|
Accepting Reality: America Lost the War in Iraq
By Remi Kanazi
03/15/06 "ICH" -- -- America has lost the war in Iraq. The chance
for victory vanished long ago with the hearts, minds, arms, legs and
lives of the Iraqi people. The insurgence hasn’t won; rather the
American government never obtained the formula to win. America, led
by war-bent hawks (Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul
Wolfowitz) entered this war with many interests. Among them, the
control of a major supply of Mideast oil, military bases,
reconstruction contracts for cronies (i.e. Halliburton and Bechtel),
a new ally/puppet in the region, securing Israeli dominance,
showcasing new products for the arms community, and the greater
concept of making Baghdad a haven for US corporate expansion
(thereby planting a McDonalds and Starbucks on every street corner).
In this excess of interests, the US neglected a major factor in the
equation—the Iraqi people. Every time another suicide bomber enters
the marketplace, Iraqis are reminded of the utter failure and
incompetence of the US government. Nonetheless, those war-bent hawks
couldn't pass up the idea of a cheap war coupled with a swift
victory. What they didn't realize (or refused to listen to) was that
after decades of heartbreak and struggle under Saddam Hussein, the
last thing Iraqis needed was to get "liberated" for an era of
struggle under US occupation.
The Iraqi people know what to expect from occupation. They remember
the 1982 Israeli siege of Beirut, the 22 year Israeli occupation of
Southern Lebanon, and the 38 years of oppression that continues to
plague the lives of Palestinians. Iraqis also witnessed the US
bombing campaign of 1991, the reneged US support of a postwar Shia
uprising, and the sanctions that left Iraqi women and children
forgotten. While the West mainly erases these events from their
minds, the people of the Middle East, and more specifically Iraqis,
must endure the consequences of these events.
If the Bush administration interviewed my father, a 59 year old,
Christian Republican Arab doctor living in the US, they would have
realized, “Arabs don't like to be occupied.” Arabs—be it Sunni, Shia,
Coptic, Orthodox or Maronite—don't want to be invaded by a Western
force capable of bombing Baghdad to oblivion. Nevertheless, many
Muslim and Christian Arabs in the Middle East send their children to
Western schooling and profoundly appreciate Western Culture. As
James Zogby—president of the Arab American Institute—pointed out on
CNN, Americans can see the integration of US based multinational
food chains and stores in Saudi Arabia. More than 70 McDonalds and
32 Pizza Huts spread across the country, while a 69,000 sq ft Chuck
E. Cheese opened in Jeddah in 2001, with bumper cars, a bowling
alley and a new ice rink. There is thirst for American culture
within Saudi society, without the aggression and ramifications of US
foreign policy.
Where America Went Wrong
US President George Bush and his administration thought they could
have it both ways; fulfilling their interests while containing the
resistance in Iraq. But “winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis”
proved to be unprofitable in postwar Iraq. Consequently, the Bush
administration didn’t center on reconstruction and ensuring the
stability of Iraqi society. It is not enough to say that the US
forces “liberated” Iraq. For example, after the fall of Saddam, many
Iraqis supported the American presence, but when the deterioration
of living conditions set in and security declined, the support for
the American presence faltered. The Institute for Foreign Policy
(IPS) documented that 48 suicide attacks a month occurred in 2004
compared with 20 suicide attacks in 2003. By the same token, the
Baghdad morgue is on pace to record more deaths attributed to
unnatural causes this year than in 2004.
In August of 2003 a poll conducted by Zogby International and
American Enterprise showed that nearly two thirds of the Iraqis
wanted US troops to stay for at least another year. Just seven
months later a poll administered by USA Today/CNN/Gallup revealed
that only one third of Iraqis believed the American presence was
doing more harm than good and 57 percent wanted an immediate
pullout.
Governmental corruption, lack of electricity, high unemployment, and
rising poverty diminishes the prospect for stability in Iraq.
Veteran journalist Patrick Cockburn asserted that one billion
dollars was “plundered from the Iraq’s defense ministry.” He also
noted that during the interim Iraqi government’s rule in 2004, as
much as 2 billion dollars may have gone missing from their
ministries. The US appointed the interim government.
According to the BBC on March 16, 2005, Transparency International
stated in its Global Corruption Report 2005 that foreign contractors
should abide by anti-corruption laws and that the revenues streaming
in from Iraq oil “needed to be much more transparent and
accountable.” The BBC continued with a quote from Transparency
International’s chairman Peter Eigen, “Corruption doesn't just line
the pockets of political and business elites, it leaves ordinary
people without essential services and deprives them of access to
sanitation and housing," In the BBC article, Transparency
International directly criticized the US for awarding companies
contracts in a process that was “secretive and favoured a small
number of firms.” As this corruption became more commonplace, the
resistance towards the occupation surged.
Instead of starting a massive campaign to empower and employ the
Iraqi people, the Bush administration protected US corporate
interests, including close administration allies such as Halliburton
and Bechtel. Figures of unemployment in Iraq reach as high as 60
percent. If the US heavily integrated Iraqi companies and workers
from the outset, the reconstruction process would have stimulated
the Iraqi economy. According to IPS, nearly 60 percent of Iraqis
rely on food handouts. The average Iraqi income in 2004 was 800
dollars compared with 3000 dollars in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the
UN sanctions severely weakened the Iraqi economy only to then have
the US invasion exacerbate the dilemma.
The US Forces are Part of the Problem
The US troops created an environment of tension and animosity. The
infrastructural destruction and casualties of the US invasion are
compounded by mass arrests for indefinite periods of time without
charge, widespread claims of torture, the mishandling of civilians
in house raids, shootings at checkpoints, and the confirmed use of
chemical weapons on insurgents and civilians in Fallujah.
Incidents such as the torture at Abu Ghraib, the killing of an
unarmed “fighter” in Fallujah (as was filmed on camera last year)
and claims that American forces bombed weddings cripple the support
for American forces.
In the 2004 siege of Fallujah—aptly titled “shake and bake”—the US
military used phosphorous bombs against insurgents. The military
originally claimed the bombs were used to “illuminate the
battlefield.” A defense website, GlobalSecurity.org, contends white
phosphorus can burn “to the bone.” The BBC reported that white
phosphorous “ignites on contact,” and “burns until deprived of
oxygen.” The result of this Saddam style attack trumps the scandal
of Abu Ghraib and other highly scrutinized actions by US forces.
American forces using the same procedures as Iraq’s former dictator
may cause increased support for attacks against Americans, higher
recruitment for foreign fighters seeping across the borders, and
international condemnation.
The condition of the checkpoint system poses a serious threat to the
daily travelers in Iraq. On June 17 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW)
and The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) wrote an open letter
to U.S. Secretary of Defense Donal Rumsfeld, “Checkpoint shootings
have sparked outrage among Iraqi citizens, undermining public
confidence in the U.S. military.” The two groups claim the
procedures of the American Forces are insufficient and “endanger
civilians, including journalists, as well as U.S. service members.”
Mass arrests continue to cause deep concern for Iraqi families and
the rule of law. Author Aaron Glantz documented a troubling account
in his book, How America Lost Iraq. In the village of Abu Siffa, the
townspeople alleged that coalition forces arrested 83 Iraqi men and
boys. One of the townspeople said that three of the detained were
under the age of sixteen, and fourteen were over the age of sixty,
while three men were lawyers and ten were secondary school teachers.
A fifteen year old boy, arrested and released, said that the
detainees were not charged, not given a lawyer, and allowed no
visitors. When Glantz interviewed the boy, only one other detainee
had been released. According to Glantz, Colonel Nate Sassaman
“indicated that the raids and detentions were necessary for
‘national security.’ But after two months, U.S. forces admitted that
the detainees were only guilty by association because they lived in
the same village as the Ba’ath official.” Glantz asked a
schoolteacher, Nasser Jassem Hussein, if he was a member of the
Ba’ath Party, “Of course…We’re all members of the Ba’ath Party here,
but that doesn’t mean involved in the resistance.” While the
detainees were only “guilty by association,” only one more person
had been released after the two months, leaving eighty detainees in
US custody. Similar accounts have been frequently covered in the
international press.
The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights revealed in an October 2005
report that occupation forces held about 11,500 of the nearly 24,000
detainees. The report stated, “There is an urgent need to provide
remedy to lengthy internment for reasons of security without
adequate judicial oversight.”
In November of 2005, new allegations were made that US forces
tortured two Iraqi prisoners. According to the Washington Post, two
Iraqi men claim that “U.S. troops put them in a cage with lions,
pretended to execute them in a firing line and humiliated them
during interrogations at multiple detention facilities.” The Post
quoted White House Spokesman Bryan Whitman’s response, "this is a
legal matter, it will be handled as such, but it should not surprise
anyone that detainees would make false allegations against their
captors.” Nonetheless, Iraqis are more inclined to reject the
administration’s questioning of events after the abuses of Abu
Ghraib and Guantanamo.
Damning Effects of Troop Presence
Aaron Glantz’s wrote, “When you are a soldier in a war zone and you
see a young boy standing in your peripheral vision, you don’t have
time to notice whether he’s armed. You just shoot.” This dilemma
illuminates the problem of the US presence. Securing and
“liberating” a state is quite impossible, if “young boys” around you
get thrown in with the “enemy.” Collateral damage is a term for
militaries, not civilians trying to survive. Appropriately, Iraqis
don’t react with a “take the good with the bad” attitude to
collateral damage.
In Patrick Cockburn’s article, The War So Far: Worse Than Vietnam,
explains the “unraveling” of the occupation:
Many innocent farmers were being shot dead….Ever since Saddam
Hussein closed the banks in 1990….Iraqis kept their money at home in
hundred dollar bills…Farmers feared robbers and were usually armed.
When a U.S. soldier knocked at the door of a house in the middle of
the night and saw an armed Iraqi in front of him he would open fire.
Furthermore, these incidents are underreported in the West as they
fall into the category of “collateral damage.”
Cockburn continues, “Ordinary U.S. soldiers can shoot any Iraqi by
whom they feel threatened without fear of consequences. With suicide
bombers on the loose, the soldiers feel threatened all the time.”
Sidestepping Humanity
Breaches in US ratified international treaties further exemplify the
lost strategy of the US government and its ability to protect and
“liberate” the nation of Iraq. Eric Seidman interviewed Patrick
Resta, the New England organizer for Iraq Veterans Against the War
(IVAW), who stated, “Our supervisor told my platoon that ‘the Geneva
Conventions don't exist in Iraq and that's in writing if any of you
want to see it.’” Resta said that his commander didn’t create the
idea, instead it was “policy put in place.” The IVAW organizer also
said that they [the medics] were not allowed to tend to Iraqi
civilians unless they were on the brink of death. Instead the
civilians were expected to use their own hospitals, which in his
area offer “only one type of antibiotic, no glass in the windows,
little if any functioning diagnostic equipment, [and] reused
surgical instruments without proper sterilization.” The US
government ratified all four Geneva Conventions and all four apply
to US forces in Iraq. Specifically, articles three and four address
the issue of humane treatment of prisoners during war and treatment
of civilians in a war zone.
The Iraqi Media
Satellite TV gives many Iraqis uncensored coverage of the mayhem.
Unfortunately, American forces attacked a number of media outlets,
which reinforces the notion that America is willing to stand in the
way of the “free press” to preserve its own interests. Adam Gantz
reported that the US Defense Department also joined the media circle
in Iraq, founding a Baghdad TV station al Iraqiya, a newspaper
al-Sabah, a pan-Arab radio station, Radyo Sawa, and a news channel
for satellite TV, al-Hurra. These media projects came along pushing
the American agenda during the same period that Al Jazeera’s offices
were attacked by US forces and the Baghdad bureau was repeatedly
shut down. In November 2005, the UK’s Daily Mirror published an
article pertaining to a secret memo claiming that George Bush and
Tony Blair met in April 2004 and discussed taking “military action”
against Al Jazeera in the company’s base in Doha, Qatar. Since the
article, the British government has put a gag order on discussing
the secret memo.
In March of last year the US forces shut down Muqtada Al Sadr’s
newspaper al-Hawza al Natiq for “inciting violence.” This double
standard on “free press,” and disregard for democracy only reasserts
the failure of the US.
In late November, the New York Times disclosed US plans to embark on
a multimillion dollar secret project to “plant paid propaganda in
the Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly
stipends.” This last ditch effort to win back the support of the
Iraqi people is extremely revealing. The administration cannot even
find Iraqis that are willing to support the occupation. Instead they
are looking to feed the same “propaganda” to the Iraqi people that
is being fed to Americans.
Why America can’t militarily win
Militarily, the US forces cannot win. Of course, they will conquer
Fallujah, Tal Afar, and any other area where confrontation takes
place. However, the strategy of the insurgency is not to win the war
head on, but rather to weaken the US forces by using guerilla
warfare (car bombs, suicide bombs, and roadside bombs) and
capitalizing on Iraq’s spiraling out of control. After the
destruction of Fallujah, the insurgency fled quite quickly, avoiding
direct confrontation with US forces. The infrastructural and
economic destruction of Fallujah didn’t destroy the base of the
insurgency. Ironically, the siege fueled recruitment, further
isolated US forces from Iraqi civilians, and didn’t significantly
enhance American control over the Sunni stronghold. The American
forces eventually retreated, stating that the insurgency was
conquered, only to lose control of Fallujah months after the battle.
Keeping control of a country the size of Texas with 25 million
residents is not feasible with 160,000 troops. If the US were to win
militarily in Iraq, they would have to drastically step up their
force count, probably in the range of 450,000 as some military
analysts have suggested, and start rolling over the country. Under
the guise of “liberation” the US forces would need to become the new
Saddam Hussein, forcing Iraqis into submission and killing anyone
that comes in their way. Moreover, since the military has such a low
approval rating, finding people who are willing to rat out the
insurgency has become increasingly difficult.
Losing the Hearts and Minds of Americans
This administration believed they could spin the events of Iraq to
the American people. This was true in the beginning. The American
people forgot about the promised weapons of mass destruction, the
assurance that Iraqi oil would pay for the venture, and the
guarantee that the people of Iraq would greet the US soldiers with
open arms. The minds of Americans, however, started to change as
soldiers came home in flag draped caskets and nearly 15,000 returned
wounded, many in wheelchairs or prosthetics.
The continuing struggle in Iraq and the administrations misgivings,
however, emboldened the anti-war coalition. According to CNN,
Decorated Vietnam Vet and conservative democrat John Murtha stated,
“It's time to bring the troops home.” He went on to say “Our troops
have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united
against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence,” he
said. Yahoo quoted him as saying, “The war in Iraq is not going as
advertised…It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”
While leading democrats are still too wary to call for an outright
withdrawal, the American people may soon be calling for one. In a
CNN/USA Today Gallup poll only 35 percent of Americans approve
Bush’s handling of the war, while 54 percent think America shouldn’t
have invaded Iraq. The numbers are also rising on troop withdrawal.
Nearly one in five Americans want to see the troops come home today
and 33 percent of those polled want the American forces home within
a year’s time. Anti-war democrats like Murtha are starting to
receive airtime on major media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC. If
this trend continues, it will profoundly affect those on the fence
in the US who are not getting a clear picture of the anti-war
movement. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a US soldier killed Iraq and
adamant anti-war critic, received noticeable airtime, but was
painted as part of the “fringe left” in the mainstream press. People
like Murtha will reinforce the position of the anti-war movement
considering his long-running history of being conservative and a
friend to the White House. Until this point George Bush hasn’t felt
the wrath of a fiery opposition. If the media continues to give the
anti-war movement a platform, the American public will more quickly
realize that we have lost the war in Iraq.
What has Become of Iraq?
The Iraqi Body Count (IBC) claims between 27,000 and 30,000 Iraqi
civilians have been killed since the start of the war. In
mid-December George Bush gave an estimate on the Iraqi death count
for the first time, “I would say 30,000 more or less have died.” In
a new report released by IBC, during the first two years of the war
20 percent of civilian deaths were women and children. Additionally,
US forces accounted for 37 percent of civilian deaths, while
insurgents accounted for only 9 percent of civilian deaths.
Affirming the contention of lawlessness, “post-invasion criminal
violence,” attributed to 36 percent of the civilian death toll. The
numbers by IBC are thought to be conservative. Last year’s Lancet
report estimated that 98,000 or more “excess deaths” of Iraqis may
have occurred since the start of the US invasion.
Anguish and anger resonates within each Iraqi community. In October
the British newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, released information
from a survey administered by the Iraqi university team which found
that 45 percent of Iraqis support attacks on foreign troops. It is
not just a case of Sunni resistance—which make up only 20 percent of
the population—and Iraq’s Al Qaeda. There is a strong support for
violence against foreign forces and the numbers are strengthening.
Added to the growing unease in the Shia community in the South, it
is apparent why aggression is effectively taken out against US
forces and interests.
The primary focus of the US involvement in Iraq should be on the
basic necessities of Iraqi society. Proper sewage and access to
clean water are essential. The Ministry of Public Works believes
that it may cost up to 10 billion dollars for Iraqis to access clean
water. According to the website CorpWatch in April of 2005, the US
cut the funding for water projects in Iraq from 4.3 billion to 2.3
billion—“with further cuts planned for the future.” Those “further
cuts” were another 1.1 billion dollars. The Corvallis Gazette Times
stated, “Three of the four major clean-water projects were
cancelled.”
The reconstruction of water facilities is vital in delivering clean
water to the 80 percent of families in rural areas that use unsafe
drinking water. The postwar sewage systems must also be
reconstructed, which according to the UN report, “seeps to the
ground and contaminates drinking water systems.”
The UN development agency conducted a study, entitled Iraq Living
Conditions Survey 2004. The study found that 23 percent of children
in Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, while 9 percent of Iraqi
children experienced diarrhea, a leading “childhood killer,” in the
two weeks prior to the survey.
Stability cannot be achieved without confronting basic health
concerns. The US government spent more than 200 billion in Iraq, yet
it continues to slash funding on projects that will further Iraqi
society.
Can We Leave?
Over the last two years many prominent Republicans and Democrats
professed, “We are there now, we can't just leave.” Nevertheless, if
we want to uphold the values of democracy and desires of the Iraqi
consensus, we can “just leave.” On October 23, the Sunday Telegraph
disclosed the results of a poll which found that 82 percent of
Iraqis "strongly oppose" foreign troops occupying their country.
It's the one thing the majority of the country can agree on. The
160,000 soldiers are a driving force behind the resistance for Sunni
fighters and Iraq’s Al Qaeda led by Musab Al Zarqawi. We can pull
out, immediately.
While a much larger disparity in views exists between Sunni
insurgents and Al Qaeda, they do share a common cause—resisting the
American occupation. If the US pulled out tomorrow, the Sunni
insurgency would automatically be at great ideological odds with
Zarqawi and his gang in Iraq. The Sunni insurgency is not fighting
for Al Qaeda’s "greater Islamic vision," they are trying to make
sure the country doesn't break up and in turn dominate the one-fifth
Sunni minority. Even so, some Sunnis have not opposed sitting down
at the negotiating table, so long as they do not receive the short
end of the stick.
The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies
revealed that between 12,000 and 20,000 hardcore insurgents remained
in Iraq as of earlier this year. Diffusing the extreme elements of
the insurgency is fundamental in the stabilization process. The main
fuel to Al Qaeda's fire is undoubtedly the American occupation.
While other factors add to its ease to operate, such as chaos,
corruption, fear, and border security, the main source of motivation
to gain new recruits would be stripped away. The pulling out of US
troops alone would at least make the situation in Iraq more
transparent.
The only way to bring Iraq forward is bringing them closer to
independence and sustainability. The Iraqis were thrown into a
whirlpool of violence and the presence of US forces is making the
situation worse. In the Sunday Telegraph poll, only one percent of
Iraqis in some areas feel that America increases security. This lack
of confidence and opposition to the occupation damaged America's
position in Iraq beyond recognition and their mission which has yet
to be defined. The US government spent more than 200 billion dollars
in Iraq over the last two and a half years and the Iraqi people have
little to show for it. Of the 18 billion dollars appropriated for
reconstruction, only 9 billion has been used, while corruption has
tarnished its implementation.
The people of Iraq need security first and foremost, not only from
insurgents, but from robbers and armed bandits as asserted by
Patrick Cockburn. He reported, “Even during a quiet day as many as
40 bodies may turn up at Baghdad morgue.” Furthermore, the political
process needs to take its course. It’s senseless to rush into to
fixed dates so Iraqis can hold up their ink stained fingers while
the situation on the ground is left in shambles. Finally, strong
Iraqi leadership is essential in engaging the Iraqi people on a
daily basis and not just on fixed "historic" dates that help out US
poll numbers. The Iraqi people need to feel a sense of control of
their society and future, and this is impeded by the presence of the
American military.
These are the principals of democracy: letting the indigenous
population rule as a sovereign nation. I always hear “bring the
troops home.” Not only do it for the troops this time, do it for the
Iraqi people.
Remi Kanazi is the primary writer for the political website
www.PoeticInjustice.net. He lives in New York City as a Palestinian
American freelance writer and can reached via email at
remroum@gmail.com
Click below to read or post comment's on this article
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
