Once upon a time in Iraq… A Nobel Peace Prize for the Anglo-American Peacekeepers?

Once upon a time in Iraq…
A Nobel Peace Prize for the Anglo-American Peacekeepers?
By Gabriele Zamparini


First, an apology. On 30 January of this year I ended my piece writing, “Dissent this! Part 2 will follow shortly...” but then I have been silent since.

Many friends have written asking for the reason of this silence. The reason is that in spite of everything, I had then still hope in the so-called Western anti-war movement and the so-called Left. That hope has been killed by the lies, propaganda, opportunism and blind ideologies of the major Western anti-war organizations. Power corrupts indeed.

No, this doesn’t mean I have lost hope in the power of collective action or in the difference each of us can make. In the Western countries, starting with the US and UK, there are lots of organizations, groups and individuals that are a source of inspiration and give hope to humanity. Even more importantly, there are millions of people who still believe in peace and justice all over the world, especially in those countries on the receiving end of our respectable benevolence, which is to say those countries our liberal attitude makes us believe are desperate to import from us human rights, freedom, democracy and “our way of life”. Human Rights Watch, please take note; they have had enough of this kind of human rights. – Just out of curiosity… Do you know where Human Rights Watch has its headquarter? Empire State Building, of course. Where else? ;-)

I know personally great and seriously compassionate people working there. The problem is the role of “human rights” and Human Rights Watch in particular in “providing a political cover for good-old-fashioned imperialism”, as a friend recently pointed out about the so-called Harvard's Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.

It’s my view that all those millions of people, at home and abroad, have been betrayed by what I can’t find better words to describe than as the anti-war movement’s establishment and its “realistic” agenda.

One of the most spectacular examples of this “realistic” agenda, comes from the Homeland’s anti-war movement’s establishment whose policy makers have been bargaining away what was left of the principles of peace and justice to support the Democratic Party of she-Clinton who recently said, “The American military has done its job. Look what they accomplished. They got rid of Saddam Hussein. They gave the Iraqis a chance for free and fair elections.”

Yes, “look what they accomplished” indeed. That “job” cost the lives of one million innocent Iraqis [by the way, Iraq Body Count counted so far “around 70,000”] , with many more millions maimed and displaced, and a whole country destroyed. But the policy makers of the Homeland’s anti-war movement are distracting millions of Americans in good faith with Impeachments, Orange Revolutions, Pink t-shirts, clowns and cotillions.

Have I said clowns?

A few days ago, Nicholas D. Kristof of the All The News That's Fit to Print’s family, wrote,

“If Iraqis were pleading with us to stay and quell the violence, maybe we would have a moral responsibility to stay. But when Iraqis are begging us to leave, and saying that we are making things worse, then it’s remarkably presumptuous to overrule their wishes and stay indefinitely because, as President Bush termed it in his speech on Tuesday, “it is necessary work.”

I found Kristof’s article on the message board of the truly excellent Media Lens’ website [a website by the way, I’d invite people to visit often as an antidote to our “liberal” media’s daily poisoning].

I was really touched by Kristof’s article and I felt something inside that demanded to come out. So I wrote my first reaction on that message board:

"If Iraqis were pleading with us to stay and quell the violence, maybe we would have a moral responsibility to stay."

Reading the words "moral responsibility" in relation to the US and what it's done to Iraq, makes me vomit.

The US establishment - including the NYT and its editorialists - that made the Iraqi genocide not only possible but inevitable is escaping the sinking boat, that's it. But when they have the nerve to use words such as "moral responsibility", I wonder whom Diderot, had been alive today, would have chosen instead of kings and priests.

“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest”. - Denis Diderot

A little debate followed, with people expressing different views.

This is the same Kristof who writes in November 2004:

"First, The Lancet, the London-based medical journal, published a study suggesting that at least 100,000 Iraqis, and perhaps many more, had died as a result of the invasion of Iraq. Among Iraqis, the risk of death by violence was 58 times greater after the war than before, and infant mortality also nearly doubled. That's apparently because of insecurity."

INSECURITY? Really?

ACTUALLY that Lancet 2004 read:

"Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes."

And

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children."

But according to Kristoff, "That's apparently because of insecurity."

Why does he need to misrepresent the Lancet? [Well, yes, I write, “misrepresent”… you know, where I am from – the land of Pinocchio… yes, it was an Italian writer to create that character, not Walt Disney – people call that kind of things, LIES. But then people could accuse me to be rude and angry. So, I hope you’ll pass me this more polite word, a misrepresentation].

Back to Kristof. Why does he need to “misrepresent” the Lancet with that “That's apparently because of insecurity"?

He needs to say that to finally make his point in his 2004 NYT’s article:

"The best answer to that question, I think, is that our mistaken invasion has left millions of Iraqis desperately vulnerable, and it would be inhumane to abandon them now. If we stay in Iraq, there is still some hope that Iraqis will come to enjoy security and better lives, but if we pull out we will be condemning Iraqis to anarchy, terrorism and starvation, costing the lives of hundreds of thousands of children over the next decade. Those hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children, whose lives we placed at risk by invading their country, are the reasons we should remain in Iraq, until we can hand over security to a local force. Saving hundreds of thousands of lives is a worthy cause to risk American lives for, even to die for."

Read it slowly now, “Saving hundreds of thousands of lives is a worthy cause to risk American lives for, even to die for."

So, it’s not “the greatest strategic prize in history”, as the U.S. State Department once called the oil-rich Middle East, “a worthy cause to risk American lives for, even to die for". Of course not, you stupid! Don’t forget, “we” are the good guys, so “we” must appeal to the “good cause”, in New York Times’ Kristof’s words, “saving hundreds of thousands of lives”. And then you wonder why these gentlemen are paid so well to write this sh*t? They deserve every single buck they get.

In 2004 the US’ establishment still wanted to "stay the course" and the liberal intellectuals had to manufacture consent. Nothing has changed. They are the same liberal intellectuals, writing on the same liberal media, defending the same Empire. As I wrote in one of my comments in that little debate on Media Lens Message Board:

The "power" is abandoning Bush and his pals because they can't get anywhere. But that power - of which the NYT is part - is the real responsible for Iraq (and the rest). Presidents pass and go but Corporate America will stay.

It's much more than sheer cynicism. This is Corporate America at its best.

And while the Homeland’s anti-war movement’s policy makers seem to have moved into “liberal” territories and together with those liberal media are now distracting those (relatively) few Americans who still bother to vote, demonstrate, campaign and act, Corporate America knows what Giuseppe Tomasi Di Lampedusa wrote in his novel, The Leopard: "Everything has to change so that nothing changes."

This is not a “realistic” agenda but realpolitik. At least, let’s call this sh*t with its real name.

***

Patrick Cockburn writes on the Independent,

“The United States surge, the use of the American troop reinforcements to bring violence in Iraq under control, is bloodily failing across northern Iraq. (...) The dispatch of 28,000 extra troops to Iraq starting in January, and the more aggressive deployment of the US army in the country, is not working. At best it is moving violence from one area of Iraq to another. The US is allying itself to local tribes and militias against guerrillas but that is angering the government in Baghdad and deepening the violence."

Associated Press’ Robert Burns writes,

“The plan is focused on providing better security for Iraqis in Baghdad, but the intended effect — political reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites — has yet to be achieved”

It seems that all mainstream journalists feel the need to stress what the "intended effect" of the surge, and indeed of the very presence of the Anglo-American troops in Iraq, really is. But it's just so obvious, isn’t it? Why do they need to repeat it over and over again? We know that, don't we?

Of course, they are failing for now and the intended effect has yet to be achieved. But hey, Rome was not built in one day, was it? Maybe with some more troops, who knows… or maybe we can try leaving in Mesopotamia a dozen permanent huge military bases - of course with lots of swimming pools, clubs, tennis courts and all the rest of the amenities, so that our good boys and girls can have some fun… which is to say when they don’t rape and kill little girls and boys just for the fun of it… after all, they do need to release all the stress they get from doing the big killings with those expensive death toys, paid for by our tax money, don’t they?

And now you don’t tell me that these Anglo-American Peacekeepers don’t deserve a Nobel Peace Prize. After all, if Kissinger and Carter got it… why not the ones who do the dirty job? Stop with this unfair classism. Our boys and girls risk their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq so that we at home can enjoy our way of life. Nobel Peace Prize for all!

Meanwhile in Iraq…

Iraqi independent journalist Ali al-Fadhily, who works in close collaboration with American independent journalist Dahr Jamail, informs us from Iraq:

Many Iraqis are now beginning to see the rising sectarian violence as part of a larger plan to partition the country.

"Americans want to alter the shape of our cities, dividing Iraqis into ethnic and sectarian groups living separately from each other," Khali Sadiq, a researcher in statistics at Baghdad University told IPS.

"They are not doing this directly, but they have obviously given room to militias and Iraqi forces to do the job," he said. "We are more than halfway towards a sectarian Iraq." (…)

Many Iraqis today believe this is part of an intentional plan to divide Iraq along sectarian lines.

The use of the sectarian militias by the Occupation and its Quisling government to fight the Iraqi national resistance and precipitate Iraq into the actual terror has not been a secret.

That piece I wrote in January read:

Many intellectuals and activists of the Imperial anti-war movement started immediately after the invasion to legitimize the “supreme international crime” by supporting the so-called “political process”, a Trojan horse studied to destroy Iraq and force its people into a civil war. Those notorious sectarian Iraqi elections, based on religion and ethnicity, far from being forced on the US by the non-violent resistance of some clerics, were part of the plan to install a quisling government, getting the approval of the vultures and hyenas of the international community and preparing the bases for the eventual partition of the country. All this has been crystal clear all along as crystal clear has been the use of the sectarian militias in support of this project. Why has there been so much support for the “political process” and for one of New Iraq’s most deadly death squads, Motqada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, in so many quarters of the Western left and anti-war movement?

As always, the replies came from the Net in the form of insults, indirect reproofs and veiled threats. Thank you.

While in the West Motqada al-Sadr was presented to the anti-war crowds as the hero of the Iraqi resistance, in the real Iraq his drill boys were kidnapping, torturing and killing Sunni and Shia alike, adults and children alike, homosexuals and heterosexuals alike… The only people that this peculiar resistance movement was not harming were the Occupation’s troops. It must be a first in the history of the resistance movements under occupation. Yes, I know. They organized lots of demonstrations with people really angry against the USA. NO! NO! U-S-A. NO! NO! U-S-A. I wasn’t impressed, nor it seems the U-S-A.

While I’m writing this piece, Aljazeera has just reported:

Nassar al-Rubaei, spokesman for [al-Sadr] bloc in parliament, said: "Starting from today, we have ended our suspension to the parliament. We are back."

Interesting development. We’ll see soon if the Long Wait of those who have had much hope in the radical cleric and his followers will be rewarded. If not, don’t despair; next time you'll be more lucky.

But let’s go back to the “sectarian Iraq”.

In my latest piece, Dissent this! - Part 1: ZNet between numbers and parallels, I tried to highlight the “contradictions” of one of the most respected and useful alternative media in English language, ZNet of Michael Albert & Co.

In Political Observations on Sectarianism in Iraq, an original article written by Munir Chalabi and published by ZNet, the author claims,

“There is a widespread misconception in the minds of many people that the US/UK Occupation created the sectarian political map in Iraq and that the sectarian massacres only started after the occupation of Iraq. (…) What the US/UK occupying forces have in fact done from day one was to deepen the divisions created by the Baathist state between the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds as part of their policy of “Divide and Rule.””

The author provides some interesting figures to support his thesis. [Please, read the whole article, not only the excerpts I reported above.]

In my January 30 piece I wrote: “by the way, it would be really interesting if both Chalabi and ZNet decided to give some reliable sources of those numbers; as always one is entitled to opinions but not to facts”. As of July 17, 2007 I haven’t got any reply.

But let’s go back to sectarianism and misconception. I am not questioning Chalabi’s interpretation of Iraq’s history, but apparently the “misconception” is more widespread than ZNet’s author seems to believe.

On June 23, the Guardian published a discussion between two Iraqi reporters:

Ghaith So what do you think? Why did this happen in the last three years?

Rajiv I see a lot of the roots back in decisions made in 2003. I wouldn't blame the US for the civil war in Iraq, but I certainly think an awful lot of decisions made by Ambassador Bremer, the first American viceroy to Iraq, have helped to fuel the instability we see today. The commonly discussed ones: de-Ba'athification; the dissolving of the army. But it goes beyond that. It was an American effort at social engineering in Iraq. And there was a simplicity to it. It was almost binary: Sunnis equal bad guys; Shia equal oppressed. We must empower the Shia, we must marginalise the Sunnis.

Ghaith In Baghdad, in 2003 or 2004, it was kind of impossible to say that's a Sunni or that's a Shia neighbourhood.

Rajiv Or even that's a Sunni or that's a Shia person. Nobody identified themselves as that. You'd ask any man on the street "Who are you?" They would say first, "I'm an Iraqi"; then he'd say his tribe; and finally, maybe on the third or fourth try, they might identify themselves as Sunni or Shia. Now...

Yes, now…

Well, we can always blame it all on Saddam. That’s what mainstream media, liberal intellectuals and those anti-war movement policy makers are doing every day. It’s easy, uncontroversial and as she-Clinton knows, it brings votes, doesn’t it?

But these are just Once upon a time… fairy tales and I am just a blogger.

More soon. Meanwhile a FLASHBACK:

Freedom! Freedom! Democracy! Democracy! will write the Imperial historians, raping history as the barbarians have raped the Iraqi children. But those children know better. Four hyenas, the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel and Iran have destroyed a country that could have been a power in the region and a model for the Arab world. The vultures of the international community have been cooperating and watching the bloodbath waiting to share the rich carcass. The control of the energy resources is just part of the whole picture; Iraq had to be destroyed to allow the so-called reshaping of the Middle East. The notorious “political process” has been a formidable Trojan horse that forced the Iraqi People into a civil war. Far from being a failure, the main mission of this bloody project has been accomplished. Iraq as we knew it has gone, probably forever. God bless America…