Roland C. Eyears

WE ARE IN IRAQ BECAUSE . . .

In November of ’04 I wrote: “We really did have an exit strategy going into Iraq - not to exit.” How are we doing? How have our goals changed if at all? And why are we in Iraq going on 6 years?

Official U.S. figures claiming nearly 5,000 dead and 30,000 wounded are as bogus as virtually every other number proffered by the Bush regime. Additionally, a McClatchy Newspaper story asserting that over 500 veterans commit suicide monthly has been confirmed by no less than the undersecretary for health at the VA. Over 163,000 nonmilitary personnel are in Iraq under Pentagon contracts. Many are armed mercenaries. How and to whom are they accountable? Is this the future of wars and occupations? It enables politicians to avoid the backlash a draft would bring. They are able to enrich their private sector friends. Unemploy-ed young people are swept from the streets with promises of bonuses and college tuition (If they escape traumatic brain damage, the signature wound of this war.).

How we’re doing depends on whom you listen to and how smart you are. You could believe General David Petraeus, who is wrapping up a fine job in Baghdad of obfuscating and stalling. While choosing his words carefully, he claims that the absurdity called “the surge” is working but needs more time. Last month he said violence is down, but that we’ll have to wait until September before reassessing. Of course violence is down in the upscale suburbs that have been flooded with U.S. troops. Petraeus is the 4-star his official boss Admiral William Fallon has reportedly called “an ass-kissing little chicken***t.” The Admiral is being forced into retirement at 63. The General moves up. Once again we see that the president really does listen to his senior military officers.

Oliver Poole, British war correspondent with the Daily Telegraph, has just published a book titled Red Zone: Five Bloody Years in Baghdad. He writes that he can nail the time of day without a watch. In the early morning there are the “dull pops” that result from roadside bombs planted the previous night. Toward lunchtime the suicide bombers can be heard as they go about their business. Afternoons are marked by the sounds of mortars designed to irritate Americans in their “safe” Green Zone. Poole says nightfall brings the gunfire of military operations and that of special interest groups settling differences.

You could believe a Lance Corporal, USMC, who is in charge of a 50-caliber. He’s not been there long, but he learns fast. He says, “These people all want to kill us!” Correct. And why do they feel that way? Because we’re there, Corporal. Come home safe and whole, my friend, and try to stay away from the mental health counselors, lest a grateful nation steal your Second Amendment rights.
If troops depose a dictator, the people usually say thank you for liberating us. Unless the liberators are prepared to stabilize the situation, ensure public safety, prevent crime from literally running rampant, and provide for basic services such as electricity and potable water, sentiments shift toward the ugly. When troops stay much longer than 180 days, they become hated occupiers. Even if we had done nearly everything right instead of nearly everything wrong, the Iraq occupation was doomed by the totally unacceptable concept of more foreigners running the day-to-day operations of another Arab nation. In his brief stint as our top man in Baghdad, Paul Bremer managed to cancel food subsidies, tried to privatize state-owned industries that were at least up and running, banned former Ba’ath party members from government jobs (There went the few who knew how to keep the wheels rolling.), and dissolved the Iraqi army which created an almost lawless society plus hoards of unemployed men who knew what to do with the weapons they retained. Nice going, Paul. In his book, Bremer says he was merely trapped in the middle. Possibly. There’s so much blame that should be shared by the elite, our best and brightest, the Yalies, the Harvard types, Skull & Bones boys. Not that they’ll accept it.

This might be a good time to stop referring to the current unpleasantness as the Iraq War. Congress, ignoring its duty according to established tradition, never declared war, nor did it prevent the massive military effort. The Iraq War wrapped up a few weeks following the invasion, so let’s call this what it is - the Iraq Occupation. In fact, on May 22, 2003, the UN Security Council named Britain and the U.S. as “occupying powers” under Resolution 1483.

In a real war, a government strives to overcome an enemy by killing enough of his troops and breaking most of his stuff. Moreover, short of morally reprehensible acts, murders of babies, rapes, and the like, governments used to protect their military people who made tough choices under fire.

Today’s case in point: In 2005 Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell and 3 other special ops men were inserted deep into Afghanistan. Their assignment was to kill or capture Ahmad Shah, a Taliban leader believed to be an aide of Osama bin Laden. When their hidey-hole was discovered by a couple locals, the men knew they couldn’t lock them up, so they took a vote. A vote! One voted to kill the Afghans, another voted to free them, the third abstained. Luttrell, the tiebreaker, let them go. In short order, approximately a hundred Taliban warriors attacked. Three of our team were killed, as were all 16 Special Forces men aboard the Chinook rescue chopper that was brought down by an RPG. Luttrell was badly wounded (wounded, not injured, got that?), and his career was over.

Why did Luttrell, a warrior among warriors, vote to free foreign nationals who presented a clear and immediate death threat? He was a victim of our government’s politically popular Rules of Engagement. The 2 Afghans were considered non-combatants. As Luttrell, the lone survivor, put it, “I didn’t want to go to jail.” If you want more details, buy his book “Lone Survivor” (Little, Brown, & Company).

On the other hand, Blackwater Worldwide, the mercenary firm headed by well-connected Eric Prince and recipient of over a billion dollars in no-bid contracts, has occupied a comfortable sanctuary between U.S. military law and Iraqi law. For years their people, who have too often killed civilians for real or imagined reasons, have been completely immune, courtesy of our State Department. Example: September, 2007, 17 totally blameless civilians were gunned down on the street in Baghdad because Blackwater personnel got nervous.

Excuse 1 for being in Iraq: We were chasing Osama bin Laden. Hardly. All the intelligence agencies knew he wasn’t in Iraq and that he wasn’t even friendly with Saddam Hussein. If we wanted to bag Osama, Pakistan or Afghanistan or Dearborn, Michigan, would have made more sense. As for al-Qaeda, it never had a significant presence in Iraq until we created a training opportunity.

Excuse 2: Saddam was killing his own people. And what’s your point? Rulers have been killing their own people beginning with the first government. In his acclaimed “Death by Government,” R.J. Rummell has written that during the 20th Century, governments killed at least 170 million of their own, entirely exclusive of wars. If this were a viable theory, why haven’t we charged into Sudan or North Korea or a number of countries where the death toll makes Saddam look like a piker? Scratch this.

Over 2 million Iraqis fled their country, and another 2 million have been displaced. A couple months ago, neocons were bragging that expatriates were returning, presumably signaling a turnaround. Only about 40,000 returned and for the simple reason that they had run out of money and could not find work. Studies suggest that Iraqi civilian deaths approach a million and a quarter. So how much better off are they for our liberation?

Excuse 3: Weapons of Mass Destruction (whatever those are). The consensus is clear. Iraq had no such weapons, and, while some still insist on arguing the point, this was verified and re-verified by inspectors such as Scott Ritter. According to a Downing Street memo that was leaked, the chief of MI5 informed the British cabinet that the Bush regime was locked into an Iraq invasion and was fabricat-ing the evidence to justify their actions. If this were not pure excuse, why did we not attack Pakistan or North Korea, counties that most certainly had nukes? Maybe the best way to stay safe from U.S. invasion is to have nukes.

Excuse 4: Our crude oil supplies are threatened by Islamic fundamentalists, and invasion will protect the flow. Iraq sits on an ocean of oil. We were told that we must secure this crude for America, and that oil revenues would easily pay for this quick, economically priced war plus costs to rebuild anything that got scratched or dented in the process.
The United States gets most of its imported oil from Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Moreover, pipelines are easy to blow. Blocking the Strait of Hormuz would choke the flow. In other words, any number of things could constrict world oil supplies. Iraq was no pivot point.

Economists are now projecting the cost of our Iraq Occupation at 3 trillion dollars. Trailing costs considered, the figure could reach 5 trillion. At the low end, how much exploration could that buy? How many oil and gas wells could be punched? What alternative energy sources could be researched? If we were serious about energy independence, why are we not pumping where only the caribou go, and why have we not pursued safe and clean nuclear power? Our capacity to refine crude is thin. I was in the Ashland Oil refinery at Buffalo, NY, the day it closed 25 years ago. Not a single refinery has been built in the U.S. since. I don’t think I need to discuss how our Iraq adventure has dropped the price of gas.

Excuse 5: The corrupt Saud family must be protected according to the deal we cut with the devil half a century ago. In return, the Saudi government has sold us oil, bought our massive debt, and until recently forced world crude oil sales to be conducted only in U.S. dollars, thereby supporting the dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. All true. But that did not require the invasion of Iraq.

Excuse 6: Saddam started this war. On come on! Saddam didn’t even start the First Gulf War of the early 90s. In discussions with U.S. Ambassador April Glasby, Saddam mentioned reclaiming Kuwait, which many always considered to be southern Iraq. Our ambassador said that if his troops entered Kuwait, we “would take no interest.” That was a pretty big green light. Saddam took the bait. During the intervening years of No Fly Zones and a boycott of medical supplies, vitamins, etc. that killed an estimated 500,000 Iraqi children, the ruler of Iraq postured, but exhibited no ability to threaten us.

Excuse 7: It is America’s destiny to export democracy. This may be the most spurious claim of all. Our government is not interested in spreading democracy; it exports imperialism. It has been installing and supporting dictators for generations. Examples: Iran in the fifties – Mohammed Mossadeq, the duly elected prime minister, was not doing it our way, so the CIA engineered a coup that replaced him with the Shah. Vietnam in the sixties – the Diem family was not cooperating with us. Death ensued, and they were replaced. Manuel Noriega, the “president” of Panama, had migrated from cooperative lackey and reliable drug supplier to thorn-in-our-side. Pizza Face, as he became known, was reclassified as an international criminal and publicly removed. For years Saddam Hussein was a U.S. ally and business partner of the Bush family. Iraq today – al Maliki is a U.S. puppet who was to be the model others would follow. He and his government are spurned outside of Baghdad. To the north, Iraq’s Kurds have voted to establish their own democracy. Whoa, that’s too much democracy according to the great decider.

The Gallup Center for Muslim Studies recently found that, in general, Muslins scoff at the idea that America is in the Middle East to promote democracy.

Another reason democracy has not and will not take root in the sands of the Middle East is Islam. Allah trumps all. Muslim moderates favor man’s law to an extent that varies. But fundamentalists will accept no secular laws that do not conform to the Koran in all its 7th Century enlightenment.

If it was ever the intention of our government to free Iraq, run elections, and leave, why have we built 14 massive, permanent military bases in that country? Why are we constructing an entirely self-contained embassy complete with a missile defense system, wells, and 15-foot thick walls on 104 acres? This dwarfs the largest of our other major embassies by a factor of 8.

Excuse 8: They hate our freedom. In one memorable speech, with the help of a platoon of writers and coaches, George Bush was able to both pander and accuse. He said that while Islam’s “teachings are good and peaceful…” the terrorists hate us for our liberties. A study by the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies refutes that. It was found that even the 7 percent that fully approve of the September 11 attacks are not particularly religious; it follows that Islam is not the basis. Two-thirds do consider America to be aggressive. But they do not hate Americans for our broader choices. A Zogby International poll conducted with 4,000 people in 6 Arab countries puts those who rate America as “extremely unfavorable” at two-thirds and increasing.

Enough excuses. What’s left?

A permanent U.S. regional office in an occupied Iraq and our continued aggression against Arab states serves to protect Israel and support its continued territorial expansion. The official Bush policy for public consumption is that Israel should freeze settlements within Palestinian territory on the West Bank. But in a secret letter written 4 years ago as confirmed by Condi Rice, he OK’d such expansion. Tel Aviv is constantly placing considerable pressure on our government to attack Iran, to be followed by Syria and Southern Lebanon.

The legendary David Ben-Gurion was Israel’s first Prime Minister and 1 of 3 men most responsible for its founding. In 1938 he wrote: “Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves…politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. The country is theirs because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country.”

Israel is a country whose Mossad continues to spy on us as we ship them billions of dollars in aid yearly (Google Jonathan Pollard). It has purposely killed our military personnel to hide its own operations and cast blame upon Arabs (Google USS Liberty). It has planted bombs that murdered innocent Americans for the purpose of whipping up American hatred for Arabs (Google Levon Affair or King David Hotel). The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, operating as a 501(c)(3), the most powerful and best-financed political action lobby in D.C., should register as the agent of a foreign power in order to become legal (Google AIPAC). Currently, 2 of its top executives, Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman, await trial for passing national security information to a foreign power. Prior to and all through the Bush regime, top neocons who have pulled major strings included Paul Wolfowitz, Henry Kissinger, William Kristol, Douglas Feith, and Richard Perle. All are reputed to hold dual Israeli citizenships. Keep Googling.

I’m not going to tell you Israel’s Mossad was involved in the assassination of JFK. You’d think I was a nutball, and frankly I don’t know who had their fingers all over that dustup. Over the years I’ve talked with a number of formerly well-placed men who each had the inside story, all different. When so many powerful people want you dead for so many reasons, the truth will never be provable. But I can state that following that historic day in Dallas, there was a clear and definable pattern; U.S. policy was virtually reversed in Israel’s favor.

In May, 2004, retiring Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC), whose career was no longer on the line, wrote, “With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer: President Bush’s policy to secure Israel.”

Do not blame George Dubya Bush alone. Is it not obvious that this possibly reformed alcoholic underachiever’s singular accomplishment has been being born the son of a rich, powerful man who was the son of a rich, powerful man? He is but a puppet, and not a very impressive one.