[Peace-discuss] Sinister Events in a Cynical War

[C. G. Estabrook]

[We spoke two weeks ago at the meeting of the possibility of
"false flag" operations by the US/UK/Israel in Iraq.  The
recent "Basra Incident" may have been meant to be such a
thing.  Here's an account -- naturally, not from the 
American media.  --CGE]

  September 28, 2005
  Sinister Events in a Cynical War
  by John Pilger

Here are questions that are not being asked about the latest
twist of a cynical war. Were explosives and a remote-control
detonator found in the car of the two SAS special forces men
"rescued" from prison in Basra on Sept. 19? If true, what were
they planning to do with them? Why did the British military
authorities in Iraq put out an unbelievable version of the
circumstances that led up to armored vehicles smashing down
the wall of a prison?

According to the head of Basra's Governing Council, which has
cooperated with the British, five civilians were killed by
British soldiers. A judge says nine. How much is an Iraqi life
worth? Is there to be no honest accounting in Britain for this
sinister event, or do we simply accept Defense Secretary John
Reid's customary arrogance? "Iraqi law is very clear," he
said. "British personnel are immune from [the] Iraqi legal
process." He omitted to say that this fake immunity was
invented by Iraq's occupiers.

Watching "embedded" journalists in Iraq and London, attempting
to protect the British line was like watching a satire of the
whole atrocity in Iraq. First, there was feigned shock that
the Iraqi regime's "writ" did not run outside its American
fortifications in Baghdad and that the "British-trained"
police in Basra might be "infiltrated." An outraged Jeremy
Paxman wanted to know how two of our boys – in fact, highly
suspicious foreigners dressed as Arabs and carrying a small
armory – could possibly be arrested by police in a
"democratic" society. "Aren't they supposed to be on our
side?" he demanded.

Although reported initially by the Times and the Mail, all
mention of the explosives allegedly found in the SAS men's
unmarked Cressida vanished from the news. Instead, the story
was the danger the men faced if they were handed over to the
militia run by the "radical" cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. "Radical"
is a gratuitous embedded term; al-Sadr has actually cooperated
with the British. What did he have to say about the "rescue"?
Quite a lot, none of which was reported in this country. His
spokesman, Sheik Hassan al-Zarqani, said the SAS men,
disguised as al-Sadr's followers, were planning an attack on
Basra ahead of an important religious festival. "When the
police tried to stop them," he said, "[they] opened fire on
the police and passersby. After a car chase, they were
arrested. What our police found in the car was very disturbing
– weapons, explosives, and a remote-control detonator. These
are the weapons of terrorists."

The episode illuminates the most enduring lie of the
Anglo-American adventure. This says the "coalition" is not to
blame for the bloodbath in Iraq – which it is, overwhelmingly
– and that foreign terrorists orchestrated by al-Qaeda are the
real culprits. The conductor of the orchestra, goes this line,
is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. The demonry of
al-Zarqawi is central to the Pentagon's "Strategic Information
Program" set up to shape news coverage of the occupation. It
has been the Americans' single unqualified success. Turn on
any news in the U.S. and Britain, and the embedded reporter
standing inside an American (or British) fortress will repeat
unsubstantiated claims about al-Zarqawi.

Two impressions are the result: that Iraqis' right to resist
an illegal invasion – a right enshrined in international law –
has been usurped and delegitimized by callous foreign
terrorists, and that a civil war is under way between the
Shi'ites and the Sunni. A member of the Iraqi National
Assembly, Fatah al-Sheik, said this week, "There is a huge
campaign for the agents of the foreign occupiers to enter and
plant hatred between the sons of the Iraqi people and spread
rumors in order to scare the one from the other. … The
occupiers are trying to start religious incitement, and if it
does not happen, then they will start an internal Shi'ite
incitement."

The Anglo-American goal of "federalism" for Iraq is part of an
imperial strategy of provoking divisions in a country where
traditionally the communities have overlapped, even
intermarried. The Osama-like promotion of al-Zarqawi is
integral to this. Like the Scarlet Pimpernel, he is everywhere
but nowhere. When the Americans crushed the city of Fallujah
last year, the justification for their atrocious behavior was
"getting those guys loyal to al-Zarqawi." But the city's civil
and religious authorities denied he was ever there or had
anything to do with the resistance.

"He is simply an invention," said the Imam of Baghdad's
al-Kazimeya mosque. "Al-Zarqawi was killed in the beginning of
the war in the Kurdish north. His family even held a ceremony
after his death." Whether or not this is true, al-Zarqawi's
"foreign invasion" serves as Bush's and Blair's last veil for
their "war on terror" and botched attempt to control the
world's second biggest source of oil.

On Sept. 23, the Center for Strategic and International
Studies in Washington, an establishment body, published a
report that accused the U.S. of "feeding the myth" of foreign
fighters in Iraq, who account for less than 10 percent of a
resistance estimated at 30,000. Of the eight comprehensive
studies into the number of Iraqi civilians killed by the
"coalition," four put the figure at more than 100,000. Until
the British army is withdrawn from where it has no right to be
and those responsible for this monumental act of terrorism are
indicted by the International Criminal Court, Britain is shamed.

First published in the New Statesman.
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger.php?articleid=7421