Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

    By Peter Van Buren

    I was there. And "there" was nowhere. And nowhere was the place to be if you wanted to see the signs of end times for the American Empire up close. It was the place to be if you wanted to see the madness - and oh yes, it was madness - not filtered through a complacent and sleepy media that made Washington's war policy seem, if not sensible, at least sane and serious enough. I stood at Ground Zero of what was intended to be the new centerpiece for a Pax Americana in the Greater Middle East.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but the invasion of Iraq turned out to be a joke. Not for the Iraqis, of course, and not for American soldiers, and not the ha-ha sort of joke either. And here's the saddest truth of all: on March 20th as we mark the 10th anniversary of the invasion from hell, we still don't get it. In case you want to jump to the punch line, though, it's this: by invading Iraq, the US did more to destabilize the Middle East than we could possibly have imagined at the time. And we - and so many others - will pay the price for it for a long, long time.

    The madness of King George

    It's easy to forget just how normal the madness looked back then. By 2009, when I arrived in Iraq, we were already at the last-gasp moment when it came to salvaging something from what may yet be seen as the single worst foreign policy decision in American history. It was then that, as a State Department officer assigned to lead two provincial reconstruction teams in eastern Iraq, I first walked into the chicken processing plant in the middle of nowhere.

    By then, the US "reconstruction" plan for that country was drowning in rivers of money foolishly spent. As the centerpiece for those American efforts - at least after Plan A, that our invading troops would be greeted with flowers and sweets as liberators, crashed and burned - we had managed to reconstruct nothing of significance. First conceived as a Marshall Plan for the New American Century, six long years later it had devolved into farce.

    In my act of the play, the US spent some US$2.2 million to build a huge facility in the boondocks. Ignoring the stark reality that Iraqis had raised and sold chickens locally for some 2,000 years, the US decided to finance the construction of a central processing facility, have the Iraqis running the plant purchase local chickens, pluck them and slice them up with complex machinery brought in from Chicago, package the breasts and wings in plastic wrap, and then truck it all to local grocery stores.

    Perhaps it was the desert heat, but this made sense at the time, and the plan was supported by the Army, the State Department, and the White House.

    Elegant in conception, at least to us, it failed to account for a few simple things, like a lack of regular electricity, or logistics systems to bring the chickens to and from the plant, or working capital, or... um... grocery stores. As a result, the gleaming $2.2 million plant processed no chickens. To use a few of the catchwords of that moment, it transformed nothing, empowered no one, stabilized and economically uplifted not a single Iraqi. It just sat there empty, dark, and unused in the middle of the desert. Like the chickens, we were plucked.

    In keeping with the madness of the times, however, the simple fact that the plant failed to meet any of its real-world goals did not mean the project wasn't a success. In fact, the factory was a hit with the US media. After all, for every propaganda-driven visit to the plant, my group stocked the place with hastily purchased chickens, geared up the machinery, and put on a dog-and-pony, er, chicken-and-rooster, show.

    In the dark humor of that moment, we christened the place the Potemkin Chicken Factory. In between media and VIP visits, it sat in the dark, only to rise with the rooster's cry each morning some camera crew came out for a visit. Our factory was thus considered a great success.

    Robert Ford, then at the Baghdad Embassy and now America's rugged shadow ambassador to Syria, said his visit was the best day out he enjoyed in Iraq. General Ray Odierno, then commanding all US forces in Iraq, sent bloggers and camp followers to view the victory project. Some of the propaganda, which proclaimed that "teaching Iraqis methods to flourish on their own gives them the ability to provide their own stability without needing to rely on Americans," is still online (including this charming image of American-Iraqi mentorship, a particular favorite of mine).

    We weren't stupid, mind you. In fact, we all felt smart and clever enough to learn to look the other way. The chicken plant was a funny story at first, a kind of insider's joke you all think you know the punch line to. Hey, we wasted some money, but $2.2 million was a small amount in a war whose costs will someday be toted up in the trillions. Really, at the end of the day, what was the harm?

    The harm was this: we wanted to leave Iraq (and Afghanistan) stable to advance American goals. We did so by spending our time and money on obviously pointless things, while most Iraqis lacked access to clean water, regular electricity, and medical or hospital care.

    Another State Department official in Iraq wrote in his weekly summary to me, "At our project ribbon-cuttings we are typically greeted now with a cursory 'thank you,' followed by a long list of crushing needs for essential services such as water and power." How could we help stabilize Iraq when we acted like buffoons? As one Iraqi told me, "It is like I am standing naked in a room with a big hat on my head. Everyone comes in and helps put flowers and ribbons on my hat, but no one seems to notice that I am naked."

    By 2009, of course, it should all have been so obvious. We were no longer inside the neocon dream of unrivaled global superpowerdom, just mired in what happened to it. We were a chicken factory in the desert that no one wanted.

    Time Travel to 2003

    Anniversaries are times for reflection, in part because it's often only with hindsight that we recognize the most significant moments in our lives. On the other hand, on anniversaries it's often hard to remember what it was really like back when it all began. Amid the chaos of the Middle East today, it's easy, for instance, to forget what things looked like as 2003 began.

    Afghanistan, it appeared, had been invaded and occupied quickly and cleanly, in a way the Soviets (the British, the ancient Greeks) could never have dreamed of. Iran was frightened, seeing the mighty American military on its eastern border and soon to be on the western one as well, and was ready to deal. Syria was controlled by the stable thuggery of Bashar al-Assad and relations were so good that the US was rendering terror suspects to his secret prisons for torture.

    Most of the rest of the Middle East was tucked in for a long sleep with dictators reliable enough to maintain stability. Libya was an exception, though predictions were that before too long Muammar Gaddafi would make some sort of deal. (He did.) All that was needed was a quick slash into Iraq to establish a permanent American military presence in the heart of Mesopotamia. Our future garrisons there could obviously oversee things, providing the necessary muscle to swat down any future destabilizing elements. It all made so much sense to the neocon visionaries of the early Bush years.

    The only thing that Washington couldn't imagine was this: that the primary destabilizing element would be us.

    Indeed, its mighty plan was disintegrating even as it was being dreamed up. In their lust for everything on no terms but their own, the Bush team missed a diplomatic opportunity with Iran that might have rendered today's saber rattling unnecessary, even as Afghanistan fell apart and Iraq imploded. As part of the breakdown, desperate men, blindsided by history, turned up the volume on desperate measures: torture, secret gulags, rendition, drone killings, extra-constitutional actions at home.

    The sleaziest of deals were cut to try to salvage something, including ignoring the A Q Khan network of Pakistani nuclear proliferation in return for a cheesy Condi Rice-Qaddafi photo-op rapprochement in Libya.


    BAGHDAD - Capt. Bobby Lumsden, an operations officer with 30th Heavy Brigade Combat Team, says he sees young Iraqis as "the future face of Iraq" at the reopened Al Kanz Poultry Processing Plant in the Yusifiyah region of Iraq

    Inside Iraq, the forces of Sunni-Shia sectarian conflict had been unleashed by the US invasion. That, in turn, was creating the conditions for a proxy war between the US and Iran, similar to the growing proxy war between Israel and Iran inside Lebanon (where another destabilizing event, the US-sanctioned Israeli invasion of 2006, followed in hand). None of this has ever ended. Today, in fact, that proxy war has simply found a fresh host, Syria, with multiple powers using "humanitarian aid" to push and shove their Sunni and Shia avatars around.

    Staggering neocon expectations, Iran emerged from the US decade in Iraq economically more powerful, with sanctions-busting trade between the two neighbors now valued at some $5 billion a year and still growing. In that decade, the US also managed to remove one of Iran's strategic counterbalances, Saddam Hussein, replacing him with a government run by Nouri al-Malaki, who had once found asylum in Tehran.

    Meanwhile, Turkey is now engaged in an open war with the Kurds of northern Iraq. Turkey is, of course, part of NATO, so imagine the US government sitting by silently while Germany bombed Poland. To complete the circle, Iraq's prime minister recently warned that a victory for Syria's rebels will spark sectarian wars in his own country and will create a new haven for al-Qaeda which would further destabilize the region.

    Meanwhile, militarily burnt out, economically reeling from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and lacking any moral standing in the Middle East post-Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, the US sat on its hands as the regional spark that came to be called the Arab Spring flickered out, to be replaced by yet more destabilization across the region. And even that hasn't stopped Washington from pursuing the latest version of the (now-nameless) global war on terror into ever-newer regions in need of destabilization.

    Having noted the ease with which a numbed American public patriotically looked the other way while our wars followed their particular paths to hell, our leaders no longer blink at the thought of sending American drones and special operations forces ever farther afield, most notably ever deeper into Africa, creating from the ashes of Iraq a frontier version of the state of perpetual war George Orwell once imagined for his dystopian novel 1984.

    And don't doubt for a second that there is a direct path from the invasion of 2003 and that chicken plant to the dangerous and chaotic place that today passes for our American world.

    Happy anniversary

    On this 10th anniversary of the Iraq War, Iraq itself remains, by any measure, a dangerous and unstable place. Even the usually sunny Department of State advises American travelers to Iraq that US citizens "remain at risk for kidnapping ... [as] numerous insurgent groups, including Al Qaida, remain active ..." and notes that "State Department guidance to US businesses in Iraq advises the use of Protective Security Details."

    In the bigger picture, the world is also a far more dangerous place than it was in 2003. Indeed, for the State Department, which sent me to Iraq to witness the follies of empire, the world has become ever more daunting. In 2003, at that infamous "mission accomplished" moment, only Afghanistan was on the list of overseas embassies that were considered "extreme danger posts". Soon enough, however, Iraq and Pakistan were added. Today, Yemen and Libya, once boring but secure outposts for State's officials, now fall into the same category.

    Other places once considered safe for diplomats and their families such as Syria and Mali have been evacuated and have no American diplomatic presence at all. Even sleepy Tunisia, once calm enough that the State Department had its Arabic language school there, is now on reduced staff with no diplomatic family members resident. Egypt teeters.

    The Iranian leadership watched carefully as the American imperial version of Iraq collapsed, concluded that Washington was a paper tiger, backed away from initial offers to talk over contested issues, and instead (at least for a while) doubled-down on achieving nuclear breakout capacity, aided by the past work of that same A Q Khan network.

    North Korea, another A Q Khan beneficiary, followed the same pivot ever farther from Washington, while it became a genuine nuclear power. Its neighbor China pursued its own path of economic dominance, while helping to "pay" for the Iraq War by becoming the number-one holder of US debt among foreign governments. It now owns more than 21% of the US debt held overseas.

    And don't put away the joke book just yet. Subbing as apologist-in-chief for an absent George W Bush and the top officials of his administration on this 10th anniversary, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently reminded us that there is more on the horizon.

    Conceding that he had "long since given up trying to persuade people Iraq was the right decision," Blair added that new crises are looming. "You've got one in Syria right now, you've got one in Iran to come," he said. "We are in the middle of this struggle, it is going to take a generation, it is going to be very arduous and difficult. But I think we are making a mistake, a profound error, if we think we can stay out of that struggle."

    Think of his comment as a warning. Having somehow turned much of Islam into a foe, Washington has essentially assured itself of never-ending crises that it stands no chance whatsoever of winning. In this sense, Iraq was not an aberration, but the historic zenith and nadir for a way of thinking that is only now slowing waning. For decades to come, the US will have a big enough military to ensure that our decline is slow, bloody, ugly, and reluctant, if inevitable. One day, however, even the drones will have to land.

    And so, happy 10th anniversary, Iraq War! A decade after the invasion, a chaotic and unstable Middle East is the unfinished legacy of our invasion. I guess the joke is on us after all, though no one is laughing.

    Peter Van Buren, a retired 24-year veteran of the State Department, served in Iraq.

  • #2
    Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

    Was stabilization ever the goal? If Islam is the enemy, would it not be best to get them to kill each other for decades to come?
    Who wins as America increases oil production at home, while Europe must buy ever more expensive oil from a destabilized middle east?
    Does China continue to reap economic benefits in Africa if mini-wars pop up there all the time?

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

      Originally posted by aaron View Post
      Was stabilization ever the goal? If Islam is the enemy, would it not be best to get them to kill each other for decades to come?
      Who wins as America increases oil production at home, while Europe must buy ever more expensive oil from a destabilized middle east?
      Does China continue to reap economic benefits in Africa if mini-wars pop up there all the time?
      Destabilization is the leitmotif of America's latest go-round in empire shoring. The absolutely last thing US policy wants is a strong nationalistic central government in any of its targeted states. Perhaps the chicken plant was just a dollar sinkhole (did Root build it?) with PR value - never intended to function.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

        And so, happy 10th anniversary, Iraq War! A decade after the invasion, a chaotic and unstable Middle East is the unfinished legacy of our invasion. I guess the joke is on us after all, though no one is laughing.

        Peter Van Buren, a retired 24-year veteran of the State Department, served in Iraq.[/QUOTE]


        Really? "Chaotic and unstable". Is this guy actually paying attention to the region? Isn't time to give up on this old fashioned line and look at the war objectively? To me, the Middle East is more stable than it has ever been post WW2. Yes, the Iraq war was a catalyst for the Arab Spring and is still struggling with that transition; and yes, the world is never a completely stable place but, by and large, the region is peaceful and the Gulf is certainly buzzing with economic activity. Tony Blair has it right. It is probably best to give up on trying to persuade people the Iraq invasion was a good idea. People just "gonna' hate".

        I could go down the list of economic and infrastructure advancements happening in Iraq and in Kuwait directly resulting from Saddam's overthrow but people just don't want to hear it. It has become accepted mantra that the war was a fatal disaster and the beginning of the end of American super power status. Not the case, at all. Iraq and Afghanistan were, indeed, diversions away from other strategic interests but a worthwhile and recoverable diversion in my view.
        Greg

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

          Karzai Bets on Vilifying U.S. to Shed His Image as a Lackey




          By ALISSA J. RUBIN

          KABUL, Afghanistan — The longest shadow in Afghan politics is cast by a traffic post that used to stand in Ariana Square outside the presidential palace: the Taliban hanged Najibullah, the last president of the Communist government, from it shortly after they marched into Kabul in 1996.

          That history, and the reality that every modern Afghan leader has been ousted or executed, has surely not escaped President Hamid Karzai as he faces what is expected to be his final year in office, and with the American military pullout well under way.

          Seeking a nobler ending than his predecessors after his long tenure in the palace, Mr. Karzai is taking a gamble: intensifying his vilification of his American allies at a critical moment in their Afghan endgame, risking their support for him in order to save himself politically.

          Even as his government is negotiating the terms for a lasting American military presence, in just the past two weeks he has ordered Special Operations forces out of a critical province, railed against C.I.A. plots, rejected American terms for handing over detainees and, most recently, even equated the United States and the Taliban as complementary forces working to undermine the government.

          Interviews with tribal elders, business leaders, political analysts and diplomats here paint an image of a leader who is desperately trying to shake his widely held image as an American lackey by appealing to nationalist sentiments and invoking Afghanistan’s sovereignty.

          Many, however, believe that Mr. Karzai may not fully appreciate the risks he is taking in betting that the United States will commit billions of dollars in military and economic support for years to come despite growing differences with him, the budgetary and economic challenges at home and battle fatigue after a long war.

          “Karzai, very confident of the Americans’ need to stay indefinitely and with much invested already, believes he has a lot of leverage and can push back as much as he wants because he’s gotten his own way in the past,” said Saad Mohseni, an Afghan businessman who is close to many in Mr. Karzai’s team and runs the Moby Group, an international media company that includes Tolo, Afghanistan’s most popular television network.

          “The second thing is his legacy: with only 12 months to go, he has this task to change the narrative. Rather than being the person who was installed through the Bonn process,” Mr. Mohseni said, referring to a 2001 conference that set up a post-Taliban government, “he wants to be remembered as the guy who kicked out the ‘foreigners’ — in this case, the Americans.”

          American and other Western officials in Afghanistan have bent over backward to reassure the Afghan public — and Mr. Karzai — that they will not abandon them as the Russians did. That retreat, in the early 1990s, led to the collapse of the government and the army and, ultimately, to civil war.

          Indicators from the White House, though, have not been as sure. President Obama has yet to decide how many troops might stay on after combat units leave at the end of 2014. Many numbers have been floated, but nothing has been determined.

          “At what point does dealing with him become such a political pain that people in Washington, in Congress, say, ‘Let’s rethink the map on this a little bit,’ ” said one Western official in Kabul. “I don’t think Karzai fully understands this — understands the advancement of U.S. feeling on this,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the continuing negotiations.

          Many Afghan observers say that Mr. Karzai is trying to keep himself politically potent during the last year of his term by playing to at least three Afghan constituencies: his ethnic Pashtun base; ethnic Tajik and Hazara leaders in his government; and, notably, the Taliban, who have rejected negotiations with him.

          In past speeches, Mr. Karzai has sometimes adopted a yearning tone as he has expressed a desire to be the Afghan leader who could unite the country’s factions, including bringing the Taliban in from the battlefield.

          And in his recent banning of American commandos from Wardak Province, a Taliban stronghold, some Afghan observers see an attempt to reach out to the insurgents by proving that he has the power to halt military action against them. Others believe he is trying to tap into Afghans’ frustrations with giant foreign military vehicles on their roads, heavily armed foreign soldiers on foot patrols in their fields and night raids on their homes.

          But since his words have had only limited effect on the Americans, they increasingly ring hollow to many Afghans. At the same time, the reality on the ground has changed: increasingly, the war is being fought — and in some cases abuses are being carried out — by Afghan forces that are seen as acting in Mr. Karzai’s name despite having been mostly trained by Americans.

          That leaves Mr. Karzai casting about for new ways to prove that he is not, as the Taliban insist, “America’s chief puppet.”

          “President Karzai would like to portray himself as a national hero,” said Malek Sitez, an adviser to the Civil Society and Human Rights Network of Afghanistan. “He is kind of taking an antiforeigners policy, and many ordinary people in Afghanistan like this. But he does not understand how he, and his government, is totally dependent on the international community economically, and he doesn’t understand the impact of his speeches on the relationship.”

          Still, Mr. Sitez added, if Mr. Karzai cannot be remembered as a hero, “he would like to be remembered as a victim of a crowd of international strategies.”

          “He doesn’t want to be remembered as a defeated politician,” Mr. Sitez said. “So he wants to remind people that he’s a nationalist — he kicked out foreigners.”

          Many here see an echo in the last chapter of Najibullah’s rule, when, after the Russians decided to withdraw, the president took an increasingly nationalist stand and even told the Russians to go and just leave the financing for the military. That is very much the message Mr. Karzai has sent to the Americans and the world, Mr. Sitez said.

          For Afghans at a more grass-roots level, there is little faith in either the Afghan government or the Americans.

          “Now Karzai is trying to deceive people that he sympathizes with the Afghan people, and also he is trying to show the Taliban that ‘now I am independent from the Americans,’ ” said Hajji-Abdul Majeed Khan, a tribal elder from Arghistan, a district in Kandahar Province where Mr. Karzai has had support.

          “I don’t think that Karzai and Americans have disputes at all — they both are playing a double game to throw dust in people’s eyes and bring another stooge government to Afghanistan,” he added.

          One elder in Khost Province, in southeastern Afghanistan, suggested that Mr. Karzai’s negative comments were much more personal than universal. “All Afghans do not share his views and ideas,” said the elder, Yusuf Entezar. “Let’s not forget that for a long time there has been a lot of disagreement between Karzai and the Americans on one hand. And he has failed to strengthen the rule of law, and now he is trying to find some accomplishments he can show to people.”

          Many Afghans who hold government or tribal authority have also come to rely on the development projects and security provided by American soldiers and civilians.

          “This is political talk,” said Hajji Agha Lalai, the head of the Kandahar provincial council and one of the few allies of Mr. Karzai’s who was willing to speak to a reporter about the president’s comments. “These kind of remarks being made by Karzai make people worry about the future of Afghanistan.”

          He added: “People are still hopeful for a better future in Afghanistan, but we need the world community, and we are a fragile country and vulnerable. So the relationship that has been built with the world community should not be broken.”

          Any American complaints at Mr. Karzai’s latest remarks, in which he all but claimed collusion between the Taliban and the Americans, pale next to the Taliban’s reaction.

          They issued a searing response late Monday in which they dismissed Mr. Karzai as an abject hypocrite, eating food and wearing clothes paid for with American dollars.

          Nationalism “neither rescued Najibullah nor will it rescue Karzai; the Afghan nation is one of the nations of the world that knows its puppets and its heroes,” said the Taliban statement, which was written by a man identified as Qari Habib.

          “Hamid Karzai, at the end of his tenure, has resorted to the same hypocrisy as Dr. Najibullah,” the statement continued. “We offer him free advice: Do not take this road, because this road leads to Ariana Square.”



          http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/13/wo...s.html?hp&_r=0

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

            "In both cases, young Americans eagerly signed up to do their nation’s bidding. For the Vietnam War, the number of suicides far exceeds the number of names on the wall in Washington. Chuck Dean, in his book Nam Vet: Making Peace With Your past, puts the number at over 150,000, based on VA and Disabled American Veteran sources."

            http://www.thiscantbehappening.net/node/1615

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

              Originally posted by Biscayne Sunrise
              I could go down the list of economic and infrastructure advancements happening in Iraq and in Kuwait directly resulting from Saddam's overthrow but people just don't want to hear it
              Electricity isn't apparently one of the improvements.

              MSM says:

              http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...iraq-power.htm

              Iraq’s supply of electricity is 7,900 megawatts, about double the levels before the war, according to the U.S. Embassy in Iraq.
              Demand for electricity has increased 73% since 2005 to 15,300 megawatts, according to embassy statistics.
              The problem is, the starting point is fortuitously chosen.

              According to this, Iraq was producing far more electricity all the way back to the '80s:

              http://www.mongabay.com/history/iraq...ectricity.html

              Iraqi electric power consumption increased by a factor of fourteen in the twenty-year period between 1968 and 1988, and in the late 1980s it was expected to double every four to five years. Ongoing rural electrification contributed to increased demand; about 7,000 villages throughout the nation were provided electricity in the same twenty-year period. The destruction in 1980 of power-generating facilities near the Iran-Iraq border interrupted only temporarily the rapid growth in production and consumption. In 1981 the government awarded US$2 billion in contracts to foreign construction companies that were building hydroelectric and thermal generating plants as well as transmission facilities. By 1983 the production and consumption of electricity had recovered to the prewar levels of 15.6 billion kwh (kilowatt hours) and 11.7 billion kwh, respectively. As previously commissioned projects continued to come onstream, Iraq's generating capacity was expected to exceed 6,000 megawatts by 1986. In December 1987, following the completion of power lines designed to carry 400 million kwh of power to Turkey, Iraq became the first country in the Middle East to export electric power.
              The MSM report has demand doubling that of supply; the pre-invasion report has supply (in the '80s) being a fraction lower than present supply.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

                a chapter of the diversion few want to acknowledge . . .

                by MIKE WHITNEY


                “I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated. It’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.”
                – President Barack Obama

                “Is this the new paradise the Americans said they would give us when they invaded our country? When is this nightmare going to end”?



                One of the enduring myths of the Iraq War is that George W. Bush’s “surge” of 30,000 US troops into Iraq in 2007, reduced the number of attacks on US troops and effectively defeated the Sunni-led insurgency in Baghdad. This is entirely false. The surge was largely a public relations campaign that was designed to conceal the activities of US-funded and trained Shia death squads that were killing or expelling millions of Sunnis from Baghdad in what turned out to be one the greatest incidents of ethnic cleansing in the modern era. While the MSM still refuses to acknowledge what was actually taking place on the ground even before Bush deployed his meager 22,000 US troops to Baghdad, a disturbing article in last week’s Guardian helps to connect the dots. Here’s an excerpt from the article titled “From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington’s man behind brutal police squads”:


                “In 2004, with the war in Iraq going from bad to worse, the US drafted in a veteran of Central America’s dirty wars to help set up a new force to fight the insurgency. The result: secret detention centres, torture and a spiral into sectarian carnage….
                For over a year the Guardian has been trying to contact (Retired Colonel Jim) Steele, 68, to ask him about his role during the Iraq war as US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s personal envoy to Iraq’s Special Police Commandos: a fearsome paramilitary force that ran a secret network of detention centres across the country – where those suspected of rebelling against the US-led invasion were tortured for information.
                On the 10th anniversary of the Iraq invasion the allegations of American links to the units that eventually accelerated Iraq’s descent into civil war cast the US occupation in a new and even more controversial light. The investigation was sparked over a year ago by millions of classified US military documents dumped onto the Internet and their mysterious references to US soldiers ordered to ignore torture. Private Bradley Manning, 25, is facing a 20-year sentence, accused of leaking military secrets.
                Steele’s contribution was pivotal. He was the covert US figure behind the intelligence gathering of the new commando units. The aim: to halt a nascent Sunni insurgency in its tracks by extracting information from detainees.
                It was a role made for Steele. The veteran had made his name in El Salvador almost 20 years earlier as head of a US group of special forces advisers who were training and funding the Salvadoran military to fight the FNLM guerrilla insurgency. These government units developed a fearsome international reputation for their death squad activities. Steele’s own biography describes his work there as the “training of the best counterinsurgency force” in El Salvador.” (From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington’s man behind brutal police squads”, Guardian)


                It’s worth noting that the article in the Guardian has been universally ignored in the US media presumably because its revelations suggest that the civilian leadership (Bush, Rumsfeld and Co.) may be guilty of war crimes. Here’s more from the article:


                “Celerino Castillo, a Senior Drug Enforcement Administration special agent who worked alongside Steele in El Salvador, says: “I first heard about Colonel James Steele going to Iraq and I said they’re going to implement what is known as the Salvadoran Option in Iraq and that’s exactly what happened. And I was devastated because I knew the atrocities that were going to occur in Iraq which we knew had occurred in El Salvador.”


                It was in El Salvador that Steele first came in to close contact with the man who would eventually command US operations in Iraq: David Petraeus. Then a young major, Petraeus visited El Salvador in 1986 and reportedly even stayed with Steele at his house.

                ” …..A second special adviser, retired Colonel James H Coffman, worked alongside Steele in detention centres that were set up with millions of dollars of US funding.
                Coffman reported directly to General David Petraeus, sent to Iraq in June 2004 to organise and train the new Iraqi security forces. Steele, who was in Iraq from 2003 to 2005, and returned to the country in 2006, reported directly to Rumsfeld.” (Guardian)



                So, Petraeus not only knew what was going on, he must have been directly involved. In fact, he must have given the green light to his subordinates to carry out their operations. Knowledge of this report may explain why Petraeus recently stepped down as director of the CIA using a sex scandal for cover. Here’s more from the Guardian:

                “Just before Petraeus and Steele left Iraq in September 2005, Jabr al-Solagh was appointed as the new minister of the interior. Under Solagh, who was closely associated with the violent Badr Brigades militia, allegations of torture and brutality by the commandos soared. It was also widely believed that the units had evolved into death squads.
                The Guardian has learned that high-ranking Iraqis who worked with the US after the invasion warned Petraeus of the consequences of appointing Solagh but their pleas were ignored.
                The long-term impact of funding and arming this paramilitary force was to unleash a deadly sectarian militia that terrorised the Sunni community and helped germinate a civil war that claimed tens of thousands of lives. At the height of that sectarian conflict, 3,000 bodies a month were strewn on the streets of Iraq.” (“Revealed: Pentagon’s link to Iraqi torture centres”, Guardian)



                Think about that for a minute: The author is admitting that US support for the Shia deaths squads is what caused the downward spiral of violence and the vicious sectarian war that persisted for years. Was that what the Bush administration had in mind from the beginning?

                Probably not, but clearly by 2004 Rumsfeld saw that the war could not be won with the number of troops he had which is why he resorted to unconventional means to achieve his objectives. Enter Steele, and a way to pacify Baghdad without admitting that General Shinseki had been right from the onset and that the US occupation would require 500,000 troops to establish security.

                Keep in mind, that the Bush administration had also commissioned the Rand Corporation “to develop a Shaping Strategy for pacifying Muslim populations where the US has commercial or strategic interests.” The conclusions of the document–which was titled called: “US Strategy in the Muslim World after 9-11”– are fairly consistent with the approach on the ground. Rand said that the US, “Align its policy with Shiite groups who aspire to have more participation in government and greater freedoms of political and religious expression. If this alignment can be brought about, it could erect a barrier against radical Islamic movements and may create a foundation for a stable U.S. position in the Middle East.”

                In any event, Rumsfeld and Petreaus threw their weight behind the Shia in an attempt to rebuild the state according to their own neoliberal specifications. But as the Sunni-led resistance gained momentum and attacks on US soldiers increased, the US high-command tried to fuel sectarian animosities to divert attention from the occupation. Beginning with the bombing of the Golden Dome Mosque (Askariya Mosque)–which many Shia including Mahdi Army chief, Muqtada al-Sadr, still believe was carried out by American Intel agents and not Sunni fighters–the US media changed the prevailing narrative on Iraq from insurgency to civil war. This change in the storyline downplayed the struggle against foreign occupation and replaced it with incidents of Sunni-Shia violence. The MSM never mentioned the fact that Iraq had no history of sectarian clashes.

                As veteran journalist Robert Fisk said at the time:

                “Iraq is not a sectarian society. People are intermarried. Shi’is and Sunnis marry each other…Some from the militias and death squads want a civil war (but) there has never been a civil war in Iraq. The real question I ask myself is: who are these people who are trying to provoke a civil war? The Americans will say that it’s al Qaida or the Sunni insurgents; it is the death squads. Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior? Who pays the militia men who make up the death squads? We do; the occupation authorities.” (Robert Fisk, “Somebody is trying to provoke a Civil War in Iraq”)


                Interestingly, Fisk goes on to support his thesis by suggesting that agents provocateur may have been responsible for bombings that were killing hundreds of Iraqi civilians at the time. In his article, “Seen through a Syrian Lens” (UK Independent 4-29-06) Fisk recalls a conversation he had with a trusted “security source” who told him that: (the US) “is desperately trying to provoke a civil war around Baghdad in order to reduce its own military casualties.”

                “I swear to you that we have very good information,” Fisk recounts, “One young Iraqi man told us that he was trained by the Americans as a policeman in Baghdad and he spent 70 per cent of his time learning to drive and 30 per cent in weapons training. They said to him: ‘Come back in a week.’ When he went back, they gave him a mobile phone and told him to drive into a crowded area near a mosque and phone them. He waited in the car but couldn’t get the right mobile signal. So he got out of the car to where he received a better signal. Then his car blew up.”

                Fisk assures us that he heard the same story many times from many different sources. As he says later in the same article:

                “There was another man, trained by the Americans for the police. He too was given a mobile and told to drive to an area where there was a crowd – maybe a protest – and to call them and tell them what was happening. Again, his new mobile was not working. So he went to a landline phone and called the Americans and told them: ‘Here I am, in the place you sent me and I can tell you what’s happening here.’ And at that moment there was a big explosion in his car.”


                Fisk’s stories add to the growing body of hearsay evidence that western Intel agencies may have been directly involved in inciting sectarian violence. The idea that the Bush administration might have given the go-ahead for acts of terror seems more plausible now that the Guardian has produced evidence of US involvement in the torture and training Shia death squads.

                But what does any of this have to do with the surge?

                It explains the context in which the surge was carried out. There were three factors that came into play that reduced the attacks on US troops. First, Moktada al-Sadr ordered a temporary cease fire that lasted for nearly a year. Second, the US persuaded 90,000 Sunni tribesman to join the the “Awakening Councils” in order to put an end to al Qaida’s random attacks on civilians. (This seriously weakened the resistance.) And, third, the US assisted the Interior Ministry’s Special Police Commandos in their effort to kill or displace tens of thousands of Sunnis across Baghdad in order to pacify the capital. The point is, the ethnic cleansing succeeded in reducing the attacks on US troops, while the surge had no impact at all. Here’s another clip from the Guardian that helps to illustrate the savagery of the policy:

                “With Steele and Coffman as his point men, Petraeus began pouring money from a multimillion dollar fund into what would become the Special Police Commandos. …
                With Petraeus’s almost unlimited access to money and weapons, and Steele’s field expertise in counterinsurgency the stage was set for the commandos to emerge as a terrifying force. One more element would complete the picture. The US had barred members of the violent Shia militias like the Badr Brigade and the Mahdi Army from joining the security forces, but by the summer of 2004 they had lifted the ban.
                Shia militia members from all over the country arrived in Baghdad “by the lorry-load” to join the new commandos. These men were eager to fight the Sunnis: many sought revenge for decades of Sunni-supported, brutal Saddam rule, and a chance to hit back at the violent insurgents and the indiscriminate terror of al-Qaida.
                Petraeus and Steele would unleash this local force on the Sunni population as well as the insurgents and their supporters and anyone else who was unlucky enough to get in the way. It was classic counterinsurgency. It was also letting a lethal, sectarian genie out of the bottle. The consequences for Iraqi society would be catastrophic. At the height of the civil war two years later 3,000 bodies a month were turning up on the streets of Iraq — many of them innocent civilians of sectarian war.” (“From El Salvador to Iraq: Washington’s man behind brutal police squads”, Guardian)


                The plan to purge the Sunnis from Baghdad preceded the surge and, in fact, was going on months before the new deployments arrived. Jon Swain of the Times-online provided a chilling description of the military onslaught that was being carried out in the predominantly Sunni Haifa neighborhood just a few hundred yards outside the Green Zone:

                (The operation involved over) “1,000 American and Iraqi troops backed by Apache helicopters and F-18 fighter jets; it was one of the most spectacular military operations there since the American invasion in spring of 2003. Flames and clouds of smoke filled the area as the battle against Sunni insurgents raged. Helicopters raked the rooftops with rocket and machine gun fire, jets swooped down to almost rooftop level, and tanks and fighting vehicles took up supporting positions as innocent people cowered inside.”

                Another article which appeared in Azzaman news service titled “US Warplanes bomb Baghdad as Street Battles Rage” provides a similar account of US attacks on neighborhoods in the capital:


                “US troops are deploying massive air and ground fire against heavily populated residential areas in Baghdad as a prelude to the start of a campaign to retake the city they invaded nearly 4 years ago….The victims have been innocent Iraqis and the city’s rickety infrastructure.”


                The US military provided the necessary firepower so the Shia militias could do their dirty work and expel entire families from their homes and eventually, from the capital. This is how Bush pacified Baghdad, by unleashing a campaign of terror that wiped out tens of thousands of innocent civilians and reducing the majority Sunni population into a dwindling and powerless minority.

                A few prescient observers knew what was going on at the time from reports from their sources in Baghdad. Here’s how journalist Dahr Jamail summed it up in his article titled, “Southern Tribes are joining the Armed Resistance”:


                “A political analyst in Baghdad told IPS that he believes occupation forces have been working in tandem with death squads. We have been observing American and British occupation forces supporting those death squads all over Iraq, but we are still hoping for reconciliation.’”


                Author Max Fuller was even more explicit. He said:

                “What we do know, however, is that hundreds of Iraqis are being murdered and that paramilitary hit squads of the proxy government organized by US trainers with a fulsome pedigree in state terrorism are increasingly being associated with them.”


                The surge was merely a PR charade intended to disguise the vast war crimes that were perpetrated against the Iraqi people. We can only hope that someday their voices will be heard and that the people responsible will be brought to justice.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Iraq War - Happy 10th Anniversary!

                  There is a secondary element to this story as it continues to unfold; you see, in law, when push comes to shove as they say, once anyone steps beyond the law into lawlessness, they cease to have any protection from the law. Further, any treaties created or imposed by them become instantly moot. They have the same legal status as any other criminal; none!

                  Who would want to have such people as neighbours; let alone allies?

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X