[Peace-discuss] Fwd: Steele / Don't Be Fooled By The Spin On Iraq / Apr 17

[Morton K.Brussel]

In case you have been lulled. --mkb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: ZNet Commentaries <sysop at zmag.org>
> Date: April 16, 2005 11:30:21 PM CDT
> To: brussel at uiuc.edu
> Subject: Steele / Don't Be Fooled By The Spin On Iraq / Apr 17
>

> ZNet Commentary
> Don't Be Fooled By The Spin On Iraq April 17, 2005
> By Jonathan  Steele
>
> UK - Wednesday April 13, 2005 - The Guardian - Saddam Hussein's effigy 
> was pulled down again in Baghdad's Firdos Square at the weekend. But 
> unlike the made-for-TV event when US troops first entered the Iraqi 
> capital, the toppling of Saddam on the occupation's second anniversary 
> was different.
>
> Instead of being done by US marines with a few dozen Iraqi bystanders, 
> 300,000 Iraqis were on hand. They threw down effigies of Bush and 
> Blair as well as the old dictator, at a rally that did not celebrate 
> liberation but called for the immediate departure of foreign troops.
>
> For most Iraqis, with the exception of the Kurds, Washington's 
> "liberation" never was. Wounded national pride was greater than relief 
> at Saddam's departure. Iraqis were soon angered by the failure to get 
> power and water supplies repaired, the brutality of US army tactics, 
> and the disappearance of their country's precious oil revenues into 
> inadequately supervised accounts, or handed to foreigners under 
> contracts that produced no benefits for Iraqis.
>
>> From last autumn's disastrous attack on Falluja to the huge increase 
>> in detention without trial, the casualties go on rising. After an 
>> amnesty last summer, the numbers of "security detainees" have gone up 
>> again and reached a record 17,000.
>
> The weekend's vast protest shows that opposition is still growing, in 
> spite of US and British government claims to have Iraqis' best 
> interests at heart. It was the biggest demonstration since foreign 
> troops invaded.
>
> Equally significantly, the marchers were mainly Shias, who poured in 
> from the impoverished eastern suburb known as Sadr City. The 
> Bush-Blair spin likes to suggest that protest is confined to Sunnis, 
> with the nod and wink that these people are disgruntled former Saddam 
> supporters or fundamentalists linked to al-Qaida, who therefore need 
> not be treated as legitimate. The fact that the march was largely Shia 
> and against Saddam as much as Bush and Blair gives the lie to that.
>
> Some Sunnis attended the march, urged to go there by the Association 
> of Muslim Scholars, which has contacts with the armed resistance. This 
> too was an important sign. Occupation officials consistently talk up 
> the danger of civil war, usually as an argument for keeping troops in 
> Iraq. It is a risk that radicals in both communities take seriously.
>
> Moqtada al-Sadr, the Shia cleric who organised the latest march, 
> recently joined forces with the National Foundation Congress, a group 
> of Sunni and Shia nationalists, to affirm "the legitimate right of the 
> Iraqi resistance to defend their country and its destiny" while 
> "rejecting terrorism aimed at innocent Iraqis, institutions, public 
> buildings and places of worship".
>
> The key issue, now as it has been since 2003, is for the occupation to 
> end quickly. Only this will reduce the resistance and give Iraqis a 
> chance to live normally. In a new line of spin - which some 
> commentators have taken to mean that the US is preparing for a pullout 
> - US commanders claim the rate of insurgent attacks is down.
>
> The figures are not independently monitored. Even if true, they may be 
> temporary. Thirdly, they fly in the face of evidence that suggests the 
> US is failing. Most of western Iraq is out of US control. The city of 
> Mosul could explode at any moment. Ramadi is practically a no-go area.
>
> In any case, the US is only talking of a possible reduction of a third 
> of its troops next year. This will still leave 100,000. The US argues 
> that a complete withdrawal has to be "conditions-related, not 
> calendar-related" or, as Blair puts it, there can be no "artificial 
> timetable". By that, they mean Iraq's security forces have to be 
> strong enough to replace the Americans and British, a totally elastic 
> marker.
>
> That is surely the message that Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence 
> secretary, is giving this week on his ninth trip to Baghdad since 
> April 2003. Whenever there is an alleged transfer of power to Iraqis, 
> this time to a "government" elected in a flawed poll, Rumsfeld comes 
> with instructions.
>
> His public warning is for Iraq's leaders not to make any changes in 
> the army and interior ministries, or postpone the writing of a 
> constitution. Behind the scenes, he is probably telling them not to 
> ask for a withdrawal timetable, and sounding them out on the opposite. 
> The US has indicated that it wants permanent bases in Iraq, just as it 
> does in Afghanistan - which is why the joint Sadr-National Foundation 
> Congress statement says the government "will have no right to ratify 
> any agreement or treaty that might affect Iraq's sovereignty, the 
> unity of its territory and the preservation of its resources".
>
> Poland has just announced it is pulling out of Iraq at the end of the 
> year, just as Spain did last year. Italy is wavering on the verge of a 
> similar decision. If Blair wants to regain the trust he lost before 
> the Iraq war, his best approach would be to announce the same by May 
> 5. He would help Iraqis as well as himself.
>
>
>
>
Mort
Phone 217 337-0118
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 5608 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050417/71f63c82/attachment-0001.bin