppet governments can stop it. We need to let it happen and get out of the way.

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

Fresh Peace for the Middle East
Posted by: metamind on Aug 23, 2006 6:24 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On August 7, 2006 I released my Fresh Peace for the Middle East Proposal

I said it then and I will say it again:

The way out of Iraq is through the White House.

George Bush and the Republicans have no plan to leave Iraq. They are using Iraq as an excuse for a massive military presence in the Middle East in support of American economic hegemony.

As long as the U.S. sits on top of ten trillion ( perhaps 15 trillion ) dollars of oil the world will keep funding us with bad bonds. What choice do they have? Under Republican rule the U.S. is holding the world hostage using somebody else's money ( oil ) as the lever of power. The United States is an international financial terrorist.

There are many things which can and should be done to make the Iraqi government viable. But as long as the Bush/Cheney cabal is in power, backed up by a spineless, immoral, corrup Congress all of these actions will likely fail.

My Prescription:

Investigate.
Impeach.
Imprision.

The way out of Iraq is through the White House. To do that we must first cleanse the Congress of the evil Republicans who refuse to do their sworn duty to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic."

Steve Moyer
Candidate for U.S. Senate
http://stevemoyer.us

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

Joe Biden's plan for Iraq
Posted by: metamind on Aug 24, 2006 12:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This plan has some potential in my opinion. Still, we need to clear the White House of those who want to create problems. This proposal has some correspondence to my "Fresh Peace for the Middle East" proposal: http://stevemoyer.us/iraq

I'm glad that Sen. Biden is working for solutions.

Steve Moyer
Candidate for U.S. Senate
http://stevemoyer.us


The following Op-Ed by Senator Biden appeared in The Washington Post today describing a better alternative for Iraq.

A Plan to Hold Iraq Together
The Washington Post
by Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Four months ago, in an opinion piece with Les Gelb, president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, I laid out a detailed plan to keep Iraq together, protect America's interests and bring our troops home. Many experts here and in Iraq embraced our ideas. Since then, circumstances in Iraq have made the plan even more on target -- and urgent -- than when we first proposed it.

The new, central reality in Iraq is that violence between Shiites and Sunnis has surpassed the insurgency and foreign terrorists as the main security threat. Our leading civilian and military experts on Iraq -- Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and Gens. George Casey, Peter Pace and John Abizaid -- have all acknowledged that fact.

In December's elections, 90 percent of the votes went to sectarian lists. Ethnic militias increasingly are the law in Iraq. They have infiltrated the official security forces. Sectarian cleansing has begun in mixed areas, with 200,000 Iraqis fleeing their homes in recent months for fear of sectarian reprisals. Massive unemployment feeds the ranks of sectarian militias and criminal gangs.

No number of troops can solve this problem. The only way to hold Iraq together and create the conditions for our armed forces to responsibly withdraw is to give Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds incentives to pursue their interests peacefully and to forge a sustainable political settlement. Unfortunately, this administration does not have a coherent plan or any discernible strategy for success in Iraq. Its strategy is to prevent defeat and hand the problem off when it leaves office.

Meanwhile, more and more Americans, understandably frustrated, support an immediate withdrawal, even at the risk of trading a dictator for chaos and a civil war that could become a regional war.

Both are bad alternatives. The five-point plan Les Gelb and I laid out offers a better way.

First, the plan calls for maintaining a unified Iraq by decentralizing it and giving Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis their own regions. The central government would be left in charge of common interests, such as border security and the distribution of oil revenue.

Second, it would bind the Sunnis to the deal by guaranteeing them a proportionate share of oil revenue. Each group would have an incentive to maximize oil production, making oil the glue that binds the country together.

Third, the plan would create a massive jobs program while increasing reconstruction aid -- especially from the oil-rich Gulf states -- but tying it to the protection of minority rights.

Fourth, it would convene an international conference that would produce a regional nonaggression pact and create a Contact Group to enforce regional commitments.

Fifth, it would begin the phased redeployment of U.S. forces this year and withdraw most of them by the end of 2007, while maintaining a small follow-on force to keep the neighbors honest and to strike any concentration of terrorists.

...snip...snip

This plan offers a way to bring our troops home, protect our security interests and preserve Iraq as a unified country. Those who reject this plan out of hand must answer one simple question: What is your alternative?

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

  • 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