IRAQ: WE NEED TO GET OUT! DO WE NEED A THREE NATION SOLUTION? cont.
IRAQ : The Three Nation Solution
The only reasonable way out of Iraq ?
The country called Iraq is evidently not sustainable. It is not what people voted for. To find stability, the people may prefer to create three separate nations, which could be peaceful and prosperous.
The current constitution gives the three blocs in Iraq a lot of independent regional authority. However, it does not give the Sunnis a fair share of oil and it does not guarantee Sunnis and Shiites the security of separate police forces, jails, and armies.
The insurgents in Iraq are just getting organized, and grow stronger each week. We talk about democracy as we preside over impending civil war. A three nation solution could be the only way out.
“No country has ever benefited from a protracted war.”
Sun Tzu – The Art of War, 500 B.C.
Please “connect the dots":
A country called “Iraq” was patched together by the British in 1920 from three
parts of the defunct Ottoman Empire. An American missionary wrote to the
British administrators in Iraq and said “You art flying in the face of four
millenniums of history if you try to draw a line around Iraq and call it a
country”. The British soon gave up on Iraq.
(New York Times Book Review Nov. 30, 2005, p.27)
“[December 15 election results] show Iraq as three lands with three distinct
identities, divided by faith, goals, religion, history, and symbols.”
An unnamed US official called it “identity politics” and said “Every community
s very afraid of the other community. Shiites are afraid of Sunni Arabs. The
Sunni’s are afraid of Shiites doing to them what the (Sunni dominated) Baathists
did to the Shiites” during the Saddam era.
( from L.A. Times, in Ann Arbor News as “Vote results shatter hopes for a unified
Iraq” 12/29/05)
“there is growing evidence that many Iraqi soldiers are more loyal to religious or
ethnic factions than to the central government”
(Time, Dec 5, 2005 p. 46)
Give these insurgents the rights to be the security services, the police in
their own areas, so they can secure their families, then [the violence] will
settle down”
Mohammed Shahwani, Director of the Iraqi National Intelligence Service
(Newsweek 12/19/05 p. 47
If they were voting for Iraqi sects, then it means that there are no Iraqi citizens –
only Shiites, Sunnis, Kurds, etc. trapped together inside Iraq’s artificial borders…
then we have no real partners and staying the course will never produce the self-sustaining Iraq we want”.
Thomas Friedman, New York Times, (in Ann Arbor News 12/23/05)
“The only viable strategy” would be to “correct the historical defect and move
in stages toward a three-state solution”
Leslie Gelb, US diplomat, President, Council on Foreign Relations, 2003
“If Iraqi leaders begin to realize that they could be on their own, without the
United States to blame and without the American Army to protect them,
they might have a greater incentive to start making tough decisions.”
Fareed Zakaria , Newsweek, 12/5/05 p. 35
If Americans ever leave, Iraqis will probably become three nations, through civil war. We could choose to omit the intermediate stage and let the three groups become nations right now, with the Sunnis guaranteed more than a fifth of the oil.
We know that the situation in Iraq won’t improve until its people feel secure, and that can’t happen until Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds each have their own police, jails and army.
Everyone is aware that wealth lies under the ground and that if events above the ground calm down enough they could all be rich. The “big shots”, the “head honcho’s” of each group, are never going to be satisfied with their share of a “unified” Iraqi government. They would prefer a government of their own kind of people where lots of their friends and relatives could also be big shots in government and take their seats on the gravy train. They would like to be sitting on a soft couch with four wives and obedient children, and will happily sell us oil at the going rate.
Each of the three groups might just start building a strong and prosperous country. We could even claim victory for democracy, since each group voted to elect their own kind, and then to become independent. In the USA we once fought our own war to become an independent nation.
Iraq – We Reap What We Sow
A three nation policy is the only logical, decent, and humane way out of Iraq
The American effort in Iraq bristles with arrogance, ignorance, incompetence and astounding corruption as well as disregard for human life and liberty. Our soldiers continue to show almost unbelievable discipline in hellish conditions.
Our corporate-owned government now has a professional army and assumes the right to use it to play the game of empire. Most of our soldiers, however, signed up because they wanted to protect our country; maybe they also needed a job. Most American taxpayers would prefer to see our taxes spent on things that help people. We want this war over yesterday, and our troops home safely.
Our media shows us the daily carnage in Iraq. In fact, our media deserves much of the blame for the Iraq situation, since they don’t tell us why the Middle East is such a mess, or where these Islamic terrorists come from.
The CIA Helped Put the Ba'ath Party in Power in Iraq and Supported Saddam Hussein all the Way
In 1963 the CIA engineered the overthrow of a popular government in Iraq. CIA director John Foster Dulles called Iraq “the most dangerous spot in the world” and plotted with the anti-Communist Ba’ath party to bring down the government. The former leader, General Kassem, was gunned down along with “many others on a list the CIA supplied” (Johnson, 2004 p.223). Another CIA sponsored coup in 1968 gave the Ba’ath party complete control. “It was a regime that was unquestionably midwived by the United States and the CIA’s involvement there was really primary” (Roger Morris, member of the National Security Council under Presidents Johnson and Nixon).
When Saddam Hussein took power in 1979 he was a CIA “asset”. He invaded Iran in 1980, just one year after their Islamic revolution. When he began to lose the war the American government began a major operation to strengthen Saddam. We sent him weaponry, provided satellite photos of Iranian force locations, and provided 5.5 billion in fraudulent loans (Johnson, 2004, p.224).
He used our money to buy materials for his Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) programs. In the late 1980’s the USA licensed many companies to sell him advanced computers, weapons such as cluster bombs, and bacterial cultures used to make anthrax (Conason, 2003 p.200) and bubonic plague (Franken, 2005 p. 222).
After Saddam had used chemical weapons against Iran President Reagan sent Donald Rumsfeld to Bagdad to assist him. More arms were sold to Saddam, including the helicopters he used to dump poisonous gas on the Kurds. Saddam wiped out whole Kurdish villages with gas attacks in 1988 and the USA continued to supply him with ingredients to make more. The USA had great relations with Hussein until the day he invaded Kuwait.
Oil was what mattered. The “murderous tyrant” problem was evidently not significant.
The CIA Destroyed Democracy in Iran – Leading to the Anti-American Islamic Revolution
When gigantic crowds of Iranians call the USA “the Great Satan”, most Americans have no idea where such animosity comes from.
Iran was a democracy in 1953 when Prime Minister Mossadegh decided that profits from Iranian oil fields should be used to improve his country. He nationalized British and American oil companies. The CIA then overthrew this democratic government and placed a brutally dictatorial king, Shah Reza Pahlevi, on the throne.
The Shah spent Iran’s money on himself, on weaponry made in the USA, and on his huge secret police. His people suffered deeply. The fury of the Iranian people grew for years and exploded into the rigidly theocratic Islamic revolution of the fanatical anti-American Ayatollah Khomeini in 1978.
Fierce hatred of the USA continues to this day. The “mullahs” are in complete control; fully focused on supporting “Jihadists” everywhere and getting their own atom bombs. Our invasion of Iraq has shown them how vulnerable they are without them. Many younger Iranians would now like to “loosen up” a bit toward the USA, but the bitterness from past wrongs is too strong.
The CIA Recruited, Trained and Armed Al Qaeda
The Russians invaded Afghanistan in 1979. The CIA responded with a huge operation in Pakistan and elsewhere in the Islamic world to recruit and mobilize “freedom fighters” and make war against the Soviets (Johnson, 2004 p. 222). First President Carter and then an enthusiastic President Reagan poured cash, weapons, and training through Pakistan to the most bloodthirsty and radical Islamic fighters they could find.
When the Soviets left Afghanistan, the Islamic radicals were organized and equipped. They then watched as the USA supported oppressive Middle Eastern governments against their peoples, gave billions every year to Israel while ignoring the Palestinian problem, and then based “infidel” US troops in the Holy Land (Saudi Arabia) during the first Gulf War. This really irked them. In the Koran it is the duty of every Muslim to defend Islamic lands that “infidels” attempt to occupy. Our media doesn’t mention this.
Therefore, the United States became their target. We had carefully picked extremists who wanted to fight, and the CIA spent nearly a billion of your tax dollars to get them organized and in place (Conason, 2003 p.204). Our intervention ultimately led to serious terrorist “blowback” events, such as the African embassy bombings, the terrible explosions in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia that killed our soldiers, and “9/11”. Could these terrorists have put all this together without our help?
Afganistan – “The Taliban”
The USA also sponsored the Taliban (“Students of Islam”) in Afghanistan both before and after the Soviets were driven out.
The Taliban brought a degree of ruthless “law and order” to a wild country. Women were totally subjugated; teachers who educated women were killed. Music, dancing, movies, and even photographs were banned, with brutal punishments provided by an all pervasive secret police. They demolished the exquisite ancient giant statue of Buddha at Bamiyan.
The USA helped the Taliban in many ways, since Washington thought that the stability they provided would help the oil company Unocal build a major oil pipeline across the country. Unocal flew a group of Taliban officials to Houston, and arranged a “field trip” to the space center (Johnson 2004 p. 179).
Even after al Qaeda’s attacks on our embassies in East Africa, the USA propped up the Taliban by giving them money for “narcotics control” that nearly equaled their national budget.
Osama bin Laden also gave them millions. With our money and his the Taliban was able to make Afghanistan the base from which the 9/11 attacks were launched.
Only the Taliban could and did stamp out opium production, for awhile. In contrast, with the USA now in control, Afghanistan supplies 80 or 90% of the world’s opium base for heroin. It is often processed into heroin in hundreds of factories of our allies in the Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) “which the CIA transformed from a bit player into a powerful asset.” (Russell, Dan, 2000 p. 455) Throughout the world the CIA works with hard drug producers that the US State Department or Drug Enforcement Agency would like to stop. We permit the opium trade because it provides an economic base and “drug traffickers… are our most reliable partners in the war against terrorism” (Javed Ludin, senior advisor to Afghan president Hamid Karzai, Newsweek Jan 9, 2006 p. 35)
The Big Questions about Iraq?
1) What about weapons of mass destruction?
It is false to say that Bush did not lie directly to the American people to start the war on Iraq. It was done intentionally, and is unforgivable.
The Iraq war was planned in 1997 by “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC). This group was made up of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rummy, “Scooter” Libby and many others in the gang who stepped into influential places in government with the ascension of Bush II.
They tried to push Clinton into war, but Clinton chose instead to bomb Saddam’s WMD sites and “as Bush’s handpicked weapons inspectors would later confirm in the Duelfer Report, knocked out all that remained of Saddam’s atrophied WMD capacity” (Franken, 2005, p.225).
Let’s remember that Saddam did let United Nations weapons inspectors into Iraq. For months prior to the US attack they had been scouring the country, checking and rechecking any site that had any possibility of housing quantities of WMD’s. The weapons inspectors were amazed that the United States administration didn’t seem to care what the reality on the ground actually was. Their minds were made up and our military was preparing.
Iraqi WMD’s had been destroyed in the period following the first Gulf War. I remember reading that conclusion before our bombs began dropping. American WMD inspector Scott Ritter said “I bear personal witness through seven years as a chief weapons inspector in Iraq for the United Nations to the scope of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programs and the effectiveness of UN weapons inspectors in ultimately eliminating them”.
No WMD’s were ever found, so Bush II found a new reason for war.
2) Why was there no Postwar Planning?
Many people think Bush was lethally negligent because he had no plan in Iraq to follow military victory. Actually Bush II did have a plan, based on self induced fantasy.
There were many competent plans for postwar Iraq, prepared by professional experts, but the “official fantasy” trumped reality based plans. The fantasy of the Bush administration was that our troops would be accepted with open arms on flower strewn streets and Ahmed Chalabi would be welcomed as head of government. Mr. Wolfowitz promised the war would be cheap. “There is a lot of money there, and to assume that we’re going to pay for it is just wrong” he said. Iraq would “really finance its own reconstruction” (Franken 2005 p. 237). In February 2003 Rumsfeld said “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months”. Cheney said to Tim Russert (3/16/03) “I really do believe we will be greeted as liberators”. This was the party line. If you wanted to discuss the possibility of a less cheerful outcome in Iraq you were looked down on as a defeatist, or let go. Costs have now gone over $260 Billion and could go over $700 Billion – according to the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Economist William D. Nordhaus of Yale University estimates the final long term cost at $1.9 trillion (New York Times 1/15/06, Louis Uchitelle, “When Talk of Guns and Butter Includes Lives Lost”).
In fact, there were five major studies done by professionals at places like the Army War College, the CIA, and the US Department of State outlining in detail the steps that should be taken as soon as the initial invasion gained victory. They advocated stopping any looting, securing the borders to keep out foreign fighters, carefully guarding museums, water supplies and the electrical system as well as the oil, guarding weapons dumps, and handling any changes in the Iraqi army with great sensitivity. (See “Blind into Baghdad”, James Fallows, Atlantic Monthly Jan/Feb, 2004).
There is no evidence that any of these studies were read by the President’s inner circle. They simply weren’t interested, with deadly consequences for our troops.
3) Do we plan to Leave Iraq?
The people in charge of this war shirked their own chance at combat. They are “Chicken Hawks”, but they love to think like emperors, in big geopolitical terms. Their friends profit hugely from war; the loss of a few professional soldiers won’t influence them. They want permanent control of Iraq, the second biggest pool of oil on earth.
Before 9/11 the Project for a New American Century issued a document titled “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. They want bases, stating “While the unresolved conflict in Iraq provided the immediate justification [for US military presence], the need for a substantial American presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of Saddam Hussein”.
The Chicago Tribune reported on 3/3/04 that fourteen “enduring bases” were being constructed in Iraq. The Washington Post on 5/22/05 spoke of a military consolidation into four huge “contingency operating bases”.
The USA is already on a base building binge in the area. We have created bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar, as well as Oman, the UAE , Turkey, Egypt, Israel, and Djibouti; and brand new ones in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan.
If you really think the USA intends to leave Iraq, I have a special lot in Florida I’d like to sell you. British historian Niall Ferguson said in the New York Times “from 1882 until 1922 the British promised the international community sixty six times that they would leave Egypt, but they never did.” (4/30/03, Eric Schmitt, “US to Withdraw All Combat Units from Saudi Arabia”).
The problem is that we didn’t vote to become an empire, and empire doesn’t help the average American. It is not appreciated overseas and it is not what our average soldier signed up for. It does not increase the long term strength and power of the USA, it drains them away. It strengthens our economic competitors, who spend far less on their military.
Iraq may end like Vietnam. We will leave when our people finally get fed up with the futility of it, and the situation there will sort itself out.
4) How Can He Talk about Democracy?
For Bush II to say that spreading Democracy is the goal of his foreign policy is as crazy as saying that our freedom is the goal of his domestic policy. If Iraqis could exercise any real democracy we would start pulling out our troops, since more than three quarters of Iraqis want a near-term US withdrawal.
US foreign policy has a poor record regarding democracy. President Eisenhower once said that democracy in Vietnam would have elected Ho Chi Minh. He spoke strongly against the USA trying to continue French colonialism there. Did the Vietnamese get to vote?
The CIA coup in Iran in 1953 knocked off an elected leader, starting a chain of events that went terribly wrong. A CIA sponsored coup killed the elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende. We destroyed democracy in Guatemala in the 1950’s and set off decades of mass killings in that country. The Sandinistas in Nicaragua were elected and might have done some good if not for the attacks by Reagan’s thoroughly illegal “contra” fighters. Aung San Suu Kyi won her 1990 election in Burma by a huge margin, so the generals put her under permanent house arrest and slammed the Burmese people into virtual slavery. Why not help Burmese democracy?... oops, we now work with the Generals.
What if they actually allowed totally fair one person one vote elections in the Middle East. I’m all for it, but the idea would give nightmares to the CIA and the State Department, and to US corporations. The approval of rating of US policy in these places is often in the single digits. At the moment, people like Osama might be elected.
The Iraqi mess is partly based on the fact that “democracy” dictates that the formerly dominant Sunnis will now be marginalized - and go crazy. “Democracy” can backfire, and is not our goal in Iraq. Democracy certainly does not mean that we will occupy their land and cause chaos until they do what we want them to.
5) Bush Had No Warning about 9/11?
It was nobody’s fault – No one could have stopped it
President Bush said that “if his advisors had told him there was a [terrorist] cell
in the United States he would have moved to take care of it” (from the text of the 9/11 report).
In truth Bush received many warnings that the 9/11 attacks were coming, he either didn’t read them or didn’t pay attention.
President Bush had no reaction to the Aug 6, 2000 Presidential Daily Brief which was ominously titled “Bin Laden determined to strike within US”. One of the specific warnings laid out to Bush that day was that information “indicated patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”. It said “al Queda members have resided in or traveled to the US for years”, maintaining “a support structure that could aid attacks”.
CIA Director George Tenet has said “The system was blinking red”. During the summer of 2001 Director “Tenet, The Counterterrorist Center, and the Counterterrorism Security Group did their utmost to sound an alarm, its basis being intelligence indicating that al Qaeda planned something big” (from the 9/11 Commission Report). The FBI “Phoenix memo” warned about suspected terrorists entering flight schools. A Minneapolis agent warned headquarters that Zacarias Moussaoui might “take control of a plane and fly it into the World Trade Center” (Franken 2005, p.40.)
The book “Intelligence Matters”, by former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee Bob Graham, explained twelve situations where the 9/11 plot could have been stopped. “Darkside Dick” Cheney had been put in charge of the Counterterrorism Task Force – but they never held a meeting before the attacks.
Bill Clinton had been fixated on destroying Osama bin Laden. He personally told Bush during the transition that “by far your biggest threat is bin Laden and al Qaeda”. His national security advisor, Sandy Berger, told Condi Rice that al Qaeda would be her biggest concern. But the Bush team detested and ignored the Clintonites. Terrorism was merely a “historic” problem to them; they focused instead on a shiny new missile defense program which would funnel billions to their contributors.
All this is the “tip of the iceberg”.
The nicest explanation of Bush’s lack of response to all the warnings is gross incompetence. A darker reason is that Karl Rove knew full well that a major terrorist attack would help Bush hugely. A president with only cronyism and corruption for a foreign and domestic policy desperately needed a crisis that could make him seem important, and blur the fact that he had no substantial ideas for improving the daily lives of Americans. His popularity jumped from 50% to 90%. What could be more important than that?
References:
Conason, Joe, “Big Lies”, St. Martins Press, New York, 2003
Eland, Ivan, “The Empire Has No Clothes”, The Independent Institute, Oakland, Ca.,
2004
Franken, Al, “The Truth – (with jokes)”, Dutton, New York, 2005
Johnson, Chalmers, “The Sorrows of Empire”, Owl Books, New York, 2004
Russell, Dan, “Drug War”, Kalyx Books, Camden, NY, 2000
