Uruknet on Alexa
:: Segnala Uruknet agli amici. Clicka qui.
:: Invite your friends to Uruknet. Click here.
:: Segnalaci un articolo
:: Tell us of an article
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
|
|
Two Distinct Wars in Iraq
Diana Lee
January 2, 2006
It is widely known that President Bush led the United States into an
"unjustified war" against Iraq based on deceptions and lies linking
Hussein Saddam with ties to 9-11 attacks and al Qaeda
terrorists, and with possession of WMDs. It is also vastly accepted
that Bush has initiated a "global war" against terrorism. However, it
is not commonly acknowledged that these two wars in Iraq are distinct
and different. The U.S. Congress only authorized Bush to remove the
supposedly impending threat of Saddam in the Authorization for Use of
Military Force: "to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."
 Why did the U.S. start a war in Iraq?
For
the last two and a half years, unfolding events have revealed the
startling Bush administration’s true motives for war. Behind the false
reasons given for attacking Iraq, the neoconservatives’ ambitious
agenda was to dominate the Middle East, and eventually the world. By
removing Saddam, the U.S. could control the flow of Iraq’s oil, change
regime by installing a puppet government, and establish a footing for
launching future wars within the region.
Despite
the Bush administration’s claim that the invasion of Iraq was not for
oil by turning the oil fields over to the Iraqi puppet government, the
U.S. government supported by oil conglomerates plan to seize control of
Iraq’s economy by privatizing Iraq’s oil, which was backed by senior
figures in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, under the Production Sharing
Agreements (PSAs) that will be put into effect as soon as an apparent
"legitimate" government is established. According to the Crude Design
report, 64 percent of Iraq’s oil reserves so far have been promised to
multi-national companies for oil development, which will cost Iraq
hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue. With less than half of
its own oil in control, the Iraqi government will face a daunting task
of rebuilding its war-torn country for years to come.
Ever
since Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1,
2003, not one single U.S. military unit has been withdrawn, while more
than ten "coalition of the willing" nations have already left. He has
repeatedly stated that the U.S. military would depart when Iraq became
free, self-governing, and safe from terrorists. As a free nation, three
official Iraqi elections have already been held in 2005 (January, July
and December), yet American soldiers are still on Iraq soil. In fact,
the U.S. troops, the bulk of the international coalition, have
increased from around 100,000 to 160,000 for "security reasons" to
fight rising insurgency. Evidently, the insurgents, who have been
waging guerilla warfare against the coalition patrols and the Iraqi
police forces (perceived as American stooges), are 90 percent Iraqi
patriots against the U.S. occupation. The so-called "foreign
terrorists" didn’t even exist in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion. As
long as the coalition forces remain in Iraq, the insurgency will
definitely grow and intensify because the Iraqi combatants and the
foreign fighters are battling the same archenemy — the U.S. troops.
Lately,
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to withdraw from 5,000 to
9,000 troops in March of 2006 — the gesture is nothing more than a
political ploy to pacify rising discontent from the public and some
Congressmen about the war until after 2006 U.S. elections. After all,
Bush as the Commander-in-Chief, not Rumsfeld, has repeatedly refused to
set a timetable for troop withdrawal.
By
establishing the U.S. military presence in Iraq, the Bush
Administration could now conveniently launch wars against its
opposite-end neighbors, Iran and Syria, both of which are surrounded by
the U.S.-friendly Arab nations. On the political front, the U.S. has
been demanding the U.N. to take action against Iran for developing
suspected nuclear weapons and Syria for allegedly being involved in the
assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Recently,
Bush, leveling the same accusations that incited a war against Iraq,
called Iran and Syria "outlaw regimes" with "a long history of
collaboration with terrorists." (Reuters, October 28, 2005)
Why has Iraq descended into such chaos?
Although
the Bush administration has been criticized for being "incompetent" or
"inept" in executing the Iraq war, upon a closer scrutiny, the chaos
that has followed the invasion was actually part of a larger scheme to
maintain the U.S. military indefinitely in Iraq.
From the outset of the war, General Tommy Franks drew up the attack plan Operation Iraqi Freedom,
emphasizing speed and agility to topple Saddam. Unlike the 1991 Gulf
war campaign with massive 500,000 U.S. troops, 150,000 coalition troops
and artillery strength, Franks led much smaller American forces of
about 100,000 to a swift victory, capturing Baghdad in three weeks.
Soon he retired on July 23, 2003 as a four-star general and published
his war experiences in American Soldier (Regan Books, August
2004). In his book, Franks warned before the invasion that a quick
victory would lead to a "catastrophic success" in dealing with postwar
anarchy in Iraq.
The
first thing the U.S. troops did when they marched into Iraq was to
seize the oilfields, neglecting to secure other important sites —
hospitals, museums, and nuclear facilities. Thus, major cities
descended into chaos as American soldiers stood by watching Iraqi
looters made off with palace furniture, cultural treasures, medical
equipment, and highly sensitive lab materials.
Scenes
of regular U.S. military nocturnal raids on family homes,
street-to-street battles between soldiers and insurgents in broad
daylight, and blown-up cars and collapsed buildings caused by either
suicide bombers or U.S. missiles — all of which impart fear and
confusion in the daily lives of the civilians. In addition, the
Pentagon hiring of mercenaries and thugs to work undercover, conducting
routine tortures of thousands of prisoners (90 percent were innocent
according to Red Cross) in secret jails, and using depleted uranium,
napalm and white phosphor on a civilian population — all of which have
hastened the Iraqi populace to foment hatred towards the Americans.
The
Bush administration, notably known for dividing not unifying America,
is using the same strategy of instilling fear, intimidation and hatred
among the people in order to exacerbate the chaos in Iraq. By
encouraging anarchy, the neoconservatives essentially force Congress to
continue funding the war under the waving flag for "supporting the
troops" while they prepare to launch other wars in the Middle East.
Why is the U.S. military still in Iraq?
Behind
the smokescreens and dubious claims that the White House Iraq Group
(WHIG) has been propagandizing — to stabilize Iraq against insurgency,
to help establish a democratic government, and to provide security for
the Iraqi civilians — the U.S. military is now in Iraq to advance
Bush’s second goal — fighting a global war on terrorism.
Instead
of preventing a civil war from occurring by forging unification, the
U.S. military has intensified sectarian differences among three groups
— Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The U.S. Occupation first purged the
Ba’athists (mainly Sunnis), later re-enlisted some of them in the
security forces. Imposing a media blackout, the U.S. marines waited
until Bush was re-elected as president to move into Sunni territories —
Tal Afar for destruction and Fallujah a second time to wreak havoc,
damaging two-thirds of the buildings in the holy city. Consequently,
rebellions broke out nationwide, especially among the Sunnis who later
refused to participate in the January 2005 election. By placing
security forces of Kurds in Tal Afar and security forces of Shiites in
Fallujah, the U.S. authority has not only deepened the rift among the
groups but also allowed the Kurds and the Shiites to exact revenge on
the Sunnis. As a result, the Shiite security forces run death
squads and secret torture chambers that rival the brutality of Saddam’s
secret police.
To
impose democracy on any nation is in fact an undemocratic act —
suppressing freedom of choice for self-governing. As for the success of
establishing a democratic Iraqi government, each of the three
elections was considered "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers
"illegitimate" by these different groups.
The
fact that chaos reigns in Iraq says it all about the U.S.-led coalition
providing security for the populace. The American and British forces
have violated the Geneva Conventions for not providing protection for
the civilians and not preserving civilian health with sufficient food,
water, electricity and medical supplies in some areas of the Occupied
Iraq. The total number of Iraqi deaths in military actions and
terrorism ranges from 100,000 to 120,000 people, according to "Patterns of Population Discontent"
(May 2005), a research on Project on Defense Alternatives. The 2004
data on post-invasion under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 (about 334
children died daily) from deprivation- or malnourishment-related
causes, according to UNICEF (December 12, 2005).
Echoing
the principles of Pax Americana for American imperialism, the National
Security Strategy set forth by the Bush administration on September 20,
2002, outlines the U.S. approach to defending the country — embracing
pre-emptive attacks against terrorism, ignoring international decisions
if not in sync with U.S. interests, transforming the U.S. military with
updated programs and weaponry, and establishing permanent global U.S.
military bases and economic dominance disregarding international
treaties. Every step of the strategy, so far, has been pursued as a
foreign policy by the American government.
As
early as September 7, 2003, Bush admitted in his Address to the Nation
— "Iraq is now the central front" (in the global war on terror). It’s
not surprising that the largest U.S. embassy ever built is in Iraq as a
symbol of the future American military and economical power in the
Middle East. Although the Pentagon denied constructing permanent
military bases, GlobalSecurities.org has identified at least twelve
long-term encampments across Iraq. When Rumsfeld proposed a global
"rearrangement" of U.S. forces to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, a
radar facility learned that as many as 890 U.S. military installations
exist in foreign countries.
Why Congress must withdraw the U.S. military NOW?
Rep.
John Murtha, a highly decorated vet who voted for the Iraq War, is now
denouncing the ongoing war not for the "cut and run" reason but for
finally acknowledging the distinction of the two wars — the war against
Saddam supposedly posing a threat to the U.S. and the global war
against terrorism. The congressional approval for war against Saddam
had already ended as he declared in his November 17 speech: "Our
military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military
captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest
associates...It is time to bring them (troops) home."
Besides
the illegality of the war, mounting casualties for Americans and
Iraqis, deteriorating domestic situation, and tarnished American image
in the world, the U.S. Congress must call the troops home NOW — for it
has the constitutional right and the power to withdraw the U.S.
military from Iraq under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The
Congressmen who are sitting on the fence must act NOW because the
majority of Americans (60 percent) and Iraqis (80 percent) want the
U.S. troops out for a very good and simple reason — the world wants global peace not a global war on our planet!
Copyright © 2006 UniOrb
*Note: You may copy this article without permission. The only requirement is to include the byline and the URL like this:
By Diana Lee
UniOrb - Reality Check (http://uniorb.com) a>
|
|
:: Article nr. 19185 sent on 03-jan-2006 01:47 ECT
www.uruknet.info?p=19185
Link: uniorb.com/RCHECK/2wars.htm
:: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website.
[ Printable version
] | [ Send it to a friend ]
[ Contatto/Contact ] | [ Home Page ] | [Tutte le notizie/All news ]
|
|
Uruknet on Twitter
::
RSS updated to 2.0
:: English
:: Italiano
::
Uruknet for your mobile phone:
www.uruknet.mobi
The newsletter archive
|
:: If you find this site informative, please donate -
every donation helps us keep up with costs. Thanks.
|
:: All events
|
