Showing posts with label Iraq occupation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq occupation. Show all posts

Sunday, August 28, 2016

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES???


THE ABSURD TIMES






Thank you, Carlos Latuff.  We can see that the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) is having an effect by the way Israel in now treating its own as even some of them are under, er, "Scrutiny".  It was amusing to see Jill Stein of the Green Party support the movement with Joe Cuomo, CNN moderator and brother of the Governor of New York who is carrying out his own campaign against the movement – albeit with great "encouragement" from Zionist pressure.

            Is it not becoming tiresome to hear the term "Unintended consequences" used when describing to invasion of Libya (pushed by Clinton and idiots in France) and the destruction of Iraq (started by the Bushes), resulting to the presence of ISIS in both countries?  They had to know that this systematic attempt to dismantle Arab Nationalist governments in favor of theocratic one would result in such disaster.  If they did not, they could have read, right here, that very warning and prediction.

Any one with cognitive functioning of a borderline idiot or above with any information on the subject could have seen this coming.  Therefore, there was nothing "unintended" about it.  In fact, the strategy goes as far back as Kissinger who pointed out that we could say the Soviet Union was officially atheist and that we are not would be an incentive to move these countries away from Russian influence.

Still, there is not much point in saying any more on the subject now.  Whoever is elected will only be worse than what we have now.  Below is an interview that first will talk briefly about the candidates and then use the actions of Turkey to provide a summary of what has happened in the Mideast.


TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: And what do the U.S. elections mean for what's taking place now?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, look, I mean, it's—you can see from your news report at the beginning that, in domestic terms, there is a great difference between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Donald Trump has not only been absorbed by the white nationalists, but he himself appears to be a white nationalist. But seen from the rest of the world, the difference between the two is minimal. You know, here you have Donald Trump, who is, in many ways, erratic. God knows what he'll do once he becomes president. He will lead a party—
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think God knows what he'll do, once he—
VIJAY PRASHAD: Yeah, I think God knows what he'll do. You know, I mean, I think that if the Republican Party was at such a place where Ted Cruz, who said that he would like to bomb Syria, to see the desert essentially be irradiated—if the Republican Party can see somebody like that as normal, as rational, then, you know, God help us if the Republicans are in charge of things.
But let's take the case of Hillary Clinton. You know, here's somebody who actually pushed Obama to go into the Libyan operation. You know, Obama was reticent to enter the operation in Libya. The French were very eager. And Hillary Clinton led the charge against Libya. This shows, to my mind, a profound dangerous tendency to go into wars overseas, you know, damn the consequences. And I think, therefore, if you're looking at this from outside the United States, there's a real reason to be terrified that whoever becomes president—as Medea Benjamin put it to me in an interview, whoever wins the president, there will be a hawk in the White House.

TRANSCRIPT

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: An explosion at a police station in Turkey near the border with Syria has reportedly killed at least 11 people and wounded 70. State-run media is reporting that Kurdish militants were responsible for the attack, but there's been no claim of responsibility. This comes as the Turkish military has sent additional tanks into northern Syria, intensifying its ground offensive in the ongoing conflict.
The U.S. military is backing Turkey's incursion, which began earlier this week with an aerial bombing campaign. Turkey says the offensive is against ISIS-held areas along the border. But Turkey says it's also concerned about Syrian Kurdish militias at the border. Those militias are backed by the United States. On Wednesday, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan announced Turkish-backed Syrian rebels claimed—reclaimed the Syrian town of Jarabulus from the Islamic State.
PRESIDENT RECEP TAYYIP ERDOGAN: [translated] As of this moment, Free Syrian Army and residents of Jarabulus have taken back Jarabulus. They have seized the state buildings and official institution buildings in the town. According to the information we have received, Daesh had to leave Jarabulus.
AMY GOODMAN: Turkey's offensive is dubbed "Euphrates Shield," and it's the country's first major military operation since a failed coup shook Turkey in July. On Wednesday, the Turkish president, Erdogan, met with U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, who said the United States supports Turkey's efforts to control its borders.
VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN: We believe very strongly that the Turkish border must be controlled by Turkey, that there should be no occupation of that border by any group whatsoever, other than a Syria that must be whole and united, but not carved in little pieces.
AMY GOODMAN: Meanwhile, the British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights says videos posted to a social media website Thursday depict carnage in the Bab al-Nairab neighborhood of Aleppo, where two barrel bombs were reportedly dropped, killing at least five people. The group also reported additional strikes across Aleppo and its suburbs, saying the dead were mostly women and children.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: The strikes came as the United Nations announced Russia has agreed to a 48-hour humanitarian truce in Aleppo to permit aid deliveries, pending security guarantees are met by parties on the ground. The United Nations has been pushing for a weekly 48-hour hiatus in fighting in Aleppo to assist the city's approximately 2 million people who have been suffering as Syria's five-year-old conflict continues to take a massive humanitarian toll.
A separate United Nations team has concluded the Assad government and ISISmilitants carried out repeated chemical weapons attacks in Syria in 2014 and 2015. The report accuses Assad of twice using chlorine gas. It also accuses ISIS of using mustard gas.
AMY GOODMAN: All of this comes as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, are meeting today in Geneva to discuss details of a cooperation agreement on fighting Islamic State in Syria.
For more, we're joined by the acclaimed scholar who has followed the region closely for years, Vijay Prashad. He is a professor of international studies at Trinity College, columnist for the Indian magazine Frontline. His new book is called The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution. Professor Prashad's previous books include Arab Spring, Libyan Winter and The Poorer Nations: A Possible History of the Global South.
Vijay Prashad, welcome back to Democracy Now! It's great to have you in studio.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Thanks a lot. Great to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: So, let's start with what's happening right now in Turkey, where Vice President Joe Biden just was.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, the situation in Turkey is very dire. As you know, on July 15, there was the failed coup. But the matters in Turkey have unraveled long before this failed coup. You know, the crackdown on reporters has been going on for at least a year and a half, if not longer. The internal politics of Turkey has been in disarray.
One of the interesting things about the government of Mr. Erdogan is that, previously, he had started a peace process with the Kurdish Workers' Party, the PKK, which the United States and Turkey sees as a terrorist outfit. They had started a protracted peace process called the Imrali process. But this war in Syria has essentially unraveled that peace process, and the Turkish military has gone back on the full offensive against the Kurds in southeastern Turkey, and, as well, as you saw this week, the Turkish army has crossed the border into Syria to stop the advance of Syrian Kurds from creating what the Syrian Kurds call Rojava, which would be a statelet of Syrian Kurds which is right on the Turkish border.
You know, the reason that operation is called Euphrates Shield is that the Euphrates runs in that region from north to south. And what the Turkish government would like to see is for the Syrian Democratic Forces, which has a large Kurdish component, to move back east of the Euphrates—in other words, withdraw from Jarabulus, withdraw from Manbij, which they had taken quite—in a celebrated victory, and therefore prevent the creation of this Kurdish statelet called Rojava. On the surface, they say it's about ISIS, but really this is about the protracted war that the Turkish government has begun again against the Kurds.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But interestingly, you mentioned the failed coup. The New York Times, for instance, is reporting today that Erdogan wanted to go into Syria earlier, but the military was resisting, and it was only as a result of his being able to purge and remove so many top military officers that now he's been able to do—to effect this incursion.
VIJAY PRASHAD: This is likely the case, you know, but it's also been the situation that this is not the first Turkish entry into Syria. The Turks had entered previously; the Turkish military had. You know, there's a celebrated shrine, a memorial to one of the founders of the Ottoman Empire, and the Turkish military had entered to secure that monument earlier. Turks had also, of course, kept their border open and had allowed supplies and people to cross the border into various proxy groups, whether it's Turkish-backed proxy groups, Saudi groups, Qatari groups—and, in fact, the Islamic State. You know, they have used for years the Turkish border. And I think that the sheer instability of the war in Syria has returned, you know, the conflict into Turkey—what the CIA, after the successful coup in Iran in 1953, called blowback. You know, this is, in a sense, blowback against Turkey. So, they have previously entered Syria with the military. They have, of course, supported their proxies. But now, I think, with the gains made by the Kurds, this is as much a political entry as anything. You know, the principal reason, I would argue, that they've entered Jarabulus is to stop the creation of Rojava.
AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Vijay Prashad, and we're going to continue this conversation after break. Vijay Prashad is professor of international studies at Trinity College, columnist for the Indian magazine Frontline. His new book is calledThe Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution. We'll talk about, well, Turkey, Syria, Libya, and also the U.S. elections, before we speak with Emma Thompson. The famed actress is now back in Canada after going to the Arctic. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: "Denizlerin Dalgasiyim," "I am the Waves of the Sea," by Selda Bagcan. This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I'm Amy Goodman, with Juan González. We're speaking with Vijay Prashad, professor of international studies at Trinity College and author of a new book. It's called The Death of the Nation and the Future of the Arab Revolution.
I want to turn to a novelist who was just arrested. I want to talk about press freedom in Turkey. The Committee to Protect Journalists reports that Turkish author and columnist Asli Erdogan—no relation to the president—has written about her treatment in prison since her arrest earlier this month, after the government closed down the newspaper where she worked. She now faces a pending trial on terrorism charges and says she's been denied medication or sufficient water for five days and is diabetic. She's one of many journalists and writers who have been arrested on charges of terrorism in Turkey. About 10,000 people have been arrested since the coup, at least that we know, or the attempted coup, though Erdogan, of course, wrested power back. Professor Vijay Prashad, what about Asli?
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, look, you know, she is one of the tens of thousands of people who have been arrested under so-called suspicion that she was doing propaganda for the Kurdish Workers' Party, the PKK. You know, here's a celebrated novelist, a journalist for a newspaper whose entire staff pretty much, the editorial staff, has been arrested. Newspapers have been facing a great challenge inside Turkey, and broadcasters. If anybody has questioned the fact that the Turkish government, you know, has been allowing fighters to cross the border, they have been arrested. And this has been happening for the last several years. You know, that's why I say the failed coup of July 15th has just provided the government with the opportunity to go very deep into its list of those whom it sees as dissenters, and pick them up.
But they've been going after reporters for years now. Anybody who challenges their narrative of the war in Syria, they consider a threat, and they accuse them of being linked to the PKK. You know, this is one of the simplest ways of delegitimizing somebody, is to say that they are a propagandist for the PKK. And that's precisely what they've said to her. They've also held her in solitary confinement. And she has asked to go back into the general population. You know, that's a—it's a humanitarian thing, on the surface of it. And also, you know, this is somebody with medical problems, and they've denied use of medication and a proper diet. But she's only one. You know, as you noted, there are thousands of journalists who have been picked up. And sadly, a number of them are Kurdish journalists, independent journalists from the southwestern region of Turkey, who have been picked up.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you mention the Kurdish Workers' Party. Clearly, Turkey is a far more developed country than most of the other Middle East countries and, along with Egypt, probably has the largest working class, per se. Has there been any ties between the Kurdish Workers' Party and ongoing workers' movements in Turkey among the rest of the population?
VIJAY PRASHAD: So, the Kurdish Workers' Party starts, you know, as a principally Kurdish nationalist force, separatist force. But Turkey is an interesting country, because, you know, the largest Kurdish population in a city is not in the southeast, but is in Istanbul. So, you know, about 10 years ago or so, the Kurdish Workers' Party began to move from the position of secessionism to the position of more rights inside Turkey. And there have been a series of attempts to unite with the Turkish left, various small leftist parties, to create an umbrella party that would both fight for rights of all kinds of people—gays and lesbians, women, workers and Kurds—inside Turkey. And the most recent, you know, party of this kind was the HDP, which had in both elections in 2015—there were two parliamentary elections—did enough—you know, did well enough to block Mr. Erdogan's attempt to create a presidential form of government. And in a sense, this domestic pressure from the HDP has also upturned the applecart, as far as Mr. Erdogan's domestic agenda is concerned.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, Joe Biden was just there, the vice president. Turkey, Erdogan has been demanding the extradition of Fethullah Gülen, who is in the Poconos in Pennsylvania. Biden wrote a piece in a Turkish paper, and Foreign Policyhas said that Turkey has admitted that they have not given evidence that this man was behind the attempted coup. Explain, overall, the significance, for people who have never heard of him. It's not just about the PKK in Turkey.
VIJAY PRASHAD: No, it's not. The PKK provides, I think, the opportunity for the Turkish government to go after a large number of journalists, because many of these journalists that they've picked up are people of the left. The purges in the military, in the judiciary, in those sectors, they've blamed on people with sympathies to the Gülen movement or been members of the Gülen movement.
Now, when Mr. Erdogan came to power in the early 2000s, one of the great fears of this kind of Islamist movement was that they would suffer a coup by the military, that the military, which was largely republican, would go and overthrow them. So, from the very beginning, the AKP party, the party of Mr. Erdogan, has been very careful not to antagonize the military. And through the early years, Mr. Gülen's movement and Erdogan both collaborated in stuffing their people into the military and into the judiciary. In a sense, this is now a family fight, that the very people that they stuffed into the military and into the judiciary have, of course, now turned on Mr. Erdogan. So he is now purging these people from positions of some authority. So it's not untrue that the Gülenists are inside the military and inside the judiciary, but they were put there essentially to facilitate the Islamization of these institutions.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And the Gülen movement, in one of the bizarre examples of what's happening in education in the United States, runs the largest charter school network in the United States. They have charter schools across the country, especially in Texas. Is there any indication—and they're bringing in Turkish educators to come into the United States to work in these schools. Do you have a—have you studied that at all?
VIJAY PRASHAD: No, I haven't looked at that, but I've read about it. And the interesting feature, of course, is that this charter school movement or this push towards having faith-based schools in the United States is so closely linked to the agenda not only in Turkey, but in Pakistan, in various other places. And, you know, you see the downside of this: the promotion of a kind of theocratic mindset, the promotion of, you know, a lack of appreciation of the diversity of populations, of minorities, of science, you know, things like that. So, of course, the United States—I'm glad you raised this, because the United States is not somehow outside this process. You know, the United States is very much in this process, not only by promoting this overseas, but, of course, by promoting it from Texas to New York. It's not only Texas, Juan. We like to think of Texas as a sort of, you know, bastion of the American Taliban, but this American Talibanization has been happening everywhere.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to move from Turkey to Saudi Arabia. While Joe Biden went to Turkey, Secretary of State John Kerry went to Saudi Arabia. Talk about Saudi Arabia and what's happening today and the U.S. role in Saudi Arabia.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Well, this is actually, I think, the most important meeting. And it's important that Mr. Kerry went to Saudi Arabia before meeting Lavrov in Geneva. And the reason I say this is that, you know, the Russians, the Iranians and the Americans have now come to the understanding that the process in Syria cannot start with the demand that Mr. Assad has to go. And why I say this is that Turkey has in the last couple of weeks come to the same position. So, the current prime minister of Turkey has quite clearly said that they no longer require Mr. Assad to leave as a precondition for the peace process, but he can stay, as the prime minister said, for a transitional period.
The only power in the region, the so-called subjugating powers of the region, that has not accepted this view is Saudi Arabia, and, to some extent, its Gulf Arab allies. You know, Saudi Arabia is fighting an extraordinarily brutal war in Yemen. It is obstinate in that war. It's made no gains, despite the fact it's been bombing Yemen for over a year. And, of course, the United States government has continued to resupply Saudi Arabia through this period. So, Mr. Kerry's—
AMY GOODMAN: Engaged in the largest weapons sale in U.S. history with Saudi Arabia.
VIJAY PRASHAD: Precisely, the largest weapons sale, which Mr. Obama justified on economic grounds, which I thought was the most vulgar thing. In his statement, he said—or his proxy said, his spokesperson said, that this is the largest weapons sale, which benefits most of the states in the United States, because they will have bits and pieces of manufacturing.
But the point I just want to make is that for Mr. Kerry to be in Saudi Arabia is important because one of the features that they need to be pushing is that Saudi Arabia needs to now adopt the view that there needs to be a long transitional process in Syria. They cannot demand the Assad—Mr. Assad leave as a precondition. Everybody else has accepted this except Saudi Arabia.


The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Robert Fisk on Iraq


It has been awhile since we've heard from the great Robert Fisk. so it is about time.  He provides a useful corrective to a lot of what Amerikan Media has been contributing, as it were.


Iraq: Torture. Corruption. Civil war. America has Certainly Left Its Mark

When you invade someone else's country, there has to be a first soldier - just as there has to be a last.

The first man in front of the first unit of the first column of the invading American army to reach Fardous Square in the centre of Baghdad in 2003 was Corporal David Breeze of the 3rd Battalion, Fourth Marine Regiment. For that reason, of course, he pointed out to me that he wasn't a soldier at all. Marines are not soldiers. They are Marines. But he hadn't talked to his mom for two months and so - equally inevitably - I offered him my satellite phone to call his home in Michigan. Every journalist knows you'll get a good story if you lend your phone to a soldier in a war.

"Hi, you guys," Corporal Breeze bellowed. "I'm in Baghdad. I'm ringing to say 'Hi! I love you. I'm doing fine. I love you guys.' The war will be over in a few days. I'll see you soon." Yes, they all said the war would be over soon. They didn't consult the Iraqis about this pleasant notion. The first suicide bombers - a policeman in a car and then two women in a car - had already hit the Americans on the long highway up to Baghdad. There would be hundreds more. There will be hundreds more in Iraq in the future.

So we should not be taken in by the tomfoolery on the Kuwaiti border in the last few hours, the departure of the last "combat" troops from Iraq two weeks ahead of schedule. Nor by the infantile cries of "We won" from teenage soldiers, some of whom must have been 12-years-old when George W Bush sent his army off on this catastrophic Iraqi adventure. They are leaving behind 50,000 men and women - a third of the entire US occupation force - who will be attacked and who will still have to fight against the insurgency.

Yes, officially they are there to train the gunmen and militiamen and the poorest of the poor who have joined the new Iraqi army, whose own commander does not believe they will be ready to defend their country until 2020. But they will still be in occupation - for surely one of the "American interests" they must defend is their own presence - along with the thousands of armed and indisciplined mercenaries, western and eastern, who are shooting their way around Iraq to safeguard our precious western diplomats and businessmen. So say it out loud: we are not leaving.

Instead, the millions of American soldiers who have passed through Iraq have brought the Iraqis a plague. From Afghanistan - in which they showed as much interest after 2001 as they will show when they start "leaving" that country next year - they brought the infection of al-Qa'ida. They brought the disease of civil war. They injected Iraq with corruption on a grand scale. They stamped the seal of torture on Abu Ghraib - a worthy successor to the same prison under Saddam's vile rule - after stamping the seal of torture on Bagram and the black prisons of Afghanistan. They sectarianised a country that, for all its Saddamite brutality and corruption, had hitherto held its Sunnis and Shias together.

And because the Shias would invariably rule in this new "democracy", the American soldiers gave Iran the victory it had sought so vainly in the terrible 1980-88 war against Saddam. Indeed, men who had attacked the US embassy in Kuwait in the bad old days - men who were allies of the suicide bombers who blew up the Marine base in Beirut in 1983 - now help to run Iraq. The Dawa were "terrorists" in those days. Now they are "democrats". Funny how we've forgotten the 241 US servicemen who died in the Lebanon adventure. Corporal David Breeze was probably two or three-years-old then.

But the sickness continued. America's disaster in Iraq infected Jordan with al-Qa'ida - the hotel bombings in Amman - and then Lebanon again. The arrival of the gunmen from Fatah al-Islam in the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian camp in the north of Lebanon - their 34-day war with the Lebanese army - and the scores of civilian dead were a direct result of the Sunni uprising in Iraq. Al-Qa'ida had arrived in Lebanon. Then Iraq under the Americans re-infected Afghanistan with the suicide bomber, the self-immolator who turned America's soldiers from men who fight to men who hide.

Anyway, they are busy re-writing the narrative now. Up to a million Iraqis are dead. Blair cares nothing about them - they do not feature, please note, in his royalties generosity. And nor do most of the American soldiers. They came. They saw. They lost. And now they say they've won. How the Arabs, surviving on six hours of electricity a day in their bleak country, must be hoping for no more victories like this one.


Robert Fisk is Middle East correspondent for The Independent newspaper.  He is the author of many books on the region, including The Great War for Civilisation: The Conquest of the Middle East

From: Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives
URL: http://www.zcommunications.org/iraq-torture-corruption-civil-war-america-has-certainly-left-its-mark-by-robert-fisk

Saturday, April 12, 2008

What a Week

THE ABSURD TIMES




THE ABSURD TIMES
Illustration: Bill Clinton before his defense of his wife, Hillary. Bill said, about Hillary, "After all, it was after 11:00, she was exhausted, and she's over 60" (Bill like blondes, Hillary used to have dark hair.) Another reason for the ilustration is just that I've liked Sheryl Crow since she was banned in Wal-Mart.
----------------------------------
Let's just review a few things that have happened in the last few days.
The Clinton headquarters in Indiana burned down and Bill said "We will rise from the ashes," an apparent reference to the Phoenix. I hope so. The Phoenix does that every 500 years according to the myth, so we will be safe for awhile.
George Bush said we will know when our job in Iraq is finished when it [Iraq] is able to help us fight our enemies! Guam? No, he probably means Iran.
Bowling seems to be an important factor in this election. Neither Hillary nor Obama were able to knock down more than one or two pins at a time. However, I remember George Sr. once demonstrating his style, which was ok, except he forgot to let the ball go and its momentum carried him forward and onto his face on the bowling lane.
A recent Poll indicated that a McCain/Rice combination would defeat an Obama/Clinton one. Why on earth would anyone take such a poll? It ain't gonna happen nohow noway anywhere not never. [Just practicing syntax in case I want to run for political office. Local Libertarians have talked about my running for Sheriff as I've told them I'd never show up at my office unless they let me smoke there.]
I've noticed that there is a lot of protest over the Olympic torch going around the world. The Dali Lama is against the protests. I don't follow - it would seem that American politicians, who are so fond of quoting Hitler, would like to keep this grand tradition he started alive. Munich. Jessie Owens. You know.

A bill has been introduced into the Senate to make John McCain a "natural born citizen." See, he was born in Panama, both parents citizens, so the citizen part is no problem. It's the word "Natural" that some people are worried about. It's absurd, of course, but that does not exclude it as important news.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Here are a couple articles about the cost of the occupation of Iraq. They seem appropriate as this is the bloodiest week of the year for American Soldiers in Iraq:

Three Trillion Dollar War Review
April 09, 2008 By *Girish Mishra*

Girish Mishra's ZSpace Page </zspace/girishmishra>
Karl Marx once remarked: "War in direct economic terms is just the same
as if a nation cast part of its capital into water." After many decades,
once again, the validity of this statement has been underlined by the
invasion and occupation of Iraq by the US-led coalition. A period of
more than five years has elapsed, yet there is no sign of freedom,
democracy and prosperity as promised to the Iraqi people. In fact, the
invasion and continued occupation has brought enormous devastation of
this ancient country, nor has it done any good even to the people of
America and its coalition partners. This has been analyzed at length in
a recently published book, /The Three Trillion Dollar War,/ by Joseph
Stiglitz and Linda Bilmes.
No way, this book can be ignored by terming it as mere propaganda. Among
its authors is Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in economics, who once
headed the team of economic advisers to President Clinton and then
became chief economist at the World Bank. His books have been widely
read and discussed all over the world. Linda Bilmes teaches at the
Harvard University and was once a high ranking official in the Clinton
administration looking after financial and commercial affairs.
At the time of American invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration gave
out that its aim was to liberate the Iraqi people from the clutches of
Saddam Hussein, giving them freedom and democracy and putting them onto
the path of happiness and prosperity and, this mission would cost just
$50-$60 billion. Lawrence B. Lindsey, then economic adviser to Bush,
dared challenge this figure as an underestimation and he was thrown out
of his job. He had predicted that the cost might be somewhere from $100
to $200 billion. To quote Lindsey, "My hypothetical estimate got the
annual cost about right. But I misjudged an important factor: how long
we would be involved." Five years after his ouster, he believes that
"one of the reasons the administration's efforts are so unpopular that
they chose not to engage in an open public discussion of what the
consequences might be, including the economic cost."
Just three months after the invasion, The Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace came out with its Policy Brief (no.24, May 2003),
"Lessons from the Past: The American Record on Nation Building." The
very opening paragraph said: "The real test for the success of the U.S.
preemptive war against the regime of Saddam Hussein is whether or not
Iraq can now be rebuilt after the war. Few national undertakings are as
complex, costly, and time consuming as reconstructing the governing
institutions of foreign societies. Even a combination of unsurpassed
military power and abundant wealth does not guarantee success, let alone
quick results. Historically, nation-building attempts by outside powers
are notably mainly for their bitter disappointments, not their triumphs."
The authors of the Policy Brief—Minxin Pei and Sara Kasper—pointed out
that the United States, till then, had used its armed forces in foreign
lands on more than 200 occasions and its nation-building record had been
utterly dismal. What they said has proved to be prophetic: "The internal
characteristics of Iraqi society will severely test Washington's
resolve, skill, and patience in pursuing its declared goal of political
transformation. With a population of 24 million, Iraq is larger than any
of the Latin American countries where the United States has attempted
nation building." With its deep ethnic divisions, the internal situation
would be too complicated for the Americans to deal with. "Outside
efforts to bridge such ethnic and religious divisions through
reconciliation have a poor track record—as has been demonstrated in the
former Yugoslavia." It would be extremely difficult "to align U.S.
strategic interests with those of the Iraqi elite and public."
Warning the hawks in the Bush administration, the authors said, "they
should reconsider their position in light of the sobering lessons from
American nation building during the past century. Aside from an overall
low rate of success, such unilateral undertakings have led to the
creation and maintenance surrogate regimes that have eventually mutated
into military dictatorships and corrupt autocracies. Repeating these
mistakes in Iraq, especially after President Bush's declaration of
American resolve to build democracy there, would be a tragedy for the
Iraqi people and a travesty of American democratic ideals."
Stiglitz and Bilmes have come out with a mass of data in their three
hundred and odd page book, underlining that Pei and Kasper were
perfectly right and Bush and his team completely wrong in going ahead
with their criminal act of invading and devastating Iraq. In the
process, they have harmed the very American people that entrusted them
with the reins of the state. Stiglitz and Bilmes correctly assert: "By
now it is clear that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was a terrible mistake.
Nearly 4,000 U.S. troops have been killed, and more than 58,000 have
been wounded, injured, or fallen seriously ill... One hundred thousand
U.S. soldiers have returned from the war suffering from mental health
disorders, a significant fraction of which will be chronic afflictions.
Miserable though Saddam Hussein's regime was, life is actually worse for
the Iraqi people now. The country's roads, schools, hospitals, homes,
and museums have been destroyed and its citizens have less access to
electricity and water than before the war. Sectarian violence is rife.
Iraq's chaos has made the country a magnet for terrorists of all
stripes. The notion that invading Iraq would bring democracy and
catalyze change in the Middle East now seems like a fantasy. When the
full price of the war has been paid, trillions of dollars will have been
added to our national debt. Invading Iraq has also driven up oil prices.
In these and other ways, the war has weakened our economy."
Till now, America has spent $600 billion on Iraq war. Stiglitz and
Bilmes have calculated, after taking into account both direct and
indirect, open and hidden, expenses and assuming that the war is going
to last a bit longer, that it will cost $3 trillion or, maybe, $4
trillion. Countering the argument that this is a very small sum for the
largest economy in the world, they say, "The issue is not whether
America can afford three trillion dollars. With a typical American
household income in 2006 just short of $70,000, we have far more than we
need to get by. Even if we threw 10 percent of that away, we would still
be no worse off than we were in 1995—when we were a prosperous and
well-off country. There is no risk that a trillion dollars or two or
three will bankrupt the country. The relevant question is a rather
different one: What could we have done with a trillion dollars or two or
three? What have we had to sacrifice? What is, to use the economists'
jargon, the opportunity cost?"
The opportunity cost of the Iraq war has been enormous. With the money
being spent on Iraq war, America could have easily solved its social
security problem at least for the next half a century. With one trillion
dollars, it could have constructed as many as 8 million new dwelling
units, employed 13 million more school teachers, provided elementary
education to 120 million kids or health insurance to 530 million
children for one year or granted scholarships to 43 million students for
four years. Multiply these figures by 3 and you get the opportunity cost
of $3 trillion to be gobbled up by the Iraq war. In a recent article in
/The Guardian/ (April 6), Stiglitz and Bilmes, while refuting Bush's
claim that the $3 trillion dollar estimate of the total cost may be
exaggerated, assert that it is "in fact, conservative. Even the
president would have to admit that the $50 to $60 billion estimate given
by the administration before the war was wildly off the mark; there is
little reason to have confidence in their arithmetic. They admit to a
cost so far of $600 billion."
Explaining why their estimates are different, they state: "Our numbers
differ from theirs for three reasons: first, we are estimating the total
cost of the war, under alternative conservative scenarios, derived from
the defence department and congressional budget office. We are not
looking at McCain's 100-year scenario- we assume that we are there, in
the diminished strength, only through to 2017. But neither are we
looking at a scenario that sees our troops pulled out within six months.
With operational spending going on at $12 billion a month, and with
every year costing more than the last, it is easy to come to a total
operational cost that is double the $600 billion already spent.
"Second, we include war expenditures hidden elsewhere in the budget, and
budgetary expenditures that we would have to incur in the future even if
we left tomorrow. Most important of these are future costs of caring for
the 40%of returning veterans that are likely to suffer from disabilities
(in excess of $600 billion; second world war veterans' costs didn't peak
until 1993), and restoring the military to its prewar strength. If you
include interest, and interest on the interest - with all of the war
debt financed - the budgetary costs quickly mount.
"Finally, our $3 trillion dollars estimate also includes costs to the
economy that go beyond the budget, for instance, the cost of caring for
the huge number of returning disabled veterans that go beyond the costs
borne by the federal government - in one out of five families with a
serious disability, someone has to give up a job. The macro-economic
costs are even larger. Almost every expert we have talked to agrees that
the war has had something to do with the rise in the price of oil; it
was not just an accident that oil prices began to soar at the same time
as the war began."
The Iraq war has adversely impacted not only the two sides involved in
it but also the world at large, especially the developing nations. As a
result of the war, while the demand for oil has increased, its supply
has declined as the production in Iraq has declined. At the time of the
invasion of Iraq, oil was selling $25 a barrel but now it can be had for
around$100 a barrel. In the years to come, it may go up to $125 a
barrel. The increasing price of oil has strengthened inflationary
pressures around the world. Besides, the production of ethanol and other
bio-fuels is being undertaken by diverting corn, sugarcane, soybeans and
other crops to it. This, in turn, contributes to the worldwide growing
shortage of food grains and pushes up the prices. The higher oil prices
have inflicted a direct cost to the world economy to the tune of roughly
$1.1 trillion.
Since the beginning of the Iraq war, America's national debt has gone up
by $2.5 trillion, out of which $1 trillion has been due to the Iraq war.
Bush, after coming to power, reduced the tax liabilities of the upper
income group people. It means the burden of meeting the war expenditures
has fallen more on the people at large. By 2017, it is estimated that
the national debt will increase by $2 trillion.
There are other adverse consequences that defy quantification. For
example, the morale of the troops is very low, there is a shortage of
wherewithal and there is a nationwide discontent because of insufficient
attention to the wounded soldiers. So far as the Iraqis are concerned,
more than a million people have perished. There is no law and order
worth the name. Anarchy reins supreme. As many as 45 per cent of the
families in Baghdad have lost their one or more members. There is a
large-scale displacement of the population. To quote Stiglitz and
Bilmes, "In human terms, it is the loss of life and the destruction of
Iraqi society that is the most egregious...
"For most Iraqis, daily life has become unbearable—to the point that
those who can afford to leave their country have done so. By September
2007, a stunning 4.6 million people—one of every seven Iraqis—had been
uprooted from their homes. This is the largest migration of people in
the Middle East since the creation of Israel in 1948."
As many as 2.4 million Iraqis have migrated to foreign lands, especially
Syria and Jordan, who are also feeling the strain. In all 20 per cent of
the pre-war population is displaced. Those who are left behind have
neither drinking water nor electricity. Schools and colleges do not
function because most of the teachers have either fled or been killed.
Hospitals suffer from lack of beds, doctors, nursing staff and medicines.
Iraq's museums have been looted and historical treasures have been taken
away. Valuable manuscripts have been lost, stolen or destroyed.
Christopher Hitchens says of Baghdad: "This is one of the greatest
centres of learning and culture in history. It was here that some of the
lost works of Aristotle and other Greeks... were preserved,
retranslated, and transmitted via Andalusia back to the the ignorant
"Christian" West." Naomi Klein, in her "The Shock Doctrine," has given
the details of the plunder and has also narrated how Iraqi economy has
been destroyed to make it pasture for the MNCs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
For this feature, you must be logged in as a sustainer, please. To
become a sustainer go here
<https://www.zcommunications.org/zsustainers/signup>!
_________________________________

Iraq War Costs Skyrocketing, But Congress Unable to Scrutinize Spending
April 11, 2008 By *Jason Leopold*

Jason Leopold's ZSpace Page </zspace/jasonleopold1>
Nearly all of the $516 billion allocated by Congress to fund the wars in
Afghanistan and Iraq has come in the form of emergency spending
requests, a method the White House has abused, depriving Congress the
ability to scrutinize how the Pentagon spends money in the so-called
global war on terror. The use of emergency supplemental bills to fund
the wars has likely resulted in the waste of billions of taxpayer
dollars, according to a recent report from the Government Accountability
Office.
Dozens of emergency funding requests that Congress has approved since
2001 is unprecedented compared with past military conflicts when war
funding went through the normal appropriations process. As of March, the
GAO said average monthly costs to fund military operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan has reached roughly $12.3 billion, $10 billion for Iraq
alone, more than double what it cost to fund the war in 2004.
"Over 90% of [the Department of Defense] funds were provided as
emergency funds in supplemental or additional appropriations; the
remainder were provided in regular defense bills or in transfers from
regular appropriations," the report said. "Emergency funding is exempt
from ceilings applying to discretionary spending in Congress's annual
budget resolutions. Some Members have argued that continuing to fund
ongoing operations in supplementals reduces congressional oversight."
Vernonique de Rugy, a senior research fellow and budget scholar at the
Mercatus Center at George Mason University, said funding the Iraq and
Afghanistan wars through emergency legislation is troubling because the
money "doesn't get counted in deficit projections, making it hard to
track the real cost of the war and effectively removing any upper limits
on spending for the war."
"Even seven years after the start of the war in Afghanistan, and five
years after the start of the war in Iraq, Congress and the president are
still using "emergency" funding bills to cover costs, rather than going
through the regular appropriations process," said de Rugy, who just
published an article on the issue, "The Trillion-Dollar War," in the May
issue of Reason magazine. "While other wars have initially been funded
using emergency supplementals, they have quickly been incorporated into
the regular budget. Never before has emergency supplemental spending
been used to fund an entire war and over the course of so many years."
Most troubling about this trend, the GAO said in a report issued in
February, is that while the Pentagon's budget requests has steadily
increased annually the reasons the Defense Department has cited to
explain its skyrocketing costs "do not appear to be enough to explain
the size of and continuation of increases."
"Although some of the factors behind the rapid increase in DOD funding
are known — the growing intensity of operations, additional force
protection gear and equipment, substantial upgrades of equipment,
converting units to modular configurations, and new funding to train and
equip Iraqi security forces — these elements" fail to justify the
increase, the GAO report stated, adding that "little of the $93 billion
DOD increase between [fiscal year] 2004 and [fiscal year] 2007 appears
to reflect changes in the number of deployed personnel."
Furthermore, a $70 billion "placeholder" request included in the fiscal
year 2009 budget that the Pentagon says will be used to finance
operations in Iraq does not include any details on how the money will be
spent "making it impossible to estimate its allocation," according to
the report.
The GAO added the Pentagon has used emergency supplemental requests to
get Congress to fund equipment and vehicle upgrades that would otherwise
come out of the Pentagon's annual budget. The Pentagon has succeeded
largely due to a new way it now defines the war on terror.
"Although some of this increase may reflect additional force protection
and replacement of "stressed" equipment, much may be in response to
[Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon] England's new guidance to fund
requirements for the "longer war" rather than DOD's traditional
definition of war costs as strictly related to immediate war needs," the
GAO report says, adding that Congress must immediately begin to demand a
more transparent accounting of Pentagon emergency spending in order to
put an end to the agency's accounting chicanery.
"For example, the Navy initially requested $450 million for six EA-18G
aircraft, a new electronic warfare version of the F-18, and the Air
Force $389 million for two Joint Strike Fighters, an aircraft just
entering production; such new aircraft would not be delivered for about
three years and so could not be used meet immediate war needs," the GAO
report said.
On Wednesday, in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee,
Gen. Richard Cody, the Army's vice chief of staff, said the military
will soon run out of cash if lawmakers don't act to approve a $102
billion emergency supplemental spending bill to continue funding
military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"We start running out of military pay for our force in June, we start
running out of operational dollars that we can flow to the force in
early July," Cody said. "It's all about time now. Those will be the
consequences of not getting the supplemental."
The GAO generally agrees with Cody, but said the Pentagon could dip into
its budget and transfer funds to finance operations in Iraq until late
September or early October, which would give Congress more time to
scrutinize the emergency funding request.
Still, these dire warnings from Bush administration officials and
military personnel about imminent funding shortfalls have become routine
since Democrats won control of Congress in November 2006. Last year,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates threatened to fire more than 200,000
Defense Department employees and terminate contracts with defense
contractors because Congressional Democrats did not immediately approve
a spending package to continue funding the Iraq war. The GAO and the
Congressional Budget Office (CBO) advised Congress that Gates could tap
into the Pentagon's $471 billion budget to fund the war while Congress
continued to debate the merits of giving the White House another "blank
check" for Iraq.
Government auditors have said that these predictions are untrue and have
been cited publicly by the White House to prod Congress into quickly
passing legislation to appropriate funds. Republican lawmakers and
administration officials have also said failure by Democrats to fund the
war is tantamount to not supporting the troops. But the rhetoric has
been enough to spook Democrats into passing the emergency funding
requests, often without being aware of how the money is being spent.
Other federal agencies, including the Congressional Research Service
(CRS) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), have testified to
Congress about the limited transparency in DOD's emergency budget requests.
"While DOD has provided considerably more justification material for its
war cost requests beginning with the [fiscal year] 2007 supplemental,
many questions remain difficult to answer — such as the effect of
changes in troop levels on costs — and there continue to be unexplained
discrepancies in DOD's war cost reports, the GAO report stated.
That led the GAO to draft a letter to Congress March 17, saying the $108
billion the Pentagon has recently requested is based on "unreliable"
financial data and should be considered an "approximation," which,
technically, could be interpreted to mean the Pentagon's accounting
methods underestimated the cost of the war.
"Over the years, we have conducted a series of reviews examining funding
and reported obligations for military operations in support of [the
global war on terror], the letter, addressed to Congressional
committees, says. "Our prior work has found the data in DOD's monthly
Supplemental and Cost of War Execution Report to be of questionable
reliability. Consequently, we are unable to ensure that DOD's reported
obligations for [the global war on terror] are complete, reliable, and
accurate, and they therefore should be considered approximations...GAO
has assessed the reliability of DOD's obligation data and found
significant problems, such that these data may not accurately reflect
the true dollar value of obligations [for the global war on terror.]"
A Pentagon spokesman did not return calls for comment. But a GAO
spokeswoman said the DOD has been struggling with "deficiencies in the
Pentagon's financial management system" that contributed to the
unreliable data. She would not elaborate.
Although studies have surfaced stating that the cost of the Iraq war
could soar past $2 trillion, the Congressional Budget Office said trying
to estimate future costs for the war is difficult "because DOD has
provided little detailed information on costs incurred to date."
"The Administration has not provided any long-term estimates of costs
despite a statutory reporting requirement that the President submit a
cost estimate for [fiscal year] 2006-2011 that was enacted in 2004," the
GAO said.
/ /
/Jason Leopold is the author of the National Bestseller, "News Junkie,"
a memoir. Visit www.newsjunkiebook.com <http://www.newsjunkiebook.com/>
for a preview. He is also a two-time winner of the Project Censored
award, most recently, in 2007, for an investigative story related to
Halliburton's work in Iran. He was recently named the recipient of the
Military Religious Freedom Foundation's Thomas Jefferson Award for a
series of stories he wrote that exposed how soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan have been pressured to accept fundamentalist Christianity.
Leopold is working on a new nonprofit online publication, expected to
launch soon./