[Mb-civic] Excellent and chilling analysis of Iraq situation PLUS W.R. PItts on the VP debate

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

Below is a well informed and brilliantly reasonedreply to my recent 
ZNet commentary on the new American strategy. It offers a useful 
corrective to one of the key sub-texts in my piece: that the 
willingness of the US to use overwhelming military force in Falluja 
and elsewhere could have at least shorterm success. I think it 
gives a very good sense of how hopeless the US situation in Iraq 
already is, regardless of newly developed strategies. 
Michael Schwartz, Department of Sociology University at Stony 
Brook
Here it is:

Michael,

I think your analysis of the Iraqi situation is very interesting. However, I 
believe it underestimates the difficulties facing the American occupation. 

In Najaf the US did get out of a wicked trap through Sistani's intervention -- of 
course, Sistani's trip to London was meant to give the US an opportunity to attack. 
Quite naturally, the attack wasincompetently carried out, not fast and clean enough 
(Sadr's soldiers are no longer rank amateurs). In large part, this was because U.S. 
troops are unwilling to take the casualties necessary to conduct a more rapid 
campaign. The only Iraqis the US could depend on was a Kurdish Battalion. 

Najaf created a terrible dilemma for Sistani as he had to return or watch Najaf be 
destroyed and Sadr become a hero either as a martyr or "man on the run." The 
Iranian aspect of this should not be underestimated, there was tremendous pressure in 
Iran to intervene more directly. So the U.S. had to once again compromise and thus 
contradict their statements that this would be a fight to the finish (ditto earlier in 
Fallujah). They also had to make a set of promises that as you rightly point out they 
will never keep, i.e., rebuilding (they will not do this), not attacking Sadr's offices 
(already attacked since then and Sistani had to tell the US to stop, which it did), and 
the big one a January election (which will be illegitimate). This will force Sistani into 
the trap where he has to declare general rebellion (mass demonstrations that almost 
certainly will spill out of control) and throw his lot with Sadr or be left behind by 
history. 

For Sadr this was a partial victory. His soldiers were solid under a tremendous 
pounding and they now understand the US military tactics far better. Now he has 
truly battle hardened troops. Whoever is arming him (my guess elements in Iran and 
Syria) is giving them better equipment -- more antiaircraft rockets (the current 
availability of these types of weapons from Saddam’s stocks are probably less 
plentiful than in the immediate postwar). This means the US must bomb the cities 
from a higher altitude with less effectiveness and far more civilian casualties. This is 
already happening. By the way, this type of bombing has never broken the spirit of 
defenders. In comparison to Sadr, Sistani's supporters are not battle hardened; a big 
difference. For Sistani this was a victory of sorts, but he is being increasingly trapped 
by the Americans as they violate all agreements. His day of reckoning is coming. 

The Fallujah situation is interesting, because it is completely lost to the Americans. 
The U.S. can choose to destroy it, but the costs in global approbation and Muslim 
mobilization will be enormous. The attack on Fallujah must be lightning fast because 
the units and their equipment cannot take long drawn out campaigns. If things go 
very badly for the insurgents, then there will be another ceasefire forced upon the 
Americans. Another partial victory/defeat and the US will look weaker yet (and 
demoralizing U.S. troops). The Saudis will be increasingly forced into an untenable 
position if they do not help, dividing the Royal Family further. The oil situation 
could spin out of control. Fallujah might be a kind of Stalingrad (or gigantic Jenin 
refugee camp). The Saudis and Baghdadis will give money and weapons. The 
weapons are more sophisticated and the U.S. tactics are now understood. 

An attack would almost certainly ignite the transportation wars again. Remember 
during the Fallujah attack the entire Iraqi road transport situation came to a near-total 
stop...the U.S. must have those roads to supply our massive consumption-based war 
machine. Given that there are an insufficient number of troops available to guard the 
roads, occupy the cities, defend U.S. bases and the Green Zone, etc. the US combat 
units will become worn out fairly rapidly. The Iraqi road systems is falling apart 
under the wear from US armored vehicles, complicating the matter for the U.S {in 
infrastructural terms, we are turning Iraq into an Afghanistan in the center of the 
world's oil supply!}


The other cities of the Sunni area are only slightly less problematic. The recent 
Samarra attack is difficult to fully interpret at the moment. It was a “good” battle 
because it was quick. The best guess is that it was possible because the U.S. was 
able to isolate the city though the guerrillas have slipped away (basically the U.S. 
simply murdered another approximately 200 civilians, some of which had guns and 
did fight). Further, a likely guess is that the Iraqi troops who did “so well” were 
Kurds brought down from the North – unfortunately furthering the rationale for the 
likely future genocide of the Iraqi Kurds. However, the difficulty for the U.S. is that 
they will only control Samarra as long as U.S. troops remain there – and they cannot 
remain because they will be ambushed constantly. Moreover, each time the U.S. 
goes into the city and kills more civilians, it creates more enemies. The term I use 
for these events are “glorious victories” with embedded journalists’ cameras running, 
breathless commentators, and the planting of the U.S. and Iraqi flags. On the ground 
unfortunately after each of these victories the hole the U.S. is in is imperceptibly 
deeper.

Basra and the south are also slipping gradually away from the Americans (the British 
are only trying to keep things quiet, they know this is not winnable). The Poles, 
Italians, Ukranians, and Hungarians are not really under a centralized command, 
because they refuse to go into battle. Tal Afar is interesting because the Turks put a 
stop to that attack and they have incredible power over the supply lines to the North 
(as an aside it is not surprising that the Turkomens are throwing in their lot with the 
Arabs as their strongest antipathies are toward the Kurds). If the Turks close the 
borders, then everything for Tikrit, Kirkuk, Mosul etc must come from the Saudi, 
Jordan or Kuwait, all extremely long and treacherous journeys. Logistics becomes a 
nightmare and the casualties could be high.

Finally, in this pessimistic narrative, we should not forget the US military, which 
today is already riven with dissent. Clearly, even the flag officer class opposes the 
War. The U.S. military is moving closer to exhaustion and collapse, as it did earlier 
in Vietnam. This is the only possible outcome if it continues to be used at this pace 
and this foolishly. My conjecture is that the true reason for the constant rotation of 
the soldiers is that engagements that go too long wear down discipline and create 
enormous discontent that eventually spills over into murder, torture, and unrest.

So though in general agreement with your analysis, I think you are too optimistic 
about the possibilities for maneuver that the U.S. has. This new strategy won't work. 
It will discredit Sistani and the very few remaining moderates, and the likely result is 
a further intensification of the struggle. The US decisions are roughly three: To 
escalate and lose in the long-run, to withdraw unilaterally and have no impact on the 
governmental outcome, or to withdraw and in the process turn the nation over to 
Sistani in coalition with some Sunnis who will create an Islamic state and agree that 
Israel is the enemy. 

Unfortunately, at the end of this struggle the losers will be the Iraqi people (even 
though they triumph over the U.S. invaders), the rest of the world, the United States, 
and even a major proponent of this war, the Israelis. The Iranians will be winners, 
but not really because they will have two failed states on their borders. The greatest 
winner is, of course, Osama bin Laden, exactly as people in the anti-War movement 
predicted. This is all micro-level analysis, the larger geopolitical implications of this 
entire fiasco and the other fiascoes over the last three years are the subject for 
another day. 


***


FOCUS: William Rivers Pitt: Cheney's Avalanche of Lies 
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/100704Z.shtml


    Author's Note | I spent Tuesday evening watching the debate, and then 
writing about it. When I was done, I went to the website Dick Cheney told 
Americans to visit in order to get the truth about Kerry's record. Cheney said 
we should view 'FactCheck.com,' but as a seasoned internet scrambler, I 
knew immediately he meant 'FactCheck.org'. Not much difference between a 
.com and a .org, right? 

    Wrong. FactCheck.com is a website owned by George Soros. The banner 
headline across the top of the page reads 'WHY WE MUST NOT RE-ELECT 
PRESIDENT BUSH.' You can assume what the content to follow has to say, 
or you can go visit the site yourself. I'd love to see what Soros' hit counts look 
like on Wednesday morning. This is a fairly solid allegory for Dick Cheney's 
night at the desk. - wrp 

    Cheney's Avalanche of Lies 
    By William Rivers Pitt
    t r u t h o u t | Perspective 

    Wednesday 06 October 2004 

"The vice president, I'm surprised to hear him talk about records. When he 
was one of 435 members of the United States House, he was one of 10 to 
vote against Head Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic weapons 
that can pass through metal detectors. He voted against the Department of 
Education. He voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for seniors. He 
voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a resolution 
calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa. It's amazing to hear 
him criticize either my record or John Kerry's." 
- Senator John Edwards, 10/05/04 

    Clearly, Dick Cheney is no George W. Bush. 

    On Thursday night in Florida, Bush exposed himself as unprepared, easily 
ruffled, angry, excitable and muddled. As one wag put it, he came to a 90 
minute debate with 10 minutes of material. On Tuesday night in Ohio, 
Cheney showed the American people who is really running things at 1600 
Pennsylvania Avenue. He was controlled, calm, every inch the CEO in 
charge. 

    Cheney was also every inch the snarling, hunch-shouldered golem that 
has made him one of the least popular politicians in recent memory. He 
seldom looked up at moderator Gwen Ifill, or at the cameras facing him, 
choosing instead to speak into his own chest for the entire night. Cheney 
appeared, overall, to cut quite the frightening figure, the dark night to 
Edwards' optimistic day. 

    The other problem for Cheney, of course, was the way he lied with nearly 
every word that passed his curled lips. It was a virtuoso performance of 
prevarication, obfuscation and outright balderdash. On Thursday night, 
George W. Bush played the part of a man who couldn't possibly defend his 
record. On Tuesday night, Cheney acted as though that record did not exist. 

    Cheney was behind the eight-ball before he even entered the hall, tasked 
to defend his administration's rationale for invading and occupying Iraq. 
Unfortunately for him, journalists record statements made by important 
people. In 1992, then-Defense Secretary Cheney spoke to the Discovery 
Institute in Seattle, WA. Recall that the United States was flush from the 
trouncing of Iraq in the first Gulf War. Cheney was asked why coalition forces 
didn't roll tanks on Baghdad and depose Saddam Hussein. Cheney's 
response, given 14 years ago, could well describe the mess we currently find 
ourselves in. 

    "I would guess if we had gone in there," said Cheney in 1992, "I would still 
have forces in Baghdad today. We'd be running the country. We would not 
have been able to get everybody out and bring everybody home. And the final 
point that I think needs to be made is this question of casualties. I don't think 
you could have done all of that without significant additional U.S. casualties. 
And while everybody was tremendously impressed with the low cost of the 
conflict, for the 146 Americans who were killed in action and for their families, 
it wasn't a cheap war." 

    For the record, 1,064 American soldiers have died in this second round of 
war in Iraq. An additional 138 soldiers from the 'coalition' Bush and Cheney 
assembled have also died, bringing the total to 1,202. Edwards made the 
point several times that the United States was bearing "90% of the coalition 
causalities" in Iraq, and that the American people are bearing "90% of the 
costs of the effort in Iraq." Cheney tried to say this wasn't true, but the body 
count numbers don't lie, and never mind the burden being carried by the Iraqi 
people, more than 20,000 of whom have perished since the invasion began. 

    "And the question in my mind," continued Cheney in 1992, "is how many 
additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not that 
damned many. So, I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him 
from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd 
achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the 
problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq." 

    Cheney's answer to this glaring contradiction, of course, is "September 
11," i.e. the terrorist attacks changed everything. It doesn't change the facts 
of a disastrous occupation, or the overwhelming financial burden being 
placed on American taxpayers because of Bush administration failures, and it 
certainly doesn't explain 1,064 folded American flags handed to American 
families who thought their sons, daughters, husbands, wives, mothers and 
fathers were going to Iraq to destroy weapons of mass destruction and 
protect the United States. 

    Page 01 of the Washington Post for Wednesday 06 October carries an 
article titled 'Report Discounts Iraq Arms Threat,' which reads in paragraph 
one: "The government's most definitive account of Iraq's arms programs, to 
be released today, will show that Saddam Hussein posed a diminishing threat 
at the time the United States invaded and did not possess, or have concrete 
plans to develop, nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, U.S. officials said 
yesterday." 

    Yes, the lies were thick before Cheney took his seat at the desk on 
Tuesday night. They got thicker. Edwards, in a theme repeated throughout 
the night, stated that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with the attacks of 
September 11, and that the Bush administration had erred grievously by 
diverting attention from Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda and into Iraq. 
Several times, Edwards accused Cheney of rhetorically combining Iraq and 
9/11. 

    "I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between 
Iraq and 9/11." 

    Hm. 

    "His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a 
decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02 

    "His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. 
He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists 
for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03 

    "I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection 
between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04 

    "There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, 
Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of 
a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is 
overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a 
relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04 

    One could argue, perhaps, the definition of "is" on this matter. Cheney did 
not state specifically in any of the above quotes that Iraq was involved with 
9/11. But the repeated claim that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, a claim 
that has been shot to pieces dozens of times over, establishes enough of an 
Iraq-9/11 connection to satisfy a man who appears to believe that a 
frightened populace is a happy populace. 

    George W. Bush doesn't even believe Cheney on this point. An article by 
Reuters from September 18, 2003, had Bush telling reporters, "We've had no 
evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Bush was 
forced into this scramble because his Vice President had, again, made this 
discredited connection between Iraq and 9/11 on 'Meet the Press' the 
previous Sunday by claiming, "more and more" evidence was being found to 
justify the connection. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. 

    Cheney's unruffled, monotone demeanor became demonstrably agitated 
only a few times on Tuesday, but those times were telling. They came when 
John Edwards mentioned Halliburton. Edwards accused Halliburton, 
essentially, of war profiteering, and went so far as to describe how the 
company, while run by Cheney, was trading with nations now considered to 
be enemies of America. 

    "While he was CEO of Halliburton," said Edwards, "they paid millions of 
dollars in fines for providing false information on their company, just like 
Enron and Ken Lay. They did business with Libya and Iran, two sworn 
enemies of the United States. They're now under investigation for having 
bribed foreign officials during that period of time. Not only that, they've gotten 
a $7.5 billion no-bid contract in Iraq, and instead of part of their money being 
withheld, which is the way it's normally done, because they're under 
investigation, they've continued to get their money." 

    Cheney was allotted 30 seconds to reply to this explosive charge. His 
response: "The reason they keep mentioning Halliburton is because they're 
trying to throw up a smokescreen. They know the charges are false." 

    Edwards' reply to this in-depth rejoinder: "These are the facts. The facts 
are the vice president's company that he was CEO of, that did business with 
sworn enemies of the United States, paid millions of dollars in fines for 
providing false financial information, it's under investigation for bribing foreign 
officials. The same company that got a $7.5 billion no-bid contract, the rule is 
that part of their money is supposed to be withheld when they're under 
investigation, as they are now, for having overcharged the American 
taxpayer, but they're getting every dime of their money." 

    A few more facts: According to the Washington Post, the Los Angeles 
Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, 
the Petroleum Economist and scores of other reporters and media outlets, 
Halliburton in the time of Dick Cheney dealt with both Iraq, Iran and Libya 
through a variety of subsidiaries and in defiance of scores of international 
sanctions. Cheney did not like the sanctions against these countries, and 
went out of his way to make sure Halliburton could get around them and turn 
a tidy profit. 

    On June 13, 2000, one month before joining the Republican presidential 
ticket, the Los Angeles Times reported Cheney's claim that, "We're kept out 
of (Iran) primarily by our own government, which has made a decision that 
U.S. firms should not be allowed to invest significantly in Iran, and I think 
that's a mistake." When speaking to the Cato Institute on June 23, 1998, 
Cheney stated, "Unfortunately, Iran is sitting right in the middle of the 
(Caspian Sea) area and the United States has declared unilateral economic 
sanctions against that country. As a result, American firms are prohibited 
from dealing with Iran and find themselves cut out of the action." 

    Cut out of the action? 

    It went on like this for 90 minutes, and got quite silly at one point. Cheney 
tried to paint Edwards as an absentee Senator by claiming he'd not met 
Edwards until that night. CNN and the other networks, a couple of hours 
later, began showing video of the two of them sitting together for several 
hours during the National Prayer Breakfast in February of 2001. It seems a 
silly thing to lie about, what with all the chaos and dead people we're all 
dealing with, but the media appeared happy to seize upon it. So it goes. 

    Cheney looked for all the world as if the whole thing bored him. One can 
hardly blame him. When your entire professional and political career is a 
tapestry of untruths, telling them again for the umpteenth time could indeed 
be quite dull.



-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, option D 
(up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options (option A - 
1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - up to 3x/day) 
please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you this email and you 
want to be on our list, send an email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which 
option you'd like.



Action is the antidote to despair.  ----Joan Baez
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041006/a3f75e9d/attachment.html