October 2, 2005
Donald Rumsfeld continued his bloody onslaught on civilian enclaves this
weekend by laying siege to the Iraqi city of Sadah. Most of the 2,000
desperately poor residents of the town have already been evacuated, leaving
the city vulnerable to the vast and predictable devastation that always
accompanies these unprovoked attacks. Judging by the appalling results we've
seen in Qaim, Falluja and Tal Afar, we can expect that water lines,
electrical power and sewage will be laid to waist as a form of collective
punishment against the townspeople. The ultimate purpose of the assault is
to break the back of the Sunni-dominated resistance by demolishing the "sea
in which they swim"; in this case the entire Sunni heartland. In the
process, the military is trying to erase whatever vestiges of Iraqi culture
still exist in the cities. By sweeping away the landmarks and icons of
national identity, the Pentagon hopes to assert the values of the dominant
culture by force. This is the main thrust of a plan to remake Iraqi society
into a "free market" economy.
As always, the western media has provided the muddled-rationale for
American aggression. Associated Press reported that the attack was "aimed at
rooting out al-Qaida militants who have taken hold of the village." Nothing
could be further from the truth. The claim is not backed by any
corroborating evidence nor does it fit with recent estimates of the number
of foreign-fighters in the country.(which varies between 5 to 10%) Now that
the Pentagon has systematically liquidated or detained the few independent
journalists operating in Iraq, they are free to execute their
information-strategy according to their own skewed objectives. The claim
that Al Qaida has seized control of these small border towns is patently
absurd and unworthy of further comment.
The assault on the defenseless cities is intended to maximize human
suffering and discourage greater participation in the resistance. The
strategy emerges from a civilian leadership that has produced nothing but
bloody failures and continues to conduct operations that eliminate any
possibility for a political solution. This blind adherence to violence and
overwhelming force is what led retired General William Odom to recently
refer to Iraq as the "greatest strategic disaster in United States history".
While Rumsfeld continues his terror-campaign on the Syrian border,
fellow-traveler Condi Rice has been defending the merits of
unprovoked-carnage to an audience at Princeton University; Rumsfeld's alma
mater. Rice said that the use of military force to advance the cause of
democracy and liberty is "the only guarantee of true stability and lasting
Rice, of course, failed to cite any examples of the "stability and
lasting security" produced by Bush's savage war on terror.
"Let's be clear about who they and we are fighting," Rice opined.
"Insurgents, including foreigners, kill Iraqi children receiving candy
from American soldiers, and shoot schoolteachers in their classrooms. This
is not some grass-roots coalition of national resistance," Rice said. "These
are barbaric, merciless killers."
Yes, but which "barbaric, merciless killers" are we talking about?
Rice's ignores the widespread suspicion among Iraqis that American and
British Intelligence are directly involved in the terrorist attacks on
civilians to achieve their goal of partitioning Iraq. The incident in Basra,
where 2 British commandos were arrested with explosives in the trunk of
their vehicle casts a pall over the nattering of the Secretary of State,
whose credibility is already at its nadir.
The recent alleged "suicide bombing" outside Baghdad illustrates the
problem with America's credibility on this issue. 60 people were killed when
"three suicide attackers detonated car bombs nearly simultaneously."
No one from al Qaida or any other terrorist organization has claimed
responsibility for the bombings. So, we must ask ourselves; 'who benefits'
by the random murder of innocent civilians?
Certainly, not al Qaida who must curry support from the local population
to carry out operations while remaining concealed from the occupying forces.
Or, is it possible that the same people who brought us Abu Ghraib, "Shock
and Awe", Falluja, and myriad other atrocities, are now engaged in a massive
black-ops program to incite civil war?
Don't expect the embedded media to help answer this disturbing question.
As global managing editor, David Schlesinger, admitted last week; reporters
are under attack nearly as much as Iraqi civilians. Schlesinger said that
American forces' conduct towards journalists in Iraq is "spiraling out of
control" and preventing full coverage of the war reaching the public.
Schlesinger noted "a long parade of disturbing incidents whereby
professional journalists have been killed, wrongfully detained, and/or
illegally abused by US forces in Iraq". He stopped short of saying that
journalists were being intentionally killed by American troops, but the
reader can draw his own conclusions. (Especially those of you who know the
damning details of some of the particular incidents)
66 journalists have been killed so far, and countless others have been
detained without explanation. Schlesinger stated that the military's
conduct, "creates a serious chilling effect on the media overall."
Rumsfeld has no intention of allowing the free media to chronicle and
photograph the orgy of terror he has engendered in Iraq. The American people
must never see the countless lives that are sacrificed or ruined so they
pedal-about in their behemoth luxury-vehicles.
An iron curtain has been drawn around Iraq, allowing the invading power
to wreak havoc across the country with complete impunity. Nearly a full year
has passed since Falluja was leveled in a drunken fit of revenge and still
the apocryphal "free press" hasn't produced pictures of the devastation for
their American audience.
Is there any greater proof of the media's complicity than that?
And doesn't the EU's support of Washington's resolution against Iran
prove that they tacitly back the ongoing decimation of Iraqi society?
Why else would they risk the same butchery in Iran by standing with the
The bloodshed in Sadah is just the latest chapter in the "most cowardly
war in history". (Arundhati Roy) The lumbering military-goliath is simply
stepping on anything and anyone in its path. While 57% of Americans now
believe the "U.S. should assume the implementation of democracy is achieved
and begin a process of withdrawing troops," (according to a poll by
Knowledge Networks for the Council on Foreign Relations) the recalcitrant
Bush administration refuses to even budge. Elites on both sides of the aisle
have circled-the-wagons and will not alter the direction of the current
The American experiment has reached its zenith; the nation's elected
representatives have rejected the will of the people, and the peaceful
channels for political change have been foreclosed. We're facing a steady
and irreversible decline in prestige, power and moral authority. Iraq is
America's crossroads; a war that was best summarized by British Colonel Tim
Collins as "a right rollicking cock-up".
Courtesy & Copyright ę Mike Whitney