|
Received by email. Lengthy, but please spend the time to read and support Brian and the work of the International Peace Conference in London.
=================
Report from London
US policy has made Iraq the official centerpiece of the neoconservative plan to control the world*, first voiced by Paul Wolfowitz in 1979 but ignored by President Carter, later taken seriously under President Reagan resulting in the anchoring of military equipment tankers in the Persian Gulf, subsequently used by GHW Bush in the first Gulf War ("Imperial Designs," Gary Dorien).
In my interviews and meetings with Iraqi delegates (Hanna Abrahim of Women's Will; Hassan Juma, president of the Southern Oil Workers Union; and Sami Ramadani, London-based writer), they confirmed to the worst possible degree the systematic destruction of a nation's infrastructure by occupation forces since March 2003.
Only 10% to 20% of Iraq's oil has ever been put into production. This oil is legally owned by Iraq, which prior to march 2003 had made sale agreements to outside companies. The remainder is at the moment legally off limits. However, the new constitution has been written with an "oil production clause" that will allow the "free bidding" for the other 80% to 90% of Iraq's oil ("free bidding" means open to international interests, with the US hoping to land the best bid position because of who it places in the new government). These wells are already geologically developed for immediate flow but have not been and are not in operation. This bidding will take place after the constitution is ratified next October. After ratification, it will be impossible to restore these assets to Iraqi sovereignty. The new agreements, according to the constitution, will be for 20 to 40 years.
Meanwhile, the US has rented all large rooms and halls throughout much of southern Iraq (mostly wherever there's oil and unions) at exorbitant costs (100 times the monthly income of a well-paid worker to outbid potential counteroffers) to prevent unions from meeting to discuss the occupation or any aspects of the oil worker situation. The president of the union has suffered assassination attempts, and his assistants fear for his life.
The Basra area contains 80% of Iraq's oil. Most Iraqi oil workers were replaced with "outside" (non-local, including non-Iraqi) workers by the US occupation forces. Among the workers brought into Basra, the Kurds are favored by the US. This intentionally creates tensions among workers from the local region, but not enough to inspire hostility. The three so-called religious "factions" are traditionally harmonious, but the US is favoring the Kurds in this situation in the hopes that they will allow bases in the Kurdish region. The Kurds, the delegates said, will likely not support such bases. While Kurdish leaders working with the US do not represent popular demand and do give contracts to foreign companies, they have no desire to secede from Iraq. US policy for trade union control under occupation is to purchase the conscience of the people one by one, pitting groups against each other and using the dollar to buy out the better judgment of workers. (US strategy is divide and conquer, exploit and pit against one another all regions to foster resentment, especially evident around Basra where deprivation skyrockets among locals while oil money goes to Kurds.)
In the early 1990s, Iyad Allawi, backed by the CIA, formed a group to dominate unions by coercion; thus there is no safe place for legitimate union groups. (Allawi was recruited by the CIA in 1992 as a counterpoint to the more well-known CIA asset Ahmed Chalabi.)
The US has created some 400 NGOs to absorb incoming relief efforts, paying $100,000 to each new NGO (called "American" by Iraqis, and paid for with US taxpayer money) and drowning out the real NGOs (called "local"). Nearly all "American" NGOs in some way support or promote the occupation. There is no women's freedom under the occupation; conditions are much worse than before the invasion.
The delegates with whom I spoke also substantiated some of my findings: that the US has some 80,000 hired mercenaries in Iraq, many posing as insurgents (my estimate from DoD sources was 40,000, proving that it's always wise to double what the DoD says), and that whenever civilians are hit, it's Rumsfeld's insurgents, not the resistance -- the motive, of course, is to perpetuate the appearance of chaos and thus legitimize the need for a US stabilizing presence. In their words, the legitimate resistance does not target civilians or conduct scorched-earth tactics. The legitimate resistance is small and does not target mosques or engage in any kidnappings whatsoever. These horrible crimes are carried out by unknowns and are very suspicious in nature. The small resistance is a natural reaction of self-defense and has nothing to do with killing workers and hostages -- they would never target themselves and civilians; such acts are suspected of being Pentagon "black operations."
They also substantiated the many (though dwindling) New York Times reports since March 2003 of massive systematic looting of Iraq's infrastructure (100 truckloads a day across the Jordanian border, manned by US forces) while Halliburton et al trucks in the same equipment at inflated costs across the Kuwaiti border (also manned by US forces). The delegates described how the full story leaked out because a few greedy Iraqis helping the US with the looting argued among themselves over how much they were benefitting (some receiving far more from the US operation than others).
The Sunni - Shiite rift is largely a myth, they said, and the two factions, 96% theologically identical, have lived in harmony for more than half a century. Hassan and Sami mentioned that their own marriages would be in dire trouble if US propaganda were true (intermarriage is common). There are no purely Shia or Sunni areas. Religion is not an issue when it comes to reconstruction; getting rid of the occupation is the issue.
The elections, last January (2005) and this most recent one, were both complete frauds, with pro-US candidates somehow winning 70% approval from the population, some 10% of which actually voted. Candidates selected by the US speak against the US in public to win support, but are largely corrupt and work with the US in every way. Elections do not represent the hopes and aspirations of Iraqis, so most of the population abstains from voting, and campaigners are largely in it for personal gain (albeit, some run to try to help limit the damage to Iraq by the occupation). As Bush said (referring to Lebanon), "You can't have free elections while a country is occupied." There are no legitimate anti-occupation candidates. Ahmed Chalabi claims $7 billion of reconstruction money was spent on mercenaries, but Chalabi is a Bush operative (and Iraq's deputy prime minister) with a history of extreme corruption who is not well thought of (a charlatan of questionable allegiance, out of touch with Iraq**).
The occupation is totally pervasive. Football cannot be played anywhere, children cannot run safely outside...how can there be fair elections in such an environment, with such pressure, monitoring, and threats to safety? The delegates urge people from outside Iraq to make legitimate humanitarian efforts to marginalize US policy (seek out and support the real NGOs, etc., and get the word out). "There is a great potential for an industry of reparations and healing," they said.
In the UK, much was being made of the 97 British soldiers who have died...in anticipation of the 100th. Meanwhile, the delegates informed me that more than 100 Mexican citizens have been killed wearing the US uniform, put there by US Command (Mexico is not a coalition member). These soldiers do not count as casualties when killed or injured, and have no benefits owed them or their families. This and all the mercenaries and service workers being hired from around the world by the US speaks to the outsourcing and economic injustice that keeps America running.
According to the delegates, there is a relatively large contingent of Israeli military personnel in US uniform and working in other organizations that seek a cultural impact re Zionism. They are among the most feared "members" of the occupation (non-members, really, since they're not supposed to be there).
The delegates believe, and I agree, that the US and/or "partners" such as Israel are likely to attack Iran*** if given any excuse to do so. The United Nations, now little more than a US puppet state, will make obligatory warning noises just prior to such an attack. Regarding Iran, see also William Kristol's response to Ted Koppel's second question below (re Iran) and the attached article by William Rivers Pitt.
IntelligentFuture/BB
==============
* "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces, and Resources for a New Century," Project for the New American Century, September 2000 (newamericancentury.org); signed by the following future White House insiders four months before taking office: Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis Libby, Stephen Cambone, Dov Zakheim, Gary Schmitt, Mark Lagon, Abram Shulsky, Barry Watts, David Epstein, Eliot Cohen and others. A blueprint for neo-Manifest Destiny, the September 2000 document is also the blueprint for our current National Security, Military, and Defense Strategy.
"Tonight, the plan: How one group and its blueprint have brought us to the brink of war" (Ted Koppel, ABC Nightline). On March 5, 2003, Ted asked Bill Kristol (PNAC founder along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, and Wolfowitz) about PNAC's famous September 2000 reference to a need for a new Pearl Harbor, written four months before the Bush admin took office with more than 40 PNAC members, and one year before 9-11:
T: "Was 9-11 your Pearl Harbor?"
B: "I think it was the country's Pearl Harbor; I think it was the president's Pearl Harbor."
T: "Should we assume that part of the larger vision is the removal either by force or otherwise of the current power structure in Iran?"
B: "I think that would be great. We will have to leave American troops in that region, I think, in Iraq for quite awhile. It's good investment.* I think it helps keep stability in the area and it helps strengthen the forces of freedom in the area. This is an ambitious American foreign policy that the president has launched us on, requiring engagement and involvement in many parts of the world. I think it's right for us and right for the world."
This interview was the last time, to my knowledge, that Ted Koppel publicly challenged US foreign policy, probably because neoconservatives have become the wealthiest wing of any political party in the US and -- just as they dominate our news media with columns and commentators -- have muscle behind the larger curtains of corporate media. (I have the full 30-minute interview on tape, and the sudden subsequent change in tone and focus with respect to ABC Nightline was immediate and clear.)
* "It's good investment" that has now been revealed to have cost $1-2 trillion.
==============
** (From Wikepedia:) Chalabi is said to have had political contacts within the Project for the New American Century, most notably with Paul Wolfowitz, a student of nuclear strategist Albert Wohlstetter and Richard Perle who was introduced to Chalabi by Wohlstetter in 1985. Dubbed the "George Washington of Iraq" by American Neoconservatives.
(Wohlstetter's math teacher at Columbia was Jacob Wolfowitz, Paul's father. Wohlstetter became Stanley Kubrick's model for Dr. Strangelove in the film of the same name, but Paul Nitze and Albert Wohlstetter later managed to plant in the mindset of Americans the image of Henry Kissinger as Dr. Strangelove -- Kissinger being Nitze's junior and lifelong enemy. In studying US foreign policy, it has become evident to me that Kissinger was a flower child in comparison to Cold War architect Paul Nitze, and as most of you know by now, Nitze's mentorship of Paul Wolfowitz led to Wolfowitz becoming the architect of our transition from war on communism to war on terrorism. --BB)
==============
*** On Iran: In the below attached article, William Rivers Pitt cites the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). It's important to note that this think tank is one of the largest neoconservative organizations in terms of money received from "conservative" funding sources, and is strongly tied to members of Project for the New American Century. Thus, when it indicates military strengths of other nations, it is not necessarily highlighting obstacles that should be deterrents to an attack by the US and/or its partners, but threats that could or should in their opinion warrant such an attack. As Pitt explains, only fools would consider an attack on Iran, and this is why an attack is very likely. In the minds of such fools, the attack is way overdue. I tend to think it will be limited to a single air strike, but that, as intended, this will trigger a far wider conflict. The point is expansion and perpetuation of the war economy; not a permanent state of war necessarily, but a permanent state of profitable preparedness for war -- and it is a truly insane and extremely dangerous proposition.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
