Almost
Home, CounterPunchers! Annual
Fundraising Appeal
We interrupt your regular reading
habits to bring you the following important announcement: CounterPunch
needs your financial support!
We're not in the habit of making
idle threats and this isn't one. Either we meet our fundraising
goal of $60,000 over the next three weeks or we'll be forced
to drastically curtail the operation of our website. It's near
the end of our year and the wolves are gathering at the door.
CounterPunch's website is supported
almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our newsletter.
We don't clutter the site by selling annoying popup ads. We tried
getting money out of Google, but they gave us the boot. We aren't
on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations.
George Soros doesn't have us on retainer. And we don't sell tickets
on cruiseliners.
The continued existence of
CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of
our readers. And we know there are a lot of you. We get thousands
of emails from you every day. Our website receives nearly 100,000
visits each day-and those numbers grow by the month. Of course,
all these readers chew up a lot of bandwidth and that costs money.
Through the Iraq war, the daily
traumas of the Bush administration, hurricanes, earthquakes and
the disappearance of the Democrats, many of you have found a
refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us
that you love CounterPunch because the quality of writing you
find here every day and because we never flinch under fire. We
appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles
to come as the Bush administration expands its wars abroad and
at home.
To contribute by phone you
can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
or mail contribution to:
CounterPunch
PO Box 228
Petrolia, CA 95558
Onward,
Alexander, Jeffrey, Becky and Deva
November
15, 2006
When Things Get Out of Hand
Talking
Tough on Iraq Isn't Courageous
By SAUL LANDAU and
FARRAH HASSEN
The election mist will soon clear and
we will still see that courage in politics means admitting mistakes
in public. Cowardice means uttering misleading statements like
"we're winning in Iraq" and "the war is making
Americans more secure" or "even though Bush made the
mess we are morally committed to clean it up." To reclaim
courage, beyond seats in Congress, Democrats should pose an obvious
question: Who has benefited and who has lost from continued US
presence in Iraq? With courage, they would dare call "presence"
by its right name: "occupation!"
The US and its Coalition partners
have lost over 3,000 people, hundreds of billions of dollars,
enormous prestige and the faith of the world's majority. Iraqis
have lost hundreds of thousands dead and wounded and their integrity
as a nation. Over 1,000 Iraqis flee their homes each day. Revenge
killings "are totally out of control," said UN Under-Secretary
General Jan Egeland. (Reuters, Oct. 11)
Meanwhile, the beneficiaries
of Bush's Iraq policy, Al Qaeda leaders who use the occupation
to recruit new jihadists, and Halliburton and other war contractors
who enjoy immense profits, want to "stay the course,"
which Bush promotes as a policy that hurts Al Qaeda.
Confused? Listen to Bush's
October 19 declaration in La Plume, Pennsylvania: "We should
at least be able to agree that the path to victory is not to
do precisely what the terrorists want." But despite what
Bush says, the terrorists want us to stay in Iraq! Indeed, as
he showed before he declared war on Iraq, he would say anything
to get his way. Instead of accepting responsibility for his mistakes,
he shifts blame. "If we were to follow the Democrats' prescriptions
and withdraw from Iraq, we would be fulfilling Osama bin Laden's
highest aspirations."
Bush reiterated this façade
of courage message at his October 25 press conference. "...If
we were to withdraw before the job is done, it would embolden
extremists. They would say, you know, we were right about America
in the first place, that America did not have the will necessary
to do the hard work. That's precisely what Osama bin Laden has
said, for example."
The Bushies also found others
to repeat their line. Peter Bergen, for example, asserts that
"a significant force must remain in Iraq for many yearsto destroy Al Qaeda in Iraq." Without US troops, Bush
and Bergen argue, Al Qaeda will turn Iraq into a terrorist base
much as Afghanistan did under the Taliban prior to 9/11.(NY
Times, Oct. 26)
In fact, the opposite is true
and intelligence briefers know that foreign terrorists want the
US to stay in Iraq. A report in the October 28 Telegraph
stated that "Tony Blair's claim that there is no link between
Britain's foreign policy and terrorist attacks in this country
is blown apart by a secret cabinet memo revealed today."
"Britain's military action in Iraq and Afghanistan has served
as a recruiting sergeant for Islamist terrorist groups,"
wrote Patrick Hennessy and Sean Rayment. They cite Foreign Secretary
Margaret Beckett's acknowledgement "that Britain and America
had failed, before going to war, to predict that 'there were
huge pent-up hatreds and resentments in Iraq which exploded once
Saddam Hussein was deposed.'"
This is consistent with the
April 2006 partially declassified National Intelligence Estimate.
"The Iraq conflict has become the 'cause celebre' for Jihadists,
breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world
and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement."
The NIE referred to the post-Saddam Hussein void filled by Al
Qaeda in Iraq, noting that "Al-Qa'ida, now merged with Abu
Musab al-Zarqawi's network, is exploiting the situation in Iraq
to attract new recruits and to maintain its leadership role."
Unlike bin Laden, Iraqi insurgents
don't want foreign jihadists in their country when the American
military leaves. Al Qaeda leaders, however, fear that "foreign
jihadists, who flocked to Iraq to battle the Americans, might
give up the fight and go home." (Robert Parry, Consortium
News, Oct. 27, 2006)
On June 7, 2006, a US military
unit recovered a letter at the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi's Iraqi
home. A leader in Al Qaeda's high command named "Atiyah"
advised the former commander of Al Qaeda in Iraq to continue
"your jihad in Iraq, and that you be patient and forbearing,
even in weakness, and even with fewer operations." He said
that "prolonging the war is in our interest, with God's
permission." (Combating Terrorism Center, U.S. Military
Academy, Sept. 25, 2006)
This content of the captured
letter shows how the White House both denied facts and banished
logic, traits reminiscent of the start of the Iraq war as well.
Bush's own intelligence team indicated that a US departure would
deprive Al Qaeda of its raison d'etre in Iraq.Those Iraqis
who oppose US occupation-an unclassified State Department poll
showed the majority of Iraqi youth thinking security would improve
if the U.S. left immediately -- will then deal with the "foreign
fighters."
Politicians and journalists,
however, have not dramatized the logical and factual lapses just
as they failed to decipher--at least in public -- the overt pre-war
messages coming from Baghdad.
On September 21, 2002, Saddam
Hussein announced he would permit the return to Iraq of the UN
Weapons inspection team. US intelligence should have informed
the White House that this move indicated strongly that Saddam
did not have the deadly weapons that Bush and Cheney had repeatedly
claimed. By allowing the inspectors' return, Saddam in effect
told the world--especially his neighbors, Iran, Israel, Syria
and Turkey -- that he had no WMD. Indeed, the inspectors, the
world's most sophisticated forensic experts with the newest detecting
technology and access to secret places and top scientists, would
surely have discovered them had they existed.
Saddam was announcing his weakness
to Bush, almost guaranteeing that should Bush order the invasion
of Iraq, US troops would not get nuked, gassed or infected with
germs. After the March 2003 US invasion, inspecting teams discovered
no hidden weapons. The media and Congress said, "Gee, how
about that!"
Political logic has continued
to elude the media and the dominant factions of the political
class; or else they would have to answer for their irresponsibility
in enabling Bush to have his war.
Who besides Al Qaeda and war
contractors maintain interests in keeping Iraq volatile? Iranian
leaders know that the Iraq conflict could spill across the border.
The rulers of Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria also fear an explosive
Iraq. But the massive US military presence vitiates their ability
to help resolve the violence in Iraq.
Bush has used democracy, fear
and guilt rhetoric to obfuscate his blatant "stay the course"
(of failure) policy. "A defeat there [in Iraq] would dispirit
people throughout the Middle East who wonder whether America
is genuine in our commitment to moderation and democracy."
(Oct. 25)
Interestingly, political leaders
and media have not dramatized the contradiction between democracy
and US occupation.The failure to recognize Bush's illogical
word play coincides with a more gruesome lapse: the non-recognition
that institutionalized torture and democracy are incompatible.
On October 17, Bush signed the Military Commissions Act of 2006
into law, which permits the CIA to continue rendering terrorism
suspects abroad for torture and restricts their ability to challenge
their incarceration.
It therefore follows that the
US-backed Iraqis would also practice such methods. In September
2006, Manfred Nowak, a UN special investigator on torture, called
torture in Iraq by terrorists groups, police, the military and
militias "totally out of hand."
Bush has ignored such reports
and repeatedly declared that Iraqis are better off than under
Saddam. Not really, says Novak. "The situation is so bad
many people say it is worse than it has been in the times of
Saddam Hussein." (Guardian, Sept. 21)
The UNDP's 2004 Arab Human
Development Report also concluded that the occupation of Iraq
and the "dismantling of the structure of the State"
are antithetical to human development and good governance. The
war has "increased human suffering" and the "spread
of chaos in the country [has]undermined Iraqis' security and
freedom." (pp. 33-34)
Three and a half years of occupation
have meant one long blood bath. When will conscience grab legislators
and journalists (even their editors) and provoke them to scream
facts and logic at Bush and those Republicans--and many Democrats
-- who still cling to his "tough on terror" rhetoric?
No more US servicemen or women
or Iraqis needto die because of the illegal invasion
and unmerited occupation. Bold and logical patriots would get
the US troops out of Iraq now in a safe way, and thus weaken
Al Qaeda and give Iraqis a chance to reintegrate their nation.
Instead, Bush repeats cowardly distortions and the Democrats
have yet to unite on a position that exposes him by stating the
truth. "We were complicit in getting into Iraq and now we
must admit our error and get out."
Did bin Laden read Profiles
in Courage and conclude that no such profiles exist among
leading US politicians?
Saul Landau'sA Bush and Botox World will
be published by CounterPunch Press. He is a fellow of the Institute
for Policy Studies.
Farrah Hassen is a Seymour Melman fellow of the
Institute for Policy Studies. She can be reached at fhuisclos1944@aol.com
What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
A Special Investigation:
China's Mass Murder for Body Parts
CounterPunch
outlines the terrible evidence that thousands of Falun Gong members
have been killed to supply China's body parts trade with the
West. Larry Lack reviews
the evidence and explains why the US government is keeping its
mouth shut. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
