on the UN building bombed in Baghdad--thoughts?

[Aidoneus]

re-posted and fleshed out from another thread to a seperate one of its own, with thoughts partially relating/responding to--

Second group claims UN bombing
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=80549
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/24/1061663653962.html

U.S. Recruiting Hussein's Spies
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=80582
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37331-2003Aug23.html

----------

This part of the first article may be semi-interesting,
...The men were notably dressed in the uniforms of Saddam Hussein's Fedayeen, a militia loyal to the ousted Iraqi leader...

If true this does two things, the 2nd more notable but more subtle and likely lost; on the obvious front, it gives Rumsfeld and the chorus of cheerleaders ammo to regurgitate at their next opportunity, but in another sense it also takes away an important propaganda weapon when combined with another statement on this bombing. On this other hand--also on Arabic television, al-Arabiya if I recall correctly, a statement of the Iraqi Islamic National Resistance Movement denied that they or any part of the Iraqi resistance could have been involved in, and condemned, the UN bombing.

Taken at face value, between that IINRM statement and this newer one from LBCI, there is revealed the distinct divisions and differences between the active movements and tendencies; on the one hand, the Iraqi anti-colonial resistance movement(s) fighting the US/UK occupiers, and distinctly so on the other hand the so-called "Saddam loyalists" that are the lightning rod for Rumsfeld's propaganda.

Given that it was revealed that the official Iraqi state-military was bought off before the "Coalition" blitz occupied Baghdad, the possibility of cooperation between the proven-national traitors of the "regime loyalists" and the occupation forces in their shared goals is not out of the question. I don't wish to delve too deep into such a line of suspicion at this point, but there would be clear motive:--this bombing will only send remaining UN forces into the lap of the Coalition Provisional Authority(CPA)/occupation forces in the name of "security", and curbing any potential independent streak of the UN would be top priority for the CPA & their US/UK ruling regimes back in "the homeland". Using traitorous agents of the corrupt and bought off "old regime" would give some level of deniability to the real patrons--and sole benefactors--of the act if such was the case.

Contrary to being "dead-enders" as Rumsfeld has said of them, these "remnants" have a very real use to the right people. The propagandists for this war claim post-WWII Germany & Japan as an example of what is supposedly in mind for the result of this occupation; on the face of things, the example is just not analagous on the one hand, and for that matter whatever they reveal on the outside to dupe others into supporting them, it cannot be taken seriously as for what these US/UK neocolonialists have in mind. However, in one sense, it subtlely reveals the potential use of these so-called "dead-enders" to the occupation forces;--in post-war Europe & Asia, collaborators and sympathizers of the fascist regimes were re-integrated into the new pro-US establishments in "west" Germany, Italy, "south" Vietnam, "south" Korea, the Philippines, etc..

What motive would these so-called "old regime/dead-enders" have for collaborating with the invaders, and what motive would the invaders themselves have in enlisting them? It is a fact that statist bureaucrats of all stripes seek power and the benefits for themselves--whatever flag or language it comes with is utterly irrelevant. Having proven itself succeptible to "coalition" bribes right before the storming of Baghdad, it cannot be assumed that at least sections of Iraq's old ruling bodies have the bothersome hinderances of national patriotism or aversion towards collaboring with the invaders' goals for personal gain.

The CPA and its auxiliaries have the motive of requiring some darker-skined facade for enforcing their decisions upon a people unwilling to accept them. On the one front they have the bank embezzler Chalabi and the Iraqi Governing Council, but with exception to a couple of the more notable groups who have joined this virtually-powerless puppet council, there is little appeal for this facade to the Iraqi masses, and in this sense sections of the ruling elite of the previous government and lower functionaries may provide a service to the invader beyond it, both publically as a draw and privately as a hidden hand to hit at the geniune anti-colonial resistance.

Thus there is both prior historical examples and clear motive for collaboration between the US/UK occupiers and the "dead-enders".

This latest thread/story goes to confirm my concluding suspicions; not exactly so but in a general sense--
BAGHDAD, Aug. 23 -- U.S.-led occupation authorities have begun a covert campaign to recruit and train agents with the once-dreaded Iraqi intelligence service to help identify resistance to American forces here...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=80582
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37331-2003Aug23.html

--------------

But this is just one line of thought (that I expanded on quite a bit in various edits); there are others to consider, and certain parts of those other lines of thought that I agree with clash with parts of this. At the least, many Iraqis have good reason to greatly resent the UN in general, in addition to the US/UK forces that occupy and murder in their lands. Despite its assumed reputation for philanthropy, and for the contradicting stances WRT the invasion/occupation (supposedly opposing the former but tripping over itself to rubberstamp the latter), the body does have a most unsavory recent history in Iraq as a figleaf of "legitimacy" for the primarily-US/UK actions that caused tremendous pain and deaths for tens of thousands of Iraqis. :shrug:

[jagguy]

1. its always been a bit of a paradox

that in order to attack the underworld forces that oppose you that you have to deal with members of that den of thieves. There is always the question as to where their allegences ultimately lie but if you want the information then they are the ones to talk to.

But if you're goig to do it you better bring the money to make it more likely that they allign with you.

The other thing to take away from all this is that if these people are willing to attack the UN, we had better get over the notion that its only the USA that they hate. The hate the western civilization, all of it and everywhere it exists.

[IndianaGreen]

2. I beg to differ

This is a war of national liberation, not unlike the war being waged by the Palestinians to be free of Israel's occupation. The difference is that while the Israelis can claim that they also live in the disputed lands, Americans cannot make a similar claim about Iraq.

The good peacekeepers of the UN are paying with their lives for the many times the UN has allowed itself to be subverted by American pressure.

The Iraq quagmire
By the Editorial Board
21 August 2003

The claim that an attack on the United Nations is a particularly heinous crime because the international agency’s only aim is to “help the Iraqis” is false. No doubt, among those killed in the bombing were people who believed they were serving the interests of ordinary Iraqis. But more than a decade of bitter experience has proven that the UN is by no means an innocent bystander in the tragedy that has been inflicted upon the people of that tortured country.

The UN approved and enforced punishing economic sanctions demanded by Washington in the wake of the Persian Gulf War of 1991, creating conditions of mass hunger and disease that claimed the lives of an estimated half a million Iraqi children. It oversaw a weapons inspections regime that served as a pretext for maintaining these sanctions by demanding that Iraq accomplish the impossible task of proving a negative, namely that no banned weapons or weapons programs existed on its soil.

Finally, just a week before the bombing, the UN Security Council voted to endorse the recently formed Iraqi Governing Council, an essentially powerless body of Quislings that was hand-picked by Washington’s proconsul in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, to lend an “Iraqi face” to the US military occupation. It likewise approved the establishment of a United Nations Assistance Mission, whose mandate included the training of a new Iraqi police force.

Thus, the UN acted to legitimize an illegal military occupation and train forces to repress the resistance. That those opposed to the occupation targeted the UN should hardly come as a surprise.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/aug2003/iraq-a21.shtml

[sushi]

3. Excellent reply

I would like to highlight the following:

"The good peacekeepers of the UN are paying with their lives for the many times the UN has allowed itself to be subverted by American pressure."

[Aidoneus]

4. good post & article

it is indeed a shame that these well-meaning people possibly paid for the crimes of their superiors.

WSWS has had very good coverage of this, a collection of their pieces relating to Iraq for the interested--
http://www.wsws.org/sections/category/news/me-iraq.shtml

[scarletwoman]

5. Think, Chalabi and OSP.

I'm glad you've brought this up. I've been away from the computer for awhile, and I've been wondering if any folks here have a grasp on how these sorts of black ops work.

I haven't time right now to expound on all that I've had in mind, I can only urge you all to at the very least see the movie "The Quiet American" (better yet, read the book!) and pay particular attention to the part about the bombing of the Continental Hotel.

I think it is very important to remember that no matter what something looks like on the surface, there is always much more going on out of sight...

sw

[Lexingtonian]

6. I'll disagree

Bombing the UN was a pretty good move politically for the Iraqi resistance. It forced Bush, Annan, and other major nations into a set of quick decisions on Iraq. Annan bravely pretended that the UN is going to stay cooperative with the US inside Iraq, but Japan promptly deserted and France/Germany/Russia now have good cover for staying out. It all means that the UN effort in Iraq and its cooperation with the US occupation are quietly going to end.

Whoever the political mind behind this is, s/he achieved knocking out the major political cover and the anticipated military backup for the US in Iraq by forcing a decision before Bush could mount his political offensive to achieve a UN policing force takeover of Iraq's cities (and withdrawal of US forces to the oil pipelines).

I'm impressed with the practical and political logic to the Iraqi resistance effort- every element of Bush's plans is being struck and damaged at its weak spots. Halliburton may be reequipping the oil fields and refineries but the recurring pipeline sabotage means they may lose money- maybe their whole investment- eventually. The military is pissed off at the long deployments and inadequate numbers, more and larger bombings and body counts seem around the corner, an uprising doesn't seem far off. The UN is now playing dead and waiting for the U.S. to get out. Saddam is nowhere to be found, nor WMDs. The civilian population is being radicalized by the water and electric power sabotage- into blaming Americans for bringing about the situation. Lower tier terrorists see a target-rich environment developing in the form of the masses of American troops. Bremer is playing with fire in the form of Hussein's secret police informants. The right wing Christian missionaries that hoped to infiltrate via NGOs are afraid to make more that minimal contact with the civilian population.

It's all disintegrating for the White House. They must be panicking- the seemingly leaderless Iraqi resistance is grinding them down abroad bit by bit, the seemingly leaderless Democratic opposition is grinding them down domestically bit by bit. They have maybe three more months to turn things around, which will take and mean drastic measures one way or another.

It doesn't seem to me that the Iraqi resistance will wait long before sending out truck bombs to take out Bremer and Chalabi. The UN building bombing is probably only a beginning.

[MaverickX]

7. the terrorists have brownskin and are killing white people..

So many DUers will call them "freedom fighters."

[Aidoneus]

8. mm..insightful

not as revolting and disgusting as your "that bitch"/"suicidal Corrie" theory, but not exactly much substance to it either.

do you at least have a comment that actually relates to my post?

might also explain why you think this is analogous to post-war Germany and why the occupation force are merely "peacekeepers".

[MaverickX]

9. well you all do seem to have reverence for terrorists as

Long as they're not white. Corrie's support for Jewhaters disgusted me. I refuse to repeat once again why our troops are peacekeepers to you terrorist supporters.

[Aidoneus]

10. insightful as ever

I can see that having some sort of meaningful conversation with you at any time is utterly pointless, because your elitist ass is just so much better than all of us--it's funny, you're the one supporting mass murder, but I'm the villian! Fine--at least explain your signature cartoon..

[MaverickX]

11. explain what about my signature cartoon..

As far as elitist, I happily embrace that term. I've been called that by conservatives too.