Get the hell outta IRAQ!!!
More people have been killed in Iraq since George Bush declared the "official end to major combat operations" on May 1st, 2003, than had died in the "official" war. He told us the war is over, yet American and British forces are encountering increasing resistance to their occupation. How did things get so out of control in Iraq? Here are some basic facts about the situation.
Legitimacy ?
The US has not found the much-feared weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor have they provided a shred of credible proof of links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda. The war was illegal and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have paid with their lives.
The Cycle of Violence
We are told that troops are in Iraq to provide security but it isn't working. The reason is because of the heavy handed approach of the occupying forces. On October 12th 2003, for example, the US forces in Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad, demolished date and orange trees in search of a suspected suicide bomber. They wiped out the livelihood of hundreds of Iraqis, deepening the anger against the US/UK presence in Iraq. Amnesty International reports that young Iraqi girls are being tied up and frisked in their own houses during late-night, random raids in Baghdad. Since the release of a CIA report that said more and more Iraqis are siding with the resistance forces, the US intensified its attacks on Iraqis. Called Operation Iron Hammer, the attacks included using 2,000 pound bombs, some of the largest weapons in the US inventory. Attacking civilian neighborhoods, ruining livelihoods for hundreds, and terrorizing thousands in random and violent raids are not going to increase security but will further a cycle of violence in Iraq. More recently in November 2004 the occupation flattened the city of Fallujah, an act which is clearly defined in international law as a war crime.
Reconstruction = Privatization
The true nature of the reconstruction in Iraq is laughable. The most basic necessities of the Iraqi people are not being met while billions of dollars are being given to US corporations like Halliburton (Dick Cheney's company) and Bechtel. These are the same corporations which are reaping no-bid contracts for "reconstruction" in New Orleans in teh wake of Hurricane Katrina. The ultimate plans for the privatized reconstruction were outlined by Paul Bremer the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who decreed in September that an Iraqi constitution would embody American values, "allowing foreign direct investment to the rate of 100% in all sectors, except for natural resources [oil], in addition to allowing foreign banks to own local banks at 100%." Among other attacks on the rights of the Iraqi people, the corporate invasion of Iraq has outlawed seed saving in Iraq.
US/UK Soldiers in revolt
There are more and more stories of American and British soldiers who are revolting at the conduct of the occupation. The GI Rights hotline in the US has had to deal with a 75% increase in the number of soldiers who are calling to ask what the penalty would be if they went AWOL. In the US, families of soldiers are rising up to demand the return of the troops. Here is a quote from www.bringthemhomenow.org:
"Now, I no longer believe; I have lost my conviction, my determination. I can no longer justify my service for what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies. My time is done as well as that of many others with whom I serve. We have all faced death here without reason or justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before America awakens and demands the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them rather than their leader's interest?" Tim Predmore is on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq.
US Army recruitment is at an all-time low, falling nearly 40% below their monthly quotas. Over 5,500 US soldiers are currently AWOL (Absent With Out Leave), and the numbers of US war resisters seeking refuge in Canada continues to rise.
Organizing and Resistance in Iraq
The media and the US administration suggest that the occupation is necessary to the security and rebuilding of Iraq. The only pictures we see of resistance in Iraq are of attacks on soldiers. These are an expression of the real anger of ordinary Iraqi's to the occupation forces but it is not the whole story of Iraqi organizing. According to David Bacon of (US Labour Against the War), within days of the U.S. invasion and the fall of the old government, Iraqi workers in factories, on the docks and at oil industry facilities began organizing. "They want to get organized not just to get a wage raise," says Bacon, "but also to fight for the control of their jobs, and control of the institutions that they work for." At the same time unemployed workers were organizing to create food distribution and reconstruction networks and were organizing demand for supplies from the Coalition Authority. How did the US administration respond to this wonderful and supportive self activity? On November 24th they arrested and imprisoned the president of the union of the unemployed in Iraq and another activist of the UUI. This in a country where according to United Nations/World Bank report issued last month 50 percent of the work force were unemployed and underemployed. On top of this union organizing has been banned in Iraq. Despite repeated instances of the occupation forces shooting and killing peaceful demonstrators, there have been ongoing demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq against the war.
What to put in place of the Occupation?
The US administration would have us believe that there is no alternative to their continued occupation of Iraq, and that if the troops leave now Iraq will descend into civil war. The suggestion is that there will be chaos and violence if they were to pull out, but after the collapse of Saddam's regime, and before the US exerted full control, ordinary Iraqi's gathered in mosques and held meetings to begin the process of establishing a new local authority. The US/UK forces forced these meetings to end at gunpoint. The chaos comes from the occupation, not despite it. In any case, it is the right of Iraqi's to determine their own future. This is a basic democratic right.
Resistance
In the days and months leading up to the war, we saw the largest ever mobilizations against the war in human history. Since then there have been mass actions opposed to the occupation, most notably, 100,000 people in Washington DC on October 25th 2003 and 300,000 in London during George Bush's visit there. On September 24, 2005 there will be another massive international day of action against the occupation.
Backgrounder on Pre-War Issues
1. The Bush administration says that a war against Iraq is needed due to the threat of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's support of terrorism, and human rights. Are those valid concerns?
· The government of Iraq has long been brutally repressive towards its own people, and has twice attacked other countries (Iran and Kuwait) over longstanding political, economic and security disputes.
· During the 1980s, Iraq shared a decade-long alliance with the United States, which (along with European and other U.S. allies) provided political, military, technological and financial support.
· A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in arming Iraq. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as an ally against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
· It was during this period of the U.S.-Iraqi alliance that Baghdad committed its worst human rights violations.
· The 1991 Gulf War bombing and 12 years of debilitating sanctions severely diminished Iraq's military capacity. When United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 in anticipation of the U.S. "Desert Fox" bombing campaign, they had found and destroyed or rendered harmless 90 - 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including its chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles. They had also completely destroyed its unfinished nuclear efforts.
2. Can the UN Security Council lawfully authorize preemptive war
· NO. The United Nations Security Council cannot authorize a potential nuclear U.S. first strike and war of aggression that violates the UN Charter, international law and the law prohibiting war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.
· The UN Charter which creates the Security Council and which grants the Council its authority requires the "Security Council to act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." (Article 24) The UN Charter requires international disputes or situations that might lead to a breach of peace to be resolved by peaceful means. (Article 1 and Chapter VI)
· In other words, a nation may not wage war based on the claim that it seeks to prevent war. A nation may use force unilaterally in self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs" against it. (Article 51)
3. What are the real reasons behind the administration's rush towards war?
· The U.S.-led war against Iraq is largely driven by oil and empire - expanding U.S. military and economic power.
· As these goals primarily benefit oil companies and the already rich and powerful, the Bush administration relies on fear to mobilize public support for war by linking Iraq falsely with the very real threat of terrorism and through rhetoric like "axis of evil."
· The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves. Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College suggests that "If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy".
· James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who lost his state department job for publicly criticizing the U.S. Administration’s plans to control Arab oil back in 1975, has stated on record that when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state, the American intention of controlling Persian oil was developed through the "Kissinger Plan''.
· Many top officials of the Bush administration come directly out of the oil industry. President Bush himself, as well as Vice-President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and others all have strong ties to oil companies - Chevron once named a tanker after Rice as a gesture of thanks.
· The Bush "Oil Administration" is supported through members of think-tank forums, such as the Project for the New American Century and the military and intelligence-oriented Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The CSIS board includes, among others, Henry Kissinger, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director James Schlesinger.
· The U.S. isn't invading Iraq simply to ensure its continued access to Iraqi oil. Rather, it is a much broader U.S. play for control of the oil industry and the ability to set the price of oil on the world market.
· Many in the Bush administration believe that in the long term, a post-war, U.S.-dependent Iraq would supplant Saudi control of oil prices and marginalize the influence of the Saudi-led OPEC oil cartel. Iraq could replace Saudi Arabia, at least partially, at the centre of U.S. oil and military strategy in the region, and the U.S. would remain able to act as guarantor of oil for Japan, Germany, and other allies in Europe and around the world.
Who will benefit from a war in Iraq?
· U.S. oil companies would be among the first to benefit, through priority access to Iraq's oil reserves, the second largest in the world. This access means not only increased supply of crude oil, but also enormous power in the global oil market, undermining that of Saudi Arabia and OPEC.
· In the late 1990s through 2002, Iraq signed contracts that would give French and Russian oil companies privileged access to Iraqi reserves once economic sanctions were lifted. The U.S. has used these contracts to pressure France and Russia in Security Council deliberations.
· Companies producing and installing oil equipment would also benefit. Vice-President Cheney was CEO of one such company, Halliburton Oil Services, before returning to Washington in 2001 as part of the Bush administration. Between 1997 and 2001, Halliburton under Cheney's leadership made deals with Iraq worth at least $73 million to rebuild Iraq's war-and sanctions-shattered oil infrastructure, but U.S.-led sanctions limited this reconstruction. With the U.S. military in control of a post-war Iraq, and U.S. oil companies in privileged positions, oil sanctions would certainly be lifted and companies like Halliburton would win giant rehabilitation contracts. Haliburton has already been officially earmarked for the "rebuilding" efforts.
· U.S. arms manufacturers would also benefit. Military producers have already won new, expanded contracts to produce more and better weapons. Boeing Aircraft, for instance, manufacturer of the "J-DAM" kits that transform huge lethal 500 and 2000-pound bombs into huge lethal 500 and 2000-pound "smart" bombs, is working around the clock on Pentagon contracts to produce the kits for the Iraq war.
· Boeing is building a new 30,000-square-foot factory in St. Charles, LA to keep up with demand and its suppliers, including Lockheed, Honeywell, and Textron, are also ramping up production. Boeing spokesman Bob Algarotti anticipates "a higher level of production through the end of the decade."
Legitimacy ?
The US has not found the much-feared weapons of mass destruction in Iraq nor have they provided a shred of credible proof of links between Saddam Hussein and Al-Queda. The war was illegal and over 100,000 Iraqi civilians have paid with their lives.
The Cycle of Violence
We are told that troops are in Iraq to provide security but it isn't working. The reason is because of the heavy handed approach of the occupying forces. On October 12th 2003, for example, the US forces in Dhuluaya, a small town 50 miles north of Baghdad, demolished date and orange trees in search of a suspected suicide bomber. They wiped out the livelihood of hundreds of Iraqis, deepening the anger against the US/UK presence in Iraq. Amnesty International reports that young Iraqi girls are being tied up and frisked in their own houses during late-night, random raids in Baghdad. Since the release of a CIA report that said more and more Iraqis are siding with the resistance forces, the US intensified its attacks on Iraqis. Called Operation Iron Hammer, the attacks included using 2,000 pound bombs, some of the largest weapons in the US inventory. Attacking civilian neighborhoods, ruining livelihoods for hundreds, and terrorizing thousands in random and violent raids are not going to increase security but will further a cycle of violence in Iraq. More recently in November 2004 the occupation flattened the city of Fallujah, an act which is clearly defined in international law as a war crime.
Reconstruction = Privatization
The true nature of the reconstruction in Iraq is laughable. The most basic necessities of the Iraqi people are not being met while billions of dollars are being given to US corporations like Halliburton (Dick Cheney's company) and Bechtel. These are the same corporations which are reaping no-bid contracts for "reconstruction" in New Orleans in teh wake of Hurricane Katrina. The ultimate plans for the privatized reconstruction were outlined by Paul Bremer the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq who decreed in September that an Iraqi constitution would embody American values, "allowing foreign direct investment to the rate of 100% in all sectors, except for natural resources [oil], in addition to allowing foreign banks to own local banks at 100%." Among other attacks on the rights of the Iraqi people, the corporate invasion of Iraq has outlawed seed saving in Iraq.
US/UK Soldiers in revolt
There are more and more stories of American and British soldiers who are revolting at the conduct of the occupation. The GI Rights hotline in the US has had to deal with a 75% increase in the number of soldiers who are calling to ask what the penalty would be if they went AWOL. In the US, families of soldiers are rising up to demand the return of the troops. Here is a quote from www.bringthemhomenow.org:
"Now, I no longer believe; I have lost my conviction, my determination. I can no longer justify my service for what I believe to be half-truths and bold lies. My time is done as well as that of many others with whom I serve. We have all faced death here without reason or justification. How many more must die? How many more tears must be shed before America awakens and demands the return of the men and women whose job it is to protect them rather than their leader's interest?" Tim Predmore is on active duty with the 101st Airborne Division near Mosul, Iraq.
US Army recruitment is at an all-time low, falling nearly 40% below their monthly quotas. Over 5,500 US soldiers are currently AWOL (Absent With Out Leave), and the numbers of US war resisters seeking refuge in Canada continues to rise.
Organizing and Resistance in Iraq
The media and the US administration suggest that the occupation is necessary to the security and rebuilding of Iraq. The only pictures we see of resistance in Iraq are of attacks on soldiers. These are an expression of the real anger of ordinary Iraqi's to the occupation forces but it is not the whole story of Iraqi organizing. According to David Bacon of (US Labour Against the War), within days of the U.S. invasion and the fall of the old government, Iraqi workers in factories, on the docks and at oil industry facilities began organizing. "They want to get organized not just to get a wage raise," says Bacon, "but also to fight for the control of their jobs, and control of the institutions that they work for." At the same time unemployed workers were organizing to create food distribution and reconstruction networks and were organizing demand for supplies from the Coalition Authority. How did the US administration respond to this wonderful and supportive self activity? On November 24th they arrested and imprisoned the president of the union of the unemployed in Iraq and another activist of the UUI. This in a country where according to United Nations/World Bank report issued last month 50 percent of the work force were unemployed and underemployed. On top of this union organizing has been banned in Iraq. Despite repeated instances of the occupation forces shooting and killing peaceful demonstrators, there have been ongoing demonstrations of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq against the war.
What to put in place of the Occupation?
The US administration would have us believe that there is no alternative to their continued occupation of Iraq, and that if the troops leave now Iraq will descend into civil war. The suggestion is that there will be chaos and violence if they were to pull out, but after the collapse of Saddam's regime, and before the US exerted full control, ordinary Iraqi's gathered in mosques and held meetings to begin the process of establishing a new local authority. The US/UK forces forced these meetings to end at gunpoint. The chaos comes from the occupation, not despite it. In any case, it is the right of Iraqi's to determine their own future. This is a basic democratic right.
Resistance
In the days and months leading up to the war, we saw the largest ever mobilizations against the war in human history. Since then there have been mass actions opposed to the occupation, most notably, 100,000 people in Washington DC on October 25th 2003 and 300,000 in London during George Bush's visit there. On September 24, 2005 there will be another massive international day of action against the occupation.
Backgrounder on Pre-War Issues
1. The Bush administration says that a war against Iraq is needed due to the threat of weapons of mass destruction, Iraq's support of terrorism, and human rights. Are those valid concerns?
· The government of Iraq has long been brutally repressive towards its own people, and has twice attacked other countries (Iran and Kuwait) over longstanding political, economic and security disputes.
· During the 1980s, Iraq shared a decade-long alliance with the United States, which (along with European and other U.S. allies) provided political, military, technological and financial support.
· A review of thousands of declassified government documents and interviews with former policymakers shows that U.S. intelligence and logistical support played a crucial role in arming Iraq. U.S. officials saw Baghdad as an ally against militant Shiite extremism and the fall of pro-American states such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and even Jordan. The administrations of Ronald Reagan and George Bush Senior authorized the sale to Iraq of numerous items that had both military and civilian applications, including poisonous chemicals and deadly biological viruses, such as anthrax and bubonic plague.
· It was during this period of the U.S.-Iraqi alliance that Baghdad committed its worst human rights violations.
· The 1991 Gulf War bombing and 12 years of debilitating sanctions severely diminished Iraq's military capacity. When United Nations weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998 in anticipation of the U.S. "Desert Fox" bombing campaign, they had found and destroyed or rendered harmless 90 - 95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, including its chemical and biological weapons and long-range missiles. They had also completely destroyed its unfinished nuclear efforts.
2. Can the UN Security Council lawfully authorize preemptive war
· NO. The United Nations Security Council cannot authorize a potential nuclear U.S. first strike and war of aggression that violates the UN Charter, international law and the law prohibiting war crimes, crimes against the peace and crimes against humanity.
· The UN Charter which creates the Security Council and which grants the Council its authority requires the "Security Council to act in accordance with the Purposes and Principles of the United Nations." (Article 24) The UN Charter requires international disputes or situations that might lead to a breach of peace to be resolved by peaceful means. (Article 1 and Chapter VI)
· In other words, a nation may not wage war based on the claim that it seeks to prevent war. A nation may use force unilaterally in self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs" against it. (Article 51)
3. What are the real reasons behind the administration's rush towards war?
· The U.S.-led war against Iraq is largely driven by oil and empire - expanding U.S. military and economic power.
· As these goals primarily benefit oil companies and the already rich and powerful, the Bush administration relies on fear to mobilize public support for war by linking Iraq falsely with the very real threat of terrorism and through rhetoric like "axis of evil."
· The Persian Gulf has the world's biggest oil reserves. After Saudi Arabia, Iraq has the second-largest proven reserves. Michael Klare, professor of Peace and World Security Studies at Hampshire College suggests that "If the United States controls Persian Gulf oil fields, it will have a stranglehold on the world economy".
· James Akins, former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, who lost his state department job for publicly criticizing the U.S. Administration’s plans to control Arab oil back in 1975, has stated on record that when Henry Kissinger was secretary of state, the American intention of controlling Persian oil was developed through the "Kissinger Plan''.
· Many top officials of the Bush administration come directly out of the oil industry. President Bush himself, as well as Vice-President Dick Cheney, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans and others all have strong ties to oil companies - Chevron once named a tanker after Rice as a gesture of thanks.
· The Bush "Oil Administration" is supported through members of think-tank forums, such as the Project for the New American Century and the military and intelligence-oriented Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). The CSIS board includes, among others, Henry Kissinger, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski and former CIA director James Schlesinger.
· The U.S. isn't invading Iraq simply to ensure its continued access to Iraqi oil. Rather, it is a much broader U.S. play for control of the oil industry and the ability to set the price of oil on the world market.
· Many in the Bush administration believe that in the long term, a post-war, U.S.-dependent Iraq would supplant Saudi control of oil prices and marginalize the influence of the Saudi-led OPEC oil cartel. Iraq could replace Saudi Arabia, at least partially, at the centre of U.S. oil and military strategy in the region, and the U.S. would remain able to act as guarantor of oil for Japan, Germany, and other allies in Europe and around the world.
Who will benefit from a war in Iraq?
· U.S. oil companies would be among the first to benefit, through priority access to Iraq's oil reserves, the second largest in the world. This access means not only increased supply of crude oil, but also enormous power in the global oil market, undermining that of Saudi Arabia and OPEC.
· In the late 1990s through 2002, Iraq signed contracts that would give French and Russian oil companies privileged access to Iraqi reserves once economic sanctions were lifted. The U.S. has used these contracts to pressure France and Russia in Security Council deliberations.
· Companies producing and installing oil equipment would also benefit. Vice-President Cheney was CEO of one such company, Halliburton Oil Services, before returning to Washington in 2001 as part of the Bush administration. Between 1997 and 2001, Halliburton under Cheney's leadership made deals with Iraq worth at least $73 million to rebuild Iraq's war-and sanctions-shattered oil infrastructure, but U.S.-led sanctions limited this reconstruction. With the U.S. military in control of a post-war Iraq, and U.S. oil companies in privileged positions, oil sanctions would certainly be lifted and companies like Halliburton would win giant rehabilitation contracts. Haliburton has already been officially earmarked for the "rebuilding" efforts.
· U.S. arms manufacturers would also benefit. Military producers have already won new, expanded contracts to produce more and better weapons. Boeing Aircraft, for instance, manufacturer of the "J-DAM" kits that transform huge lethal 500 and 2000-pound bombs into huge lethal 500 and 2000-pound "smart" bombs, is working around the clock on Pentagon contracts to produce the kits for the Iraq war.
· Boeing is building a new 30,000-square-foot factory in St. Charles, LA to keep up with demand and its suppliers, including Lockheed, Honeywell, and Textron, are also ramping up production. Boeing spokesman Bob Algarotti anticipates "a higher level of production through the end of the decade."