It is widely known
that President Bush led the United States into an "unjustified war"
against Iraq based on deceptions and lies linking Hussein Saddam with
ties to 9-11 attacks and al Qaeda terrorists, and with
possession of WMDs. It is also vastly accepted that Bush has initiated a
"global war" against terrorism. However, it is not commonly
acknowledged that these two wars in Iraq are distinct and different. The
U.S. Congress only authorized Bush to remove the supposedly impending
threat of Saddam in the Authorization for Use of Military Force: "to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States."
Why did the U.S. start a war in Iraq?
For the last two
and a half years, unfolding events have revealed the startling Bush
administration's true motives for war. Behind the false reasons given
for attacking Iraq, the neoconservatives' ambitious agenda was to
dominate the Middle East, and eventually the world. By removing Saddam,
the U.S. could control the flow of Iraq's oil, change regime by
installing a puppet government, and establish a footing for launching
future wars within the region.
Despite the Bush
administration's claim that the invasion of Iraq was not for oil by
turning the oil fields over to the Iraqi puppet government, the U.S.
government supported by oil conglomerates plan to seize control of
Iraq's economy by privatizing Iraq's oil, which was backed by senior
figures in the Iraqi Oil Ministry, under the Production Sharing
Agreements (PSAs) that will be put into effect as soon as an apparent
"legitimate" government is established. According to the Crude Design report,
64 percent of Iraq's oil reserves so far have been promised to
multi-national companies for oil development, which will cost Iraq
hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue. With less than half of
its own oil in control, the Iraqi government will face a daunting task
of rebuilding its war-torn country for years to come.
Ever since Bush
declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003, not
one single U.S. military unit has been withdrawn, while more than ten
"coalition of the willing" nations have already left. He has repeatedly
stated that the U.S. military would depart when Iraq became free,
self-governing, and safe from terrorists. As a free nation, three
official Iraqi elections have already been held in 2005 (January, July
and December), yet American soldiers are still on Iraq soil. In fact,
the U.S. troops, the bulk of the international coalition, have increased
from around 100,000 to 160,000 for "security reasons" to fight rising
insurgency. Evidently, the insurgents, who have been waging guerilla
warfare against the coalition patrols and the Iraqi police forces
(perceived as American stooges), are 90 percent Iraqi patriots against
the U.S. occupation. The so-called "foreign terrorists" didn't even
exist in Iraq before the U.S.-led invasion. As long as the coalition
forces remain in Iraq, the insurgency will definitely grow and intensify
because the Iraqi combatants and the foreign fighters are battling the
same archenemy - the U.S. troops.
Lately, Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld promised to withdraw from 5,000 to 9,000
troops in March of 2006 - the gesture is nothing more than a political
ploy to pacify rising discontent from the public and some Congressmen
about the war until after 2006 U.S. elections. After all, Bush as the
Commander-in-Chief, not Rumsfeld, has repeatedly refused to set a
timetable for troop withdrawal.
By establishing
the U.S. military presence in Iraq, the Bush Administration could now
conveniently launch wars against its opposite-end neighbors, Iran and
Syria, both of which are surrounded by the U.S.-friendly Arab nations.
On the political front, the U.S. has been demanding the U.N. to take
action against Iran for developing suspected nuclear weapons and Syria
for allegedly being involved in the assassination of former Lebanese
Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. Recently, Bush, leveling the same
accusations that incited a war against Iraq, called Iran and Syria
"outlaw regimes" with "a long history of collaboration with terrorists."
(Reuters, October 28, 2005)
Why has Iraq descended into such chaos?
Although the Bush
administration has been criticized for being "incompetent" or "inept" in
executing the Iraq war, upon a closer scrutiny, the chaos that has
followed the invasion was actually part of a larger scheme to maintain
the U.S. military indefinitely in Iraq.
From the outset of the war, General Tommy Franks drew up the attack plan Operation Iraqi Freedom,
emphasizing speed and agility to topple Saddam. Unlike the 1991 Gulf
war campaign with massive 500,000 U.S. troops, 150,000 coalition troops
and artillery strength, Franks led much smaller American forces of about
100,000 to a swift victory, capturing Baghdad in three weeks. Soon he
retired on July 23, 2003 as a four-star general and published his war
experiences in American Soldier (Regan Books, August 2004). In
his book, Franks warned before the invasion that a quick victory would
lead to a "catastrophic success" in dealing with postwar anarchy in
Iraq.
The first thing
the U.S. troops did when they marched into Iraq was to seize the
oilfields, neglecting to secure other important sites - hospitals,
museums, and nuclear facilities. Thus, major cities descended into chaos
as American soldiers stood by watching Iraqi looters made off with
palace furniture, cultural treasures, medical equipment, and highly
sensitive lab materials.
Scenes of regular
U.S. military nocturnal raids on family homes, street-to-street battles
between soldiers and insurgents in broad daylight, and blown-up cars and
collapsed buildings caused by either suicide bombers or U.S. missiles -
all of which impart fear and confusion in the daily lives of the
civilians. In addition, the Pentagon hiring of mercenaries and thugs to
work undercover, conducting routine tortures of thousands of prisoners
(90 percent were innocent according to Red Cross) in secret jails, and
using depleted uranium, napalm and white phosphor on a civilian
population - all of which have hastened the Iraqi populace to foment
hatred towards the Americans.
The Bush
administration, notably known for dividing not unifying America, is
using the same strategy of instilling fear, intimidation and hatred
among the people in order to exacerbate the chaos in Iraq. By
encouraging anarchy, the neoconservatives essentially force Congress to
continue funding the war under the waving flag for "supporting the
troops" while they prepare to launch other wars in the Middle East.
Why is the U.S. military still in Iraq?
Behind the
smokescreens and dubious claims that the White House Iraq Group (WHIG)
has been propagandizing - to stabilize Iraq against insurgency, to help
establish a democratic government, and to provide security for the Iraqi
civilians - the U.S. military is now in Iraq to advance Bush's second
goal - fighting a global war on terrorism.
Instead of
preventing a civil war from occurring by forging unification, the U.S.
military has intensified sectarian differences among three groups -
Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds. The U.S. Occupation first purged the
Ba'athists (mainly Sunnis), later re-enlisted some of them in the
security forces. Imposing a media blackout, the U.S. marines waited
until Bush was re-elected as president to move into Sunni territories -
Tal Afar for destruction and Fallujah a second time to wreak havoc,
damaging two-thirds of the buildings in the holy city. Consequently,
rebellions broke out nationwide, especially among the Sunnis who later
refused to participate in the January 2005 election. By placing security
forces of Kurds in Tal Afar and security forces of Shiites in Fallujah,
the U.S. authority has not only deepened the rift among the groups but
also allowed the Kurds and the Shiites to exact revenge on the
Sunnis. As a result, the Shiite security forces run death squads and
secret torture chambers that rival the brutality of Saddam's secret
police.
To impose
democracy on any nation is in fact an undemocratic act - suppressing
freedom of choice for self-governing. As for the success of establishing
a democratic Iraqi government, each of the three elections was
considered "fraudulent" and the elected lawmakers "illegitimate" by
these different groups.
The fact that
chaos reigns in Iraq says it all about the U.S.-led coalition providing
security for the populace. The American and British forces have violated
the Geneva Conventions for not providing protection for the civilians
and not preserving civilian health with sufficient food, water,
electricity and medical supplies in some areas of the Occupied Iraq. The
total number of Iraqi casualties in military actions and terrorism
ranges from 100,000 to 120,000 people, according to "Patterns of Population Discontent"
(May 2005), a research on Project on Defense Alternatives. The 2004
data on post-invasion under-5 infant mortality was 122,000 (about 334
children died daily) from deprivation- or malnourishment-related causes,
according to UNICEF (December 12, 2005).
Echoing the
principles of Pax Americana for American imperialism, the National
Security Strategy set forth by the Bush administration on September 20,
2002, outlines the U.S. approach to defending the country - embracing
pre-emptive attacks against terrorism, ignoring international decisions
if not in sync with U.S. interests, transforming the U.S. military with
updated programs and weaponry, and establishing permanent global U.S.
military bases and economic dominance disregarding international
treaties. Every step of the strategy, so far, has been pursued as a
foreign policy by the American government.
As early as
September 7, 2003, Bush admitted in his Address to the Nation - "Iraq is
now the central front" (in the global war on terror). It's not
surprising that the largest U.S. embassy ever built is in Iraq as a
symbol of the future American military and economical power in the
Middle East. Although the Pentagon denied constructing permanent
military bases, GlobalSecurities.org has identified at least twelve
long-term encampments across Iraq. When Rumsfeld proposed a global
"rearrangement" of U.S. forces to the Senate Armed Forces Committee, a
radar facility learned that as many as 890 U.S. military installations
exist in foreign countries.
Why Congress must withdraw the U.S. military NOW?
Rep. John Murtha, a
highly decorated vet who voted for the Iraq War, is now denouncing the
ongoing war not for the "cut and run" reason but for finally
acknowledging the distinction of the two wars - the war against Saddam
supposedly posing a threat to the U.S. and the global war against
terrorism. The congressional approval for war against Saddam had already
ended as he declared in his November 17 speech: "Our military has
accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam
Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates...It is time to
bring them (troops) home."
(First published on UniOrb.com, January 2, 2006)