Thursday, April 10, 2008

No to McCain

THE ABSURD TIMES





One of you posted an excellent comment and I thought it deserved a more prominent place.
I agree with all of it, although much of it has to do with his murders. The most absurd thing about McCain, as our contirbuter notes, is his own decision, we are told, to remain a prisoner of war. What is to stop him from saying "I did it, why not other U.S. Citizens?"
My comment is about McCain. In Viet Nam he was one of those fly boys who dropped millions of bombs on the north VN population, right? And they did it for quite a while with impunity until finally China or russia supplied the north with missles to bring down the bombers, right? And so they got a few prisoner airboys before they changed strategy to high altitude bombing. Since they were just bombing civilians and not strategic targets, that worked fine. So, how does that make him a war hero??? Then he doesn't have sense enough to use his get out of jail card. Does that show good judgement?? He speaks with this phoney soft voice while privately he is known to have anger management issues.
Meanwhile, he is an article about another Iriqi leader who actually deserves respect. When Saddam learned that his eldest son killed this man's father, Saddam almost killed him (Uday) and said "You might just as well killed me." This is the one Shia leader who did not hide out in Iran.

Muqtada al-Sadr and the American Dilemma in Iraq
April 09, 2008 By *Patrick Cockburn*
Source: TomDispatch <http://www.tomdispatch.com>
Patrick Cockburn's ZSpace Page </zspace/patrickcockburn>
Muqtada al-Sadr is the most important and surprising figure to emerge in
Iraq since the U.S. invasion. He is the Messianic leader of the
religious and political movement of the impoverished Shia underclass
whose lives were ruined by a quarter of a century of war, repression,
and sanctions.
From the moment he unexpectedly appeared in the dying days of Saddam
Hussein's regime, U.S. emissaries and Iraqi politicians underestimated
him. So far from being the "firebrand cleric" as the Western media often
described him, he often proved astute and cautious in leading his
followers.
During the battle for Najaf with U.S. Marines in 2004, the U.S. "surge"
of 2007, and the escalating war with the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council,
he generally sought compromise rather than confrontation. So far from
being the inexperienced young man whom his critics portrayed -- when he
first appeared they denigrated him as a /zatut/ (an "ignorant child," in
Iraqi dialect) -- he was a highly experienced political operator who had
worked in his father's office in Najaf since he was a teenager. He also
had around him activist clerics, of his own age or younger, who had
hands-on experience under Saddam of street politics within the Shia
community. His grasp of what ordinary Iraqis felt was to prove far surer
than that of the politicians isolated in the Green Zone in Baghdad.
*A Kleptocracy Comparable to the Congo*
Mass movements led by Messianic leaders have a history of flaring up
unexpectedly and then subsiding into insignificance. This could have
happened to Muqtada and the Sadrists but did not, because their
political and religious platform had a continuous appeal for the Shia
masses. From the moment Saddam was overthrown, Muqtada rarely deviated
from his open opposition to the U.S. occupation, even when a majority of
the Shia community was prepared to cooperate with the occupiers.
As the years passed, however, disillusion with the occupation grew among
the Shia until, by September 2007, an opinion poll showed that 73% of
Shia thought that the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq made the security
situation worse, and 55% believed their departure would make a
Shia-Sunni civil war less likely. The U.S. government, Iraqi
politicians, and the Western media habitually failed to recognize the
extent to which hostility to the occupation drove Iraqi politics and, in
the eyes of Iraqis, delegitimized the leaders associated with it.
All governments in Baghdad failed after 2003. Almost no Iraqis supported
Saddam Hussein as U.S. troops advanced on Baghdad. Even his supposedly
loyal Special Republican Guard units dissolved and went home. Iraqis
were deeply conscious that their country sat on some of the world's
largest oil reserves, but Saddam Hussein's Inspector Clouseau-like
ability to make catastrophic errors in peace and war had reduced the
people to a state in which their children were stunted because they did
not get enough to eat.
The primal rage of the dispossessed in Iraq against the powers-that-be
exploded in the looting of Baghdad when the old regime fell, and the
same fury possessed Muqtada's early supporters. Had life become easier
in Shia Iraq in the coming years, this might have undermined the Sadrist
movement. Instead, people saw their living standards plummet as
provision of food rations, clean water, and electricity faltered.
Saddam's officials were corrupt enough, but the new government cowering
in the Green Zone rapidly turned into a kleptocracy comparable to
Nigeria or the Congo. Muqtada sensed the loathing with which the
government was regarded, and dodged in and out of government, enjoying
some of the fruits of power while denouncing those who held it.
Muqtada's political intelligence is undoubted, but the personality of
this highly secretive man is difficult to pin down. While his father and
elder brothers lived he was in their shadow; after they were
assassinated in 1999 he had every reason to stress his lack of ability
or ambition in order to give the /mukhabarat/ [Saddam Hussein's secret
police] less reason to kill him. As the son and son-in-law of two of
Saddam Hussein's most dangerous opponents, he was a prime suspect and
his every move was watched.
When Saddam fell, Muqtada stepped forward to claim his forbears'
political inheritance and consciously associated himself with them on
every possible occasion. Posters showed Muqtada alongside Sadr I and
Sadr II [Muqtada's father-in-law and father, both assassinated by
Saddam] against a background of the Iraqi flag. There was more here than
a leader exploiting his connection to a revered or respected parent.
Muqtada persistently emphasized the Sadrist ideological legacy:
puritanical Shia Islam mixed with anti-imperialism and populism.
*Riding the Tiger of the Sadrist Movement*
The first time I thought seriously about Muqtada was a grim day in April
2003 when I heard that he was being accused of killing a friend of mine,
Sayyid Majid al-Khoei, that intelligent and able man with whom I had
often discussed the future of Iraq. Whatever the involvement of Muqtada
himself, which is a matter of dispute, the involvement of the Sadrist
supporters in the lynching is proven and was the start of a pattern that
was to repeat itself over the years.
Muqtada was always a man riding a tiger, sometimes presiding over,
sometimes controlling the mass movement he nominally led. His words and
actions were often far apart. He appealed for Shia unity with the Sunni
against the occupation, yet after the bombing of the Shia shrine in
Samarra in February 2006, he was seen as an ogre by the Sunni,
orchestrating the pogroms against them and failing to restrain the death
squads of the Mehdi Army. The excuse that it was "rogue elements" among
his militiamen who were carrying out this slaughter is not convincing,
because the butchery was too extensive and too well organized to be the
work of only marginal elements. But the Sadrists and the Shia in general
could argue that it was not they who had originally taken the offensive
against the Sunni, and the Shia community endured massacres at the hands
of al-Qaeda for several years before their patience ran out.
Muqtada had repeatedly demanded that Sunni political and religious
leaders unequivocally condemn al-Qaeda in Iraq's horrific attacks on
Shia civilians if he was to cooperate with them against the occupation.
They did not do so, and this was a shortsighted failure on their part,
since the Shia, who outnumbered the Sunni Arabs three to one in Iraq,
controlled the police and much of the army. Their retaliation, when it
came, was bound to be devastating. Muqtada was criticized for not doing
more, but neither he, nor anybody else could have stopped the killing at
the height of the battle for Baghdad in 2006. The Sunni and Shia
communities were both terrified, and each mercilessly retaliated for the
latest atrocity against their community. "We try to punish those who
carry out evil deeds in the name of the Mehdi Army," says Hussein Ali,
the former Mehdi Army leader. "But there are a lot of Shia regions that
are not easy to control and we ourselves, speaking frankly, are
sometimes frightened by these great masses of people."
American officials and journalists seldom showed much understanding of
Muqtada, even after [U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority head] Paul
Bremer's disastrous attempt to crush him [in 2004]. There were
persistent attempts to marginalize him or keep him out of government
instead of trying to expand the Iraqi government's narrow support base
to include the Sadrists. The first two elected Shia prime ministers,
Ibrahim al-Jaafari and Nouri al-Maliki, came under intense pressure from
Washington to sever or limit their connection with Muqtada. But
government officials were not alone in being perplexed by the young
cleric. In a lengthy article on him published in its December 4, 2006,
issue, /Newsweek/ admitted that "Muqtada al-Sadr may end up deciding
America's fate in Iraq." But the best the magazine could do to assist
its readers in understanding Muqtada was to suggest that they should
"think of him as a young Mafia don."
Of course, Muqtada was the complete opposite to the type of Iraqi leader
who proponents of the war in Washington had suggested would take over
from Saddam Hussein. Instead of the smooth, dark-suited,
English-speaking exiles who the White House had hoped would turn Iraq
into a compliant U.S. ally, Muqtada looked too much like a younger
version of Ayatollah Khomeini.
Muqtada epitomized the central dilemma of the United States in Iraq,
which it has never resolved. The problem was that the overthrow of
Saddam Hussein and his Sunni regime was bound to be followed by
elections that would produce a government dominated by the Shia allied
to the Kurds. It soon became evident that the Shia parties that were
going to triumph in any election would be Islamic parties, and some
would have close links to Iran.
The Arab Sunni states were aghast at the sight of Iran's defeat in the
Iran-Iraq war being reversed, and spoke of a menacing "Shia axis"
developing in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon. Much of this was ignorance and
paranoia on the part of the Arab leaders. Had the Iranians been tempted
to make Iraq a client state they would have found the country as prickly
a place for Iranians as it was to be for Americans. It was the U.S.
attempt to create an anti-Iranian Iraq that was to play into Iranian
hands and produce the very situation that Washington was trying to avoid.
The more Washington threatened air strikes on Iran because of its
nuclear program, the more the Iranians sought to make sure that it had
the potential to strike back at American forces in Iraq. Before he was
executed, Sadr I believed that he had been let down by Iran; Sadr II had
bad relations with Tehran; and at first Muqtada denounced his Shia
opponents in SCIRI and the Marji'iyyah as being Iranian stooges. But
American pressure meant that the Sadrists had to look to Iran for help,
and in a military confrontation the Mehdi Army saw Iran as an essential
source of weapons and military expertise.
*The New Iraqi Political Landscape*
On reappearing after his four-month disappearance in May 2007, Muqtada
called for a united front of Sunni and Shia and identified the U.S.
occupation and al-Qaeda in Iraq as the enemies of both communities. The
call was probably sincere, but it was also too late. Baghdad was now
largely a Shia city, and people were too frightened to go back to their
old homes. The U.S. "surge" had contributed to the sharp drop in
sectarian killings, but it was also true that the Shia had won and there
were few mixed areas left.
The U.S. commander General David Petraeus claimed that security was
improving, but only a trickle of Iraqis who had fled their homes were
returning. Muqtada was the one Shia leader capable of uniting with the
Sunni on a nationalist platform, but the Sunni Arabs of Iraq had never
accepted that their rule had ended. If Sunni and Shia could not live on
the same street, they could hardly share a common identity.
The political and military landscape of Iraq changed in 2007 as the
Sunni population turned on al-Qaeda. This started before the "surge,"
but it was still an important development. Al-Qaeda's massive suicide
bombs targeting civilians had been the main fuel for Shia-Sunni
sectarian warfare since 2003. The Sunni Arabs and many of the insurgent
groups had turned against al-Qaeda after it tried to monopolize power
within the Sunni community at the end of 2006 by declaring the Islamic
State of Iraq. Crucial in the change was al-Qaeda's attempt to draft one
son from every Sunni family into its ranks. Sunni with lowly jobs with
the government such as garbage collectors were killed.
By the fall of 2007 the U.S. military command in Baghdad was trumpeting
successes over al-Qaeda, saying it had been largely eliminated in Anbar,
Baghdad, and Diyala. But the Sunni Arab fighters, by now armed and paid
for by the United States, did not owe their prime loyalty to the Iraqi
government. Muqtada might speak of new opportunities for pan-Iraqi
opposition to the U.S. occupation, but many anti-al-Qaeda Sunni fighters
had quite different ideas. They wanted to reverse the Shia victory in
the 2006 battle of Baghdad.
A new breed of American-supported Sunni warlords was emerging. One of
them, Abu Abed, is a former member of the insurgent Islamic Army. He
operates in the Amariya district of west Baghdad, where he is a
commander of the U.S.-backed Amariya Knights, whom the U.S. calls
Concerned Citizens. His stated objectives show that the rise of the new
Sunni militias may mark only a new stage in a sectarian civil war.
"Amariya is just the beginning," says Abu Abed. "After we finish with
al-Qaida here, we will turn towards our main enemy, the Shia militias. I
will liberate Jihad [the mixed Sunni-Shia area near Amariya taken over
by the Mehdi Army], then Saadiya and the whole of west Baghdad."
The al-Sadr family has an extraordinary record of resistance to Saddam
Hussein, for which they paid a heavy price. One of the gravest errors in
Iraq by the United States was to try to marginalize Muqtada and his
movement. Had he been part of the political process from the beginning,
the chances of creating a peaceful, prosperous Iraq would have been
greater.
In any real accommodation between Shia and Sunni, the Sadrists must play
a central role. Muqtada probably represented his constituency of
millions of poor Shia better than anybody else could have done. But he
never wholly controlled his own movement, and never created as
well-disciplined a force as Hezbollah in Lebanon. None of his ambitions
for reconciliation with the Sunni could take wing unless the Mehdi Army
ceased to be identified with death squads and sectarian cleansing.
The war in Iraq has gone on longer than World War I and, while violence
diminished in the second half of 2007, nothing has been resolved. The
differences between Shia and Sunni, the disputes within the respective
communities, and the antagonism against the U.S. occupation are all as
great as ever. The only way the Sadrists and the Mehdi Army could create
confidence among the Sunni that Muqtada meant what he said when he
called for unity, would be for them to be taken back voluntarily into
the areas in Baghdad and elsewhere from which they have been driven. But
there is no sign of this happening. The disintegration of Iraq has
probably gone too far for the country to exist as anything more than a
loose federation.
/Patrick Cockburn is the Iraq correspondent for The Independent in
London. He has visited Iraq countless times since 1977 and was recipient
of the 2004 Martha Gellhorn Prize for war reporting as well as the 2006
James Cameron Memorial Award. His book *The Occupation: War and
Resistance in Iraq*, was short-listed for a National Book Critics Circle
Award in 2007. This essay is the last chapter in his new book, Muqtada:
Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival, and the Struggle for Iraq
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416551476/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>,
just published by Scribner./
*From Muqtada
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1416551476/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20> by
Patrick Cockburn. Copyright © 2008 by Patrick Cockburn. Reprinted by
permission of Scribner, an Imprint of Simon & Schuster, Inc.*
[This article first appeared on Tomdispatch.com
<http://www.tomdispatch.com/>, a weblog of the Nation Institute, which
offers a steady flow of alternate sources, news, and opinion from Tom
Engelhardt, long time editor in publishing, /co-founder of the American
Empire Project <http://www.americanempireproject.com/>/ and author of
/The End of Victory Culture
<http://www.amazon.com/dp/155849586X/ref=nosim/?tag=nationbooks08-20>
(University of Massachusetts Press), which has just been thoroughly
updated in a newly issued edition that deals with victory culture's
crash-and-burn sequel in Iraq./]

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

free speech?

the absurd times





THE ABSURD TIMES
This is a tricky issue for me. I do like Air-America, but think they act like Nazis (or corporate Amerika) when they suspended radio host Randi Rhodes for the bit attatched above. I tried to post it as a video to show that it happened at a nightclum, not on the job, but it was over 12 MB and the sound isn't very good. Even this version, edited for sound, isn't very clear -- you may have to run your equalizer flat to really hear it. Essentially, she is doing standup, long straight hair with bangs, kinda buck teeth, and really having fun. You really need to hear the entire clip before you decide anything, but it seems to me entirely within the scope of her rights as she did not use these particular words on the air or as part of her job.
Any Reactions?
Charles

Friday, April 04, 2008

Chalabi, Christ, Omaba, Richardson

THE ABSURD TIMES



THE ABSURD TIMES
Well, just too many wierd things have been going on to digest.
1) Bill Clinton called Bill Richardson a "Judas" for endorsing Obama. Can anyone continue the metaphor or similie? Who, for example, becomes Christ in this context?
2) Conservative Radio Hosts have been encouraging listeners to vote for Clinton in the primaries.
3) Kieth Olbermann managed to get Wal-Mart to behave properly after listing them on his "Worst Persons" list daily until they did. It had to do with ... never mind, they screw their own employees on health care.
4) 81% of Americans think Amerika is going the the wrong direction. Really?
5) You may remember that I told many of you in 2001 about Chalabi. Now it is laid out, below:
Click here </doc/20080421/roston> to return to the browser-optimized
version of this page.
This article can be found on the web at
*http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080421/roston*
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Chalabi's Lobby
by ARAM ROSTON
[from the April 21, 2008 issue]
With the invasion of Iraq still three years in the future, Ahmad Chalabi
would step into the lobby of the modern granite office building at 1801
K Street in Washington--the heart of the nation's lobbying corridor. He
would walk past the security guard and ride the elevator up to the ninth
floor. The ride was, in some sense, one small vertical leg of Chalabi's
journey back to Iraq. This particular way point was the office belonging
to Black, Kelly, Scruggs & Healey (BKSH), one of the most powerful
lobbying firms in the United States, owned by public relations
powerhouse Burson-Marsteller.
No one could have guessed, back in 2000, what would come of Chalabi's
efforts in Washington. Few people knew who "eoconservatives" were, and
even those who did could not have grasped their remarkable affection for
and loyalty to Chalabi, a shrewd Iraqi Arab from a family of Shiite
bankers. No one could have predicted that Chalabi's group, the Iraqi
National Congress (INC), would go on to push false stories about terror
and weapons of mass destruction with such great success as the group
campaigned against Saddam Hussein's quite sadistic regime. Nor,
certainly, was it possible to foresee that the massive propaganda
campaign run by Chalabi to encourage the United States to invade Iraq
would be fully paid for with US taxpayer funds.
One thing people did know, even in 2000, was that Ahmad Chalabi, whose
thickly accented English seemed only to enhance his charisma, had lots
and lots of friends on Capitol Hill. Congress had passed the Iraq
Liberation Act in 1998, written largely to achieve Chalabi's vision for
toppling Saddam. And every year Congress was earmarking money for him.
But he had opponents, too, in the government: American diplomats who
were skeptical of him, despite his charm and his claims of inside
knowledge about Iraq. These Americans knew all about his murky past: a
bank embezzlement conviction in absentia in the Kingdom of Jordan years
earlier. They knew that the Central Intelligence Agency considered him a
phony and a liability and, after working with him for years, had cut all
ties with him.
So it is important, when considering Chalabi's relationship with BKSH,
to ponder that this elite firm was hired in part as a result of a feud
in the American government. It was in the late 1990s, when Congress was
earmarking funds for Chalabi's INC and charging the State Department
with spending all the cash, that State enlisted BKSH's services. The
State Department diplomats, under veteran Frank Ricciardone, were among
the skeptics on the subject of Ahmad Chalabi and were concerned about
the accounting challenges posed by their obligation to dole out the
earmarked funds. They figured that through BKSH, they could funnel
support to the INC while complying with Congressional intentions and
normal accounting procedures, and moreover that an American firm could
be controlled and monitored and would have the expertise in PR and
organizing that was necessary. They put a contract out for bid; PR giant
Burson-Marsteller won the award and quickly handed the work over to its
subsidiary BKSH.
BKSH was the lobbying vehicle of the legendary Republican insider
Charles Black Jr., one of "America's foremost Republican political
strategists," according to BKSH. Black, a former adviser to Presidents
Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, is now a senior adviser to GOP
presidential candidate John McCain, who was himself an early Chalabi
backer with ties to the Iraqi going all the way back to 1991. BKSH,
which represented major defense contractors, governments and
international corporations, was perfectly situated to leverage its
expertise on behalf of the Iraqi National Congress.
In an interview, Charles Black explained that his firm received $200,000
to $300,000 per year from the US government "to promote the INC." Black,
in his pleasant Texas drawl, says the firm did "standard kinds of public
relations and public affairs, setting up seminars, helping them get
speeches covered by the press, press conferences." Black said he
believes his company can take a lot of pride in a strong campaign. "The
whole thing was very successful. The INC became not only well-known, but
I think the message got out there strongly."
Most of BKSH's work for Chalabi was handled by Riva Levinson, a longtime
Capitol Hill lobbyist who quickly became passionate about Chalabi's
cause. "Riva would spend her weekend thinking about, How can I get press
coverage for the INC next week?" Black explained, "and then come in on
Monday morning and schedule a speech or call reporters to get a speech
covered or get Chalabi or the other leaders out to get the message out."
Levinson even spoke out overtly as the INC's spokeswoman, giving
interviews on its behalf.
The State Department's efforts to control Chalabi through
Burson-Marsteller ultimately backfired. In the course of his power
struggle with his State Department patrons over who would control the
Iraqi opposition and the stream of American funding, Chalabi would
frequently criticize both US policy and his Iraqi competitors. The
government would complain to BKSH. "We'd tell him.... And he'd say,
'Fine,' and go say the same thing over again," said Black. "Basically
the US government couldn't make Chalabi do anything he didn't want to
do." So while US taxpayers paid for BKSH's services, the company, from
all appearances, worked for Ahmad Chalabi.
Normally, before campaigning on behalf of a foreign interest (which,
after all, was what Chalabi was), the agent would register under the
Justice Department's Foreign Agents Registration Act. That's required
whenever someone represents a foreign interest in a "political or
quasi-political" way.Examples include groups that at times had been
allied with Chalabi, like Jalal Talabani's Patriotic Union of Kurdistan
and Masoud Barzani's Kurdish Democratic Party. But since BKSH was paid
by taxpayer funds through the State Department, it never registered as a
foreign agent. Since it was not technically a "lobbyist" for Chalabi,
even though that is exactly how it was functioning, it never registered
on Capitol Hill either, which would be the norm for a lobbyist. Although
the transaction was not classified or secret, journalists, legislators
and the American public weren't told about it.
T he last week of October 2003 had been particularly gory in Baghdad.
Rockets tore into the Al-Rashid Hotel, where Paul Wolfowitz lay sleeping
on a rare visit. Terrorists destroyed the International Red Cross
compound, and then, on Wednesday, October 29, a land mine gutted a US
Army Abrams tank outside Baghdad, killing two soldiers. That was the day
BKSH and the Iraqi National Congress were honored for their work in the
run-up to the war.
The black-tie award ceremony took place far from the violence in Iraq,
in London, where more than 1,000 of the public relations industry elite
assembled in a ballroom at the luxurious Grosvenor House Hotel. /PR
Week/ hosted the event, its annual awards dinner for public relations
companies. Burson-Marsteller, whose subsidiary BKSH had carried out the
work, was named the winner in the public affairs category. The "Awards
Supplement" of /PR Week/ called BKSH's work a "solid, disciplined
campaign that is totally deserving of this award." "Of particular
importance," said the citation, "was positioning INC founder Dr. Ahmad
Chalabi and other Iraqi opposition spokespeople as authoritative
political leaders." BKSH "compiled intelligence reports, defector
briefings, conferences and seminars.... The PR team also ran a
contact-building programme, focusing on the European Union, Downing
Street, the Foreign Office and MPs in the UK, matched to a US programme
aimed at the White House, the Senate, Congress and the Pentagon."
The awards description does not mention that the fund- ing came entirely
from the US government, let alone that many of the campaign's claims
turned out to be erroneous. But by the time BKSH won the award, the
State Department's funding for the program had stopped, with the
American troops surging through the desert. That did not mean that
BKSH's Iraq work would end. Instead, having eased Chalabi's path to
Baghdad, BKSH would now use its ties to Chalabi to get into the business
of Iraqi reconstruction.
The business elite was eager for a seat at the table. Corporate
executives flocked to conferences, corporations set up divisions to work
on developing business in Iraq, consultancies thrived and newsletters
proliferated to detail legal niceties and dispense advice. BKSH was
going to get in on the ground floor of the industry. Charles Black said
it was a busy time. "After the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a lot of US
companies, some of our long-term clients as well as some people who
weren't our clients, came to us and were looking to do business in
Iraq," he explained. The problem, he said, was that BKSH was not "going
to be over there. We didn't have an office over there or have full-time
personnel."
But the Chalabi operation did. Margaret Bartel, an accountant who had
been hired by the State Department to sort out the INC's books and
stayed on to become a key member of the organization's staff, was taking
in Defense Intelligence Agency funds and delivering them to Chalabi's
intelligence operation. Zaab Sethna, Chalabi's press aide, was also in
Iraq. As Black explains it, "Peg was there and Zaab was there, so we
just referred business to them." Bartel and BKSH reached an agreement:
in exchange for a referral fee, BKSH would send clients to Bartel's
consulting company, which would set them up with contacts, influence,
housing, security and everything else they would need to get themselves
started on Iraqi reconstruction. In the gold rush of 1849, they say, it
was not the miners who got rich but the operators who sold the picks and
the shovels and the wagons and the denim. So it was in Iraq, with the
likes of Bartel, the INC and BKSH. The American businessmen would be the
miners taking their chances, and the PR operatives and INC loyalists
were selling the picks and shovels.
In essence, all that was required was a small adjustment in their
previous efforts. BKSH and Chalabi simply pivoted their operation. They
realized that with Chalabi on the ground, they could sell access to him
using the same sophisticated lobbying regime they already had in place.
He had the sort of influence that corporate executives could use in
their search for contracts.
One of the businessmen who signed up for the Iraq package was Albert
Huddleston, an old BKSH customer. "Albert is a longtime client," Black
explained. Huddleston, a Texas oilman and staunch supporter of George W.
Bush, was a Bush "Minor League Pioneer" in the 2000 election, raising
close to $100,000. In the 2004 election he contributed $100,000 to the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that targeted Senator John
Kerry's campaign by publicizing discredited allegations about his
military service. Huddleston's daughter even worked in the White House
for First Lady Laura Bush.
Huddleston's interest in Iraq was logical and straightforward: he wanted
oil deals, and his company, Hyperion Resources, wanted to be in a good
position when the oil valves finally opened. So it was only natural that
BKSH would refer him to the Chalabi allies who were offering to help
American businessmen. "He was definitely interested in Iraq," Black
recalled, "and we definitely hooked him up with that organization." The
veterans of the PR and lobbying efforts of the INC went to work for
Huddleston. They had focused for years on human rights, democracy and
freedom. Now that the regime of Saddam Hussein was gone, they were
dedicating more and more time to oil and business.
Over time, Sethna became indispensable in these efforts. "Whatever
Albert wanted," recalled one associate, "it was Zaab's mission to go get
it done." In the years after the Iraq invasion, Huddleston did his best
to forge ties in Iraq. What he found at first was that there was no
legitimate government to deal with under the occupation. Paul Bremer had
no authority to negotiate oil deals, because occupying powers can't
legally make decisions about a country's natural resources. And later,
after Bremer left Iraq, the Iraqi government couldn't pass an oil law to
regulate the industry. Nabeel Musawi, a former close Chalabi associate
who later became a member of the temporary National Assembly, remembers
Chalabi, Sethna, Bartel and their guest Huddleston coming to dinner to
petition for help. They wanted to see if Musawi could set up a meeting
between Huddleston and the oil minister. Musawi says he wanted to help
but had to shrug them off because the oil minister was out of town.
Chalabi was well aware of Huddleston's connections to the Bush White
House, and he fawned over the Texan, taking him out and offering him
gifts. Chalabi presented him with a lavish crystal sculpture of an Iraqi
reed house, which had to be shipped back to Texas. But for Huddleston,
the pre-war promise of rosy prospects for American oilmen like himself
was turning out to be an illusion. Chalabi and others had talked about
Iraq's oil and the gushers to come, but despite all the oil under Iraq's
desert, it was unobtainable. Deals made during the occupation would be
shredded later. Huddleston never did make his huge oil strike in Iraq,
despite the money he paid to Chalabi's people there.
Then there is the matter of how much money the American government
itself spent on the services of Chalabi and his INC. One former member
of the INC put it at about $90 million, but a safer and more
conservative estimate of the total American taxpayer subsidy to Chalabi
and his organization is $59 million over the course of eleven years.
This includes an estimated $20 million from the CIA secret budget in the
early 1990s (although it may be far more); add to this $33 million from
the State Department in the years leading up to the war in Iraq and $6
million from the Defense Intelligence Agency starting in 2002.
Chalabi's fortunes have fluctuated wildly since the war. By mid-2006 it
appeared that he had lost any prominent political role in Iraq, although
he held on to his title as chairman of the de-Baathification commission.
A new Iraqi government had finally taken shape, presumably a permanent
one, and Chalabi seemed unsteady as he scrambled for new allies.
He began to make a public comeback, however, in the fall of 2007. One
day in late October, dressed in one of his dark suits, he climbed into a
US Army Black Hawk helicopter in Baghdad. As the rotors of the
helicopter thumped, Chalabi was surrounded by American military men. His
host was Gen. David Petraeus, commander of the multinational force in Iraq.
It had been only thirteen months since a majority of the members of the
Senate Intelligence Committee had found that Chalabi's INC had
"attempted to influence United States policy on Iraq" before the US
invasion "by providing false information."
But Chalabi had survived, and he was soaring over the capital of Iraq in
an American helicopter. The new Iraqi government had appointed him to a
committee to oversee Baghdad's municipal "services." The hope was that
Chalabi, with his organizational skills and his charm, could cut his way
through the Iraqi government's red tape and spur on the efforts of the
beleaguered Health, Electricity, Communications and Transportation
ministries. And the Americans, once again, thought they had found a man
they could work with.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Fw: McCain an idiot and itaq in chaos

AMY GOODMAN: Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain might have attracted some ridicule last week when he falsely insisted Iran is training and supplying al-Qaeda in Iraq. McCain corrected himself after independent Senator Joseph Lieberman stepped in and whispered in his ear.

    SEN. JOHN McCAIN: Well, it's common knowledge and has been reported in the media that al-Qaeda is going back into Iran and receiving training and are coming back into Iraq from Iran. That's well known. And it's unfortunate. So I believe that we are succeeding in Iraq. The situation is dramatically improved. But I also want to emphasize time and again al-Qaeda is on the run, but they are not defeated.

    SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN: [whispering] You said that the Iranians were training al-Qaeda. I think you meant they're training in extremist terrorism.

    SEN. JOHN McCAIN: I'm sorry, the Iranians are training extremists, not al-Qaeda, not al-Qaeda. I'm sorry.


AMY GOODMAN: Senator McCain made the comment in Jordan, while on a trip to the Middle East last week. While the media focused on the gaffe, there has been little serious analysis of McCain's foreign policy. In fact, when it comes to the Middle East and establishing US power in the world, McCain might even be more in line with neoconservative thinking than President Bush. That's the argument in investigative reporter Robert Dreyfuss's latest article in The Nation magazine. It's called "Hothead McCain." It outlines the Republican presidential candidate's foreign policy vision.

Robert Dreyfuss joins us now from Washington, D.C. Welcome to Democracy Now!

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Thank you so much, Amy. It's really great to be here.

AMY GOODMAN: It's good to have you with us. You cite Brookings Institution analyst Ivo Daalder as saying, quote, "If you thought George Bush was bad when it comes to the use of military force, wait 'til you see John McCain." Can you explain?

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Well, what I did in putting this piece together was look at McCain's own writing and speeches, his article in Foreign Affairs, and I spoke to a number of his advisers, including Randy Scheunemann, who is his chief foreign policy strategist. I spoke to John Bolton. I spoke to Jim Woolsey. I spoke to a number of people who are neoconservative in thought who have now clustered around the McCain campaign and see his effort to become president as a way for them—that is, for the neoconservatives—to return to the position of power they had in the first Bush administration from 2001 to 2005.

McCain has an instinctive preference for using military power to solve problems overseas. And when you couple that with a kind of hotheaded temperament, with a kind of arrogance and really a tendency to fly off the handle, I think we have a lot to fear, if he were ever to have his finger on the button, because he's a man who I think would try to solve a lot of the very delicate foreign policy problems that we have around the world by a show of force. And, of course, you start with Iran in that context, but I think you could include many other problems, as well.

AMY GOODMAN: You talk about—or John McCain talks about "rogue state rollback." Explain.

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Well, this is a theory that he developed way back in the 1990s, and he began speaking about it probably around '96 or '97, but it crystallized in 1999 in a famous speech that he gave, where he talked about the need to look around the world and figure out these states, and you can make up the list as easily as I. At that time, it would have been Iraq, Iran, Syria, Cuba, various countries in Asia and Africa that were under various kinds of rebellion, whether it was Somalia or perhaps Burma, perhaps Zimbabwe. I mean, a lot of countries were being put in the category of rogue states. Some of them were on the State Department list of countries that supported terrorism.

McCain looked around the world, and he said, OK, our job is basically to force regime change in all of these countries. And he signed on early to the issue of going into Iraq and forcing a regime change there, long before anybody really had any kind of concerns about al-Qaeda, long before Iraq's connection to terrorism seemed important. It was simply a principle that any state that didn't conform to an American view of democracy was liable to be rolled over or rolled back, in McCain's view.

Many of his advisers, including Randy Scheunemann, who's now running his foreign policy task force, were engaged in that. Randy was then a chief staffer for Trent Lott. He wrote the Iraq Liberation Act that the neoconservatives and Ahmed Chalabi championed and pushed through Congress. He, Scheunemann, founded the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq in 2002 with White House support. He was also a founder of the Project for a New American Century, which was the sort of ad hoc think tank that the neocons put together. All of this is a sign of—and the fact that McCain would name him as his chief adviser—that McCain, in a way that Bush never did, is a true neocon.

He is someone who in his soul believes in the use of American military power, and as he said in his rollback speech, not just to deal with emergent threats to the United States, but even to enforce the prevalence of what he called American values—that's a codeword for democracy—so that countries whose internal functioning—let's say Russia today, under Putin and Medvedev—that countries like Russia that don't seem as democratic as we like would then become ostracized or sanctioned or subject to various kinds of hostile, both political and military, sanctions. So this is what I find extremely troubling about McCain.

And if you look at his broad policies that he's outlined, he has suggested point blank that we're in a long-term, almost unending struggle with al-Qaeda and various other forms of Islamism. And as a result, he wants to create a whole new set of institutions to deal with those. One of those institutions would be what he calls the League of Democracies, which is basically a way of short-circuiting the UN, where Russia and China, in particular, but also various non-aligned countries often stand up to the United States.

Also, he wants to create a new much more aggressive covert operations team. He says he wants to model it on the old Office of Strategic Services, the World War II era OSS, and to create this out of the CIA but include into it psychological warfare specialists, covert operations people, people who specialize in advertising and propaganda, and a whole bunch of other kind of—a wide range of these kind of covert operators, who would then form a new agency that would be designed to fight the war on terrorism overseas and to deal with rogue states and other troubling actors that we—or McCain decides he happens not to like at that moment.

AMY GOODMAN: And kick Russia out of the G8?

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Yeah. And that's a really important issue. I mean, his attitude toward Russia seems not to be based on any explicit Russian threat to the United States, but simply the fact that he doesn't like the way Russia operates internally. So he's said we're going to expand NATO to include a number of former states in the Russian space—that is, former Soviet republics, notably including Georgia—and he wants to include not only Georgia in NATO, but some of Georgia's rebellious provinces, which is a direct affront to Russia. He's a hardliner on Kosovo. He says he doesn't care what Putin thinks about us putting air defense system missiles in Eastern Europe. He wants to kick Russia out of the G8. And all of this would obviously create much more hostile relations between Washington and Moscow, and that makes it impossible to solve the biggest problem that we face: namely, how to deal with Iran's nuclear program.

If we're ever going to get a deal with Iran, if we're ever going to have some sort of diplomatic solution to Iran, which McCain says he wants, it's literally impossible if you don't get the Russians on board. If you can't get a deal with Russia to approach Iran and try to negotiate a peaceful resolution to their nuclear program, then the Russians will simply stand back and say, OK, it's your problem. And that would almost guarantee that McCain would face the choice of having to either attack Iran or to accept Iran having a nuclear bomb at some point in the period in his eight-year term as president. So the idea that you can isolate Russia in that way and take this aggressive anti-Moscow strategy means that you're not going to get Russian cooperation on key problems like Iran and like other problems in the Middle East and Afghanistan that we're going to need their help on.

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert Dreyfuss, investigative reporter, contributing editor to The Nation magazine. His latest piece is called "Hothead McCain." I want to talk more about McCain's advisers in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: We're talking to Robert Dreyfuss, investigative reporter, contributing editor at The Nation magazine. His latest piece is called "Hothead McCain." McCain famously said that US forces might end up staying in Iraq for 100 years. What role did John McCain play in the surge and in shaping, if he did, any part of President Bush's policy in Iraq, the war?

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Oh, I would say that of all the politicians in the United States, McCain was number one in a crucial moment, when the President, President Bush, had to decide whether to accept the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for phasing out US combat forces over a period of sixteen months or alternatively escalating the war. And at that time, McCain was the number one voice in calling for an escalation. He had traveled to Iraq. He had said we need more troops. I believe he was calling for at least 50,000 troops. He worked closely along with Senator Lieberman, who's now his traveling companion. McCain and Lieberman spoke at the American Enterprise Institute and worked closely with Robert and Frederick Kagan, who—Frederick Kagan, in particular, who is at AEI and was the author of the report that led to the surge and was brought into the administration by Vice President Cheney, who went over to AEI and consulted with them. It was that team—Kagan, McCain, Lieberman and Cheney—who convinced the President to go with the escalation a year ago in January.

And McCain was not only advocating the surge, but really pushing, and is today pushing, for a long-term presence by the United States in Iraq, using Iraq as an aircraft carrier to support American power throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East and Central Asia. And his advisers told me so. When I spoke to Randy Scheunemann at length, he said, in fact, yes, we want to stay in Iraq for a long time, not just to stabilize Iraq, but because we may have to deal with many threats from the region. And of course you have to include Iran as among the possible threats that we'd have to deal with, according to McCain.

So I would say that McCain and the surge are almost identical, and it's McCain who we have to thank for the fact that two years ago we didn't start withdrawing from Iraq, but in fact escalated to the point where the next president will have probably 130,000 troops on the ground when he or she takes office.

AMY GOODMAN: And the others in the neocon circle, the advisers, like, for example, Bill Kristol, like Max Boot, tell us about their involvement.

ROBERT DREYFUSS: You know, it's very interesting, Amy. If you look at the list of people who say they're advising the McCain camp, you find a broad range of people. You find people like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, Larry Eagleburger. These are the traditional kind of Nixon-era realists, many of whom certainly wouldn't be considered liberals, but who certainly are realists. But when you look at McCain's positions, his views on things, you don't find any of the influence of people like Eagleburger and Scowcroft.

What you see instead is that the rest of McCain's advisers, and you named several of them—James Woolsey, the former CIA director, who has been traveling and campaigning with McCain and who I interviewed for this piece; Bill Kristol, who's very close to McCain for probably a decade and has been kind of an angel sitting on his shoulder and whispering in his ear all that time; people like Scheunemann; people like Max Boot; Ralph Peters; there's a long list of people who have joined the McCain advisory team—and it's these people whom McCain listens to when it comes to foreign policy. He certainly hasn't expressed anything in any foreign policy area that you would identify with the Republican realist camp. He's much closer to the neocons.

And he seems to be, as I said earlier, the true neocon himself, someone who, after early in his career in the '80s being kind of suspicious about some foreign interventions that happened at that time, at the end of the Cold War, when the Soviet Union collapsed, McCain seemed to have felt unburdened, like now American power can express itself. And that's when he attached himself to the neoconservative vision that America, as the sole superpower, could throw its weight around, could remake the world in its own image and that there would be no effective opposition to it.

When I look at McCain, though, I have to say, I go back to Vietnam. This is a man whose father and grandfather were extremely conservative, even rightwing admirals, who served in Vietnam until he was shot down and held as a POW, conducting air raid missions, dropping napalm on Hanoi and other cities in North Vietnam, who learned from that and became convinced that American military power, if it's constrained by politics, was unable to win that war. And so, he took out of Vietnam not the lesson that we shouldn't get into land wars in Asia or that fighting guerrilla counterinsurgency efforts might not be the task that America's military is most suited for; what he learned in Vietnam is that we need to take the gloves off, that the politicians need to get out of the way and let the military do its job.

And that's precisely the message that he's adopted in approaching Iraq. I think to this day, McCain thinks that the Vietnam War could have been won if we had just stayed another five or ten or fifteen years, and he seems exactly prepared to do that in Iraq, despite all evidence to the contrary that we can't do anything in Iraq other than sit on a very ugly stalemate that, you know, continues to blow up and flare into violence.

AMY GOODMAN: Robert Dreyfuss, you got your title, "Hothead McCain," from a Republican senator. You're quoting Republican Senator Thad Cochran, who said, "The thought of his being President sends a cold chill down my spine. He is erratic. He is hotheaded. He loses his temper, and he worries me."

ROBERT DREYFUSS: Yes, I use that quote, and it says immediately after that that shortly after saying that, Thad Cochran endorsed McCain. So it's clear that the Republicans are gathering around their leader, despite the fact that many senators, not just Cochran, but many Republican senators view McCain with alarm and not because he's some sort of closet liberal—it's true that on some domestic issues he lined up with some Senate liberals—but on foreign policy, they're are scared of him. And on a personal level, McCain has had a tendency over the years—this is so well known on Capitol Hill—to erupt, to explode, to scream and yell at his colleagues in the Republican caucus, in closed-door meetings behind the scenes, and sometimes even in public. So he has scared a lot of his colleagues, who I'm sure are supporting him, like Cochran did, out of party loyalty, but who've said, as Cochran did, that they're extremely concerned about his temper and his apparent willingness to explode.

And I've met McCain up close. I rode around the bus with him nine years ago when he was campaigning in New Hampshire. I found him scary up close. I think when you see him two feet away, he looks like somebody whose head could explode. He's got a very barely controlled anger underneath his sort of calm demeanor that he seems to almost grit his teeth to keep inside. And I found him very scary personally. And I'm always shocked, I'm always stunned, when media who cover McCain don't bring that across. He's not a jolly fellow. He's not somebody who you want to sit down and have beers with, where I could see people think that about President Bush—he's kind of an amiable dunce, as someone said about an earlier president. McCain is not somebody I want to have a beer with. I think he's a really scary guy.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, we'll leave it there, Robert Dreyfuss, investigative reporter, contributing editor at The Nation magazine. His book is called Devil's Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam.


 

Guest:

Patrick Cockburn, Iraq correspondent for the London Independent. His latest book is Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival and the Struggle for Iraq. He has covered the invasion and occupation from the ground in Iraq for the past five years. His previous book is The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq.

Rush Transcript

This transcript is available free of charge. However, donations help us provide closed captioning for the deaf and hard of hearing on our TV broadcast. Thank you for your generous contribution.
Donate - $25, $50, $100, More...

JUAN GONZALEZ: "A new civil war is threatening to explode in Iraq as American-backed Iraqi government forces fight Shia militiamen for control of Basra and parts of Baghdad. Heavy fighting engulfed Iraq's two largest cities and spread to other towns yesterday [as] the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, gave fighters of the Mehdi Army, led by the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, 72 hours to surrender their weapons."

Those are the opening lines to a report in today's edition of the Independent of London written by Patrick Cockburn, the paper's Iraq correspondent.

The article goes on to state, "The gun battles between soldiers and militiamen, who are all Shia Muslims, show that Iraq's majority Shia community […] is splitting apart for the first time. Sadr's followers believe the government is trying to eliminate them before elections in southern Iraq later this year, which they are expected to win."

Patrick Cockburn has been covering Iraq since 1977. Seymour Hersh has described Cockburn as "quite simply, the best Western journalist at work in Iraq today." His book The Occupation: War and Resistance in Iraq was short-listed for a National Book Critics Circle Award last year. His new book comes out next week. It is titled Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival and the Struggle for Iraq. Patrick Cockburn joins us in London.

Welcome to Democracy Now!

PATRICK COCKBURN: Thank you.

JUAN GONZALEZ: The fighting that has erupted in the last few days, could you tell us your sense of what is at stake here?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, the Iraqi government has decided and has surprised everybody by deciding to send its troops into Basra. Ostensibly, they're saying it's to clean up criminal elements in Basra; in reality, it seems an attack on the Mahdi Army, and it's in alliance with militias that are friendly to the Iraqi government. The Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's demand that the fighters of the Mahdi Army give up their weapons in seventy-two hours, I think it's extremely unlikely that this will happen. Saddam couldn't disarm Iraq. It's not likely that Maliki will succeed in doing so.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now the—obviously, for more than a year now, we've heard of the ceasefire that Muqtada al-Sadr had declared. Why did he initially declare the ceasefire, and to what degree is your sense that this is the beginning of the end of that, if you think it is?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, the ceasefire is very important, and everybody, including US commanders, admit this was one of the reasons why there's been something of a fall in violence in Iraq, though not—maybe it's been exaggerated. I think he declared the ceasefire for two reasons: one, he wanted to clean up the Mahdi Army, which was seen as Sunni, as really a large death squad—it was an umbrella organization for criminals—so he wanted to regain control of it; secondly, he didn't want to fight a military, direct military confrontation with US forces. He thought he'd lose in those circumstances. So that's why he declared the ceasefire last August and renewed it in February.

He wanted also to get back political popularity. I mean, this is the most popular figure among the Shia masses, but he was beginning to lose it because of the—the Mahdi Army was running rackets and seen as becoming increasingly oppressive.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, you've reported that his call for civil disobedience across Iraq in protest of the government's latest moves, but in one of your articles you say a civil disobedience in Iraq is quite different than here in the United States we might be accustomed to.

PATRICK COCKBURN: Sure, yeah. I mean, the thing in Iraq is that pretty—about everybody has a gun. So you have civil disobedience being protest marches, but if anybody—but all the people who take part, although some they have guns, or if they don't have them with them they have immediate access to firearms—so it's much, much closer to real fighting than civil disobedience would be in America or in Britain.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, what's the level of British and US troop involvement in this latest offensive? And why should they be involved at all, if supposedly the south increasingly has come under direct Iraqi government and Iraqi military control?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, it's a very good question and, I think, goes to the heart of the matter. I mean, the answer is that not much happens in the Iraqi army that isn't directed by the United States. I mean, the Ministry of Defense is at least partially under American control in Baghdad, intelligence also. So I think when the US says, oh, we have nothing to do with it, I think that this really isn't true. First of all, militarily, there are helicopters, there are aircraft there. We've had reports this morning of an air strike in a city called Hilla, which is mostly Shia, southwest of Baghdad, in which sixty people have been killed and wounded, which is part of the present turmoil. There are helicopters and aircraft overhead in Basra. So there is involvement. And it certainly wouldn't have—this present offensive wouldn't have taken place unless the US military commanders had okayed it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And to what degree is the possibility now—obviously, for the first few years the discussion was: Was there a civil war in Iraq between Sunni and Shia? But now the issue can quite clearly become: Is there a civil war among the Shia themselves? To what degree do you think the United States is hoping to be able to stamp out Muqtada al-Sadr and the Mahdi Army through this offensive?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, you know, they've always been very—the US has always been very hostile to Muqtada, and this came from the very beginning of 2003. And then, when Jerry Bremer was US viceroy in Iraq, there was an extraordinary degree of sort of venom and demonization of Muqtada, describing him as Hitler and so forth, and curiously, also an underestimation of him, because while at one time—moment they'd say that he was like Hitler, at another moment Bremer was just trying to arrest him and thinking there would be no reaction. So, there's always been extreme hostility on the part of the US, mainly, I think, because Muqtada is the most important leader on the Shia side who's consistently called for an end to the US occupation, for a US withdrawal, and also maybe because he's a cleric, he wears a black turban. So in many minds of many American politicians, maybe he looks alarmingly like a younger version of Ayatollah Khomeini. But I think the main thing they have against him is that he wants the US to withdraw.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, the southern part of Iraq obviously has the bulk of the production of oil. I think about 1.5 million barrels a day are coming out of the area around Basra. To what extent is this latest battle having an impact on the production of oil, or to what degree is it a battle over who's going to control that oil?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Well, it's already having a massive impact on the export of oil, because one of the main pipelines was blown up overnight. So, you know, this is—if there's a battle in Basra, then the Mahdi Army can in fact stop most of Iraq's oil production by simply blowing the pipeline and preventing anybody repairing it. They're also in a very strategic position, because the main US supply lines between Kuwait and Baghdad go just to the west of Basra , so they could start attacking the convoys there. So they're in a very strong position.

I mean, there's a slightly different question, which I think you're hinting at there, which is how much is it a fight over oil? Well, in Basra, yes, I mean, the money comes from various ways of diverting oil, of getting your hands on oil at cheap prices. You know, it's a pretty corrupt place. A friend of mine the other day, a business—Iraqi businessman, had a container come in at Umm Qasr port, which is just south of Basra. I remember he was telling me that transport—he's sending up to Kurdistan in the north, a city called Arbil. Transport to Arbil cost him $500, and he spent $3,000 in bribes. And that's kind of par for the course.

Of course, also you have oil diverted into tankers, and these are major sources of revenues for all the militias. But it's not just the Mahdi Army. It's in Baghdad, you have exactly the same. You know, where the regular army controls a gas station, they're always diverting supplies. Somehow it runs out of gas in a couple of hours, but everybody waiting in the long queues knows that the oil has been diverted into the black market.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Patrick Cockburn, the other aspect of Basra and the south obviously was that the British had supposedly successfully managed to pull out of the main population areas, but now we're having—there's one, at least one, retired US general, Jack Keane, has urged the British to reconsider their withdrawal from Basra. What does this suggest for the long-term Bush administration strategy of handing over to the Iraqi army the pacifying and the control of the country?

PATRICK COCKBURN: Yeah, I mean, I think that there's—I mean, first of all, the British aren't going to do that, because they had a very rough time in Basra. And in some ways, the British position is worse in Basra than the Americans in—American army in Baghdad. I mean, a British military intelligence officer was saying to me, you know, the problem in Basra is we had no friends. Basically, nobody likes us there. Now, in Baghdad, the occupation is not popular, but I think it's fair to say at the moment, after all the slaughter we had—3,000 people killed every month in 2006—that Sunni and Shia in Baghdad hate and fear each other more than they hate and fear the USA Army—I mean, not that they particularly like them. But if you're, let's say, a Sunni in Baghdad and somebody kicks your door in at 3:00 in the morning, you'd probably prefer it to be an American soldier, in which case you might survive, rather than the Iraqi police commanders who are all Shia, in which case you're likely to have a very unpleasant death. So—but going back to Basra, the British don't want to move in. They had a rough time, and they also think the militias will unite against them if they try to do so.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And you've been to Iraq numerous times. Here in the United States, we're hearing more and more, obviously, especially in the presidential campaign—John McCain, repeatedly, the Republican candidate, repeatedly saying how the surge is working, the casualties are down, the United States is, quote, "winning" in Iraq. Your sense, from all of your visits and your reporting there, as to this analysis or this view of the surge or the escalation of the war?

PATRICK COCKBURN: You know, I have a sinking feeling in my stomach when I hear things like that. And I was in Baghdad when McCain was there. You know, people say to me, "Are things getting better in Iraq?" And, you know, in one sense, you could say they are, because a year ago we were having, as I said earlier, 3,000 civilians slaughtered, tortured to death every month. This month, we're probably going to have 1,500, 1,600 civilians killed. So, you know, in a sense, things have got better. We've gone from 3,000 to 1,600. But, you know, we've gone from 100 percent bloodbath to 50 percent bloodbath, but it's still a bloodbath, so I think it's really ludicrous for Vice President Cheney or Senator McCain to say, you know, we're on the verge of victory, things are good.

And then there are, you know, those television—there was famous television of McCain in Shorja market in Baghdad last year saying American people aren't being told the truth about Iraq. Now, very noticeably, he didn't go back to Shorja market when he visited a couple of weeks ago, and one of the reasons might be that his security advisers would say, "Don't go," because the market is controlled by the Mahdi Army. So, really, this is very deceptive. There's something of an improvement in security in Baghdad. A lot of this has to do with the fact there are no mixed areas left there, so Sunni and Shia don't really mix. We have a truce with the Madhi Army. But, you know, it's still a city which is the most dangerous in the world, and that's really what should get through to people outside Iraq.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I'd like to ask you—we have about a minute left—but the Pentagon and the White House have repeatedly claimed that Sadr and his followers are being supported by Iran and backed by Iran. Your sense of Iran's role in the battle now between the Shia-dominated government and the Muqtada forces?

PATRICK COCKBURN: It's always been exaggerated, as regards Muqtada, because the Sadrists and his family have always traditionally been anti-Iranian. Probably when the US started opposing them strongly, they thought, well, the enemy of our enemy is our friend, so they've been going to the Iranians, they get a certain amount of support from there. But, you know, I think that as soon as the US decided to overthrow Saddam Hussein, who was the great enemy of Iran, there was going to be an increase in Iranian influence in Iraq, and the Shia, who are 60 percent of the population, were going to take over from the Sunni. These things were going to happen and probably—and will still happen. So I think that imagining that one can stop them simply prolongs the violence there. And this idea that Muqtada and the Iraqi Shia are somehow all clones of Iran, I think is some of the most poisonous sentiments in the Middle East, because it sort of ratifies sectarian hatred. The Iraqi Shia have their own interests; sometimes they're backed by Iran, which is not too surprising, but they're not clones or pawns of Iran. But if they're treated as such, then they have to rely on Iranian support.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, we'll have to leave it there. Patrick Cockburn, we'll have to leave it there, but thank you very much for being with us. Patrick Cockburn, Iraq correspondent for the London Independent, latest book, Muqtada: Muqtada al-Sadr, the Shia Revival. He's covered the invasion and occupation from the government for the past five years.


Creative Commons License 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.

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Political Discourse

THE ABSURD TIMES




THE ABSURD TIMES
ILLUSTRATION: Pretty much sums up politics.
News: Dick Cheney intruduced a new way of looking at current situations. When told that we American citizens were against the war, he replied "So?"
This is probably the most profound remark I can see right now.
The people imprisoned in Gaza are launching rockets against Israel.
"So?"
The press did not make much of the fact that we reached 4,000 dead in Iraq.
"So?"
Um, 97% of those who died were killed after Bush said "Mission Accomplished"
"So?"
Well, people are being robbed of their homes and foreclosed on at a greater rate than since the recession.
"So?"
Our dirinking water is filled with not only pathogens, but pharmeceutical waste.
"So?"
We may destroy human life on this planet within 40 years!
"Yes, yes, yes!!!!"
That's all folks.

Thursday, March 20, 2008

Stray Points

THE ABSURD TIMES






A few things haven't been noticed in the mainstream press recently, so I though I'd take the opportunity to point to them.
John McCain was in Iraq, confusing just about everybody. He thinks, or says, that Iran trains Al-Quaeda, despite several corrections for his benefit, he continues to state this. It seems quite obvious that if McCain is elected, he will begin where Reagen left off -- with Altzheimers.
There has been a lot of fuss about Michigan lately. Clinton wants the delegates to count, or even have a new election held because of her "base" that would give her an advantage. I have not heard many people point out that the primary in Michigan was an open one, meaning that Republicans and independents could vote in the Democratic primary. These are a source of Obama's strength, and the hope of the Democratic Party if it is to win the next election. However, since they held their elections against the party rules, accepted by both, a new primary would exclude those voters and give Hillary an advantage. Obama's name was nt even on the ballot, but 40% of the vote was "undecided." Imagine being so much against Hillary that you would even show up to vote against her?
Florida is different. They don't want any primary or anything else.
Here is an article by Herrmann:

Neither Popular Government Nor Popular Information

On reactionaries, missile shields, and military nuts

March, 01 2008



printer friendly version Herman's ZSpace page

One of my favorite quotations, from James Madison in 1822, is that "a popular government without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both" (this was used as the title of Nichols and McChesney's valuable book on the U.S. media, Tragedy and Farce). We are in the midst of both a farce and a tragedy in the United States today: the farce, a government of great incompetence and hostile to the interests of the general citizenry, a leadership headed by a wild jackass, an elite including the corporate media and Democratic leadership unable or unwilling to constrain the jackass, and corruption now competitive with that of the Gilded Age. A tragedy in the huge pro-wealthy tax cuts and overlapping military and corruption waste in the face of a distressed majority and deteriorating infrastructure at home, the killing, destruction, and foregone opportunities abroad, and the domestic and global problems unmet.

By "popular government" I think Madison meant an elected government and by "popular information" I think he meant information that would be useful to the citizenry and allow them to make intelligent choices consistent with their own interests and perception of the public interest. Of course, if you have an elected government without "popular information" there is a good chance that you may end up with a government that serves the special interests that control that flow of information. In that case "popular government" would be a misleading phrase, as the elected government would likely be a servant of those special interests, as is obviously the case today.

The word "popular" is a close relative of the word "populism." The latter is an invidious word, a word of derogation in the U.S. political economy today. The trouble with Ralph Nader in the 2000 election and Dennis Kucinich in 2008 is that they are "populists," which means that they have called for policies that may serve the general citizenry but which are disapproved by the corporate community. This means that such candidates will not get sufficient funding to be competitive and hence can be (and are) virtually ignored as well as sneered at in the mainstream media. Candidates are vetted by anti-populists and, in a system of "golden rule," populists are automatically disqualified, a disqualification which the mainstream media regularly implement (see Lawrence Shoup's "The Presidential Election 2008: Ruling class conducts its hidden primary," Z Magazine, February 2008).

But as these "populist" candidates are the only ones calling for a range of policies serving the interests of the majority—with the partial exception of Edwards whose populist positions and rhetoric have caused him to suffer dwindling attention and credibility—the media will ignore those policies and focus on the horse race among the funded candidates and occasionally some of the issues they raise, but carefully excluding discussion of the solutions proposed by the "populists" (e.g., single-payer health care reform, a rapid exit from Iraq, a massive cut in the "defense [i.e., offense]" budget, tax changes that reverse the Bush-era giveaways to the "haves"). In this way "popular information" can be kept at a minimum, the public's electoral choices will exclude a populist who might actually represent their interests and carry out major policy initiatives on their behalf, and the farce and tragedy can continue under the auspices of either party.

Conservatives Versus Liberals, or Reactionaries Versus A Mixed Bag?

It is commonplace language in this country to call George Bush, Dick Cheney, Rick Santorum, and, say, Bill O'Reilly "conservatives," contrasted with Nancy Pelosi, Hillary and Bill Clinton, and, say, Thomas Friedman and Richard Cohen, who are "liberals." But this usage is badly obsolete and fails to take into account the massive shift to the right of the entire political spectrum and the resultant rightward drift in the actual policies and positions of these individuals. A conservative should want to conserve, not overthrow major existing institutions and return society to conditions in 1890, or those in an authoritarian state where the head-of-state can act without legal limits on his power to imprison, wage war, and secretly invade the private lives of the citizenry.

Bush, Cheney, Santorum, and O'Reilly aren't trying to conserve anything. They are trying to increase elite economic, political, and social power, which entails further centralization of executive power, weakening any containing legislative and independent judicial powers, curbing individual rights, shrinking or eliminating the welfare state and any organized opposition to corporate power and freedom of action, and pressing onward with militarization and power projection (i.e., imperialist expansion) abroad. One real merit of perpetual war is that it strengthens undemocratic power at home as "national security" considerations tend to override any popular rights. The ends are reactionary and radical, surely not conservative, and tend toward a police state and some form of fascism, with the masses kept in line by force and the threat of force, as well as cultivated fear and terror-war propaganda. We should strongly object when these statist reactionaries are described as conservative.


Pelosi, the Clintons, Friedman, and Cohen fail one important classic liberal test—hostility to "the tyranny of armaments" and recognition that "the military spirit eats into free institutions and absorbs the public resources which might go to the advancement of civilization" (L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism). They have certainly not spoken out against the militarization of the United States and power projection under the guise of a "war on terror," have not put up a fight over the Iraq war, and have been pretty quiet about the anti-civil liberties thrusts of the PATRIOT and Military Commissions Acts. They haven't opposed very strongly if at all the growing racism and the prison-industrial complex, or neoliberalism and the growth in inequality. They are liberal on social issues and favor mild reformist actions on health care, jobs, and environmental matters. If we put up a political spectrum line, we would have the Bush-Cheney-O'Reilly reactionaries on the right; Pelosi, the Clintons, and a large part of the Democratic party and media establishment in the mixed-bag of a social liberal-economic conservative-militaristic and moderate-expansionist center; and the majority of the public and a minority of journalists on the left (anti-militarist, anti-war, anti- neoliberal, populist). The mixed baggers have adapted to the rightward shift, thereby helping consolidate it.

Bill Clinton was notorious for "feeling your pain" as he inflicted it on ordinary citizens, with NAFTA, the WTO, and the ending of federal welfare support, and his anti-crime and anti-terrorism legislation that helped fill the prisons and fed right into Bush II policies. The major contending Democrats now favor mild reformist actions on health care and other matters, but even on these, as with Clinton, their promises as candidates tend to fade when they take office and must face the establishment's pressures to cut spending, show their toughness in resisting their voting constituency's demands for relief, and demonstrate their "national security" credentials. They may talk about change, but cannot be relied on to bring it about.

Czech Missile Shield

Poland and Czechoslovakia are planned beneficiaries of a U.S. manufactured and funded "missile shield" to protect them and everybody in the civilized world from Iran's missiles that may some day be dispensing nuclear weapons. It is a bit frightening that the mainstream U.S. media can take this at face value and not see: (1) that this plan is a fraud in its pretense that it is a defensive weapon and "shield"; (2) that it is in fact an offensive weapon that must be taken as such by Russia; and (3) that producing it is one more boondoggle in a huge stream servicing the military-industrial complex and keeping the arms (boondoggle)-race flourishing.

Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon, won't have one for years if ever, and has long been prepared to negotiate a firm commitment not to get one if the United States would guarantee abandonment of its long-standing "regime change" objective in dealing with Iran. The United States has never been willing to do this, so the "threat" is contrived and derivative of a U.S. plan of destabilization and aggression, in conflict with UN principles but still supported by the UN with its U.S.-organized threats to Iran rather than to the potential aggressor. But the "shield" plan is also insane in that an Iran with a few nuclear weapons would hardly use them to attack Czechoslavakia or Poland or the United States, for that matter. Any Iranian use of nuclear weapons on the United States or one of its allies would be suicidal. It might at some future date, if Iran did finally acquire nuclear weapons, try to use one on the United States if the United States first used nuclear weapons on Iran, but this would make them responsive to a U.S. first strike—it would not justify the shield as "defensive."

But the placement of this "shield" right next door to Russia is an obvious threat to that country, as it could be used in a first strike against Russia with little time elapsing for Russian defense, or it would be useful in the case of a U.S.-based first strike against Russia as a means of dealing with any Russian response. The Russians feel threatened by this insane action, as they should, but the "free press" follows the official party line in considering the negative Russian reaction a bit paranoid. Imagine, however, the U.S. media's reaction if the Russians planned on putting up such an anti-missile shield in Venezuela and Cuba, on the grounds that both countries, as well as Russia, were threatened by Israeli nuclear weapons (weapons which at least exist).

The new missile shield, and the establishment of bases all around the periphery of Russia, are very provocative. As Vladimir Putin recently pointed out, "Nobody feels secure any more because nobody can hide behind international law…. This is nourishing the arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons" (Imre Karacs, "Putin: America is fuelling worldwide nuclear arms race," Sunday Times, February 11, 2008). But this is a plus from the standpoint of the Pentagon and military contractors, as it will justify further arms expenditures with new "threats" and maybe some nice little wars. "Blowback" is profitable, and with the "populists" marginalized, who is to stop the process?

The Five Military Nuts

It was recently reported in the press that five leading Western military officers had put forward a manifesto calling for a new NATO and a "grand strategy" to deal with the "increasingly brutal world." The most notable feature of this new strategy is its claim that, "The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction" (see Ian Traynor, "Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, NATO told," the Guardian, January 22, 2008). The reasons for the crisis, according to the five generals, are: (1) political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism; (2) the negative effect of globalization in stimulating terrorism, organized crime, and the spread of WMD; (3) climate change and the quest for energy security; and (4) the weakening of national state and international institutions like the UN and NATO.

The most notable features of this analysis and program are: first, the confusion of cause and effect and failure to see the root of the increasing brutalization in the West's own policies; second, the deep irresponsibility and illegality of the novel new proposal; and third, the Kafkaesque idea of preventing the use of WMD by using them. The confusion of cause and effect is important for the generals because a reversal toward reality would call for a change in Western policies that are themselves brutal and that induce responsive brutality. The Iraq invasion-occupation was and remains very brutal and has admittedly provoked a resistance and given a lift to al Qaeda. Logic tells us that it was this Western "preemptive" and preventive action that was the cause of the brutality, along with the weakening of the UN and its and NATO's excessive subservience to the United States. Logic also tells us that if the "preemptive nuclear strike" strategy had been in effect in 2002-2003, the United States and NATO might have unleashed nuclear weapons on Iraq based on a lie, thus greatly increasing the criminality of the actual "supreme international crime."

The generals fail to see that "political fanaticism and religious fundamentalism" pervade the United States and Israel, countries that over the past decade have engaged in serial aggressions and (in the case of Israel) ethnic cleansing based on a Biblical vision of a promised land for a chosen people (accepted also by an important segment of the Bush constituency and perhaps Bush himself). Giving the go ahead for first use of nuclear weapons to these groups is especially insane. Their actions, and corporate globalization, with its mass impoverishment effects, have greatly stimulated terrorism, and organized crime, and the spread of WMD. These are responses to the impact of Western policies. The weakening of the UN and turning it into an organization servicing Western policy and the wide acceptance of the right of the strong to intervene across borders has encouraged aggression by the strong and caused weaker countries to hasten to rearm and gain WMD in order to protect themselves. The proposal of the five generals will increase that rush to WMD.

The five generals' proposal ignores the fact that the projection of power by the Bush administration, its threat and implementation of preventive wars, and its opportunism and complete disregard of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty—except in its bearing on the nuclear policy of a U.S. regime-change target, Iran—has been a major stimulus to the global quest for WMD. A sane proposal for controlling nuclear arms would be to urge a return to and an even-handed enforcement of the NPT, which included a call and promise for a gradual reduction and eventual elimination of nuclear weapons by the countries that possessed them, but the five generals are not interested in such ideas as they speak for the main abusers of the NPT and the countries that have engaged in serial violations of the UN Charter over the past decade.

The five generals' proposal is a new landmark in the increasing willingness of the Western powers to assert their military muscle and enforce their vision of a neoliberal world by force and violence. It is not surprising that their dramatic new proposal for enhanced violence should be a Kafkaesque contradiction—that the West should use nuclear weapons to prevent the use of nuclear weapons. It has become so commonplace in the nuthouse for Western terrorism to be something other than terror, and Western aggression not aggression, why not nuclear bombing not being the use of nuclear weapons? Why not normalize nuclear war?

Z

Edward S. Herman is an economist, social critic, and author of numerous books and articles.