[Peace-discuss] Bill Blum's report

[Morton K. Brussel]

Bill Blum is someone whom we could get as a speaker here. He states  
things clearly and has an independent approach to the issues of the  
day. For information on him consult the WP article

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/20/ 
AR2006012001971_2.html



ZNet | Activism

Would Jesus get out of Iraq?

by William Blum; November 26, 2006
The good news is that the Republicans lost.The bad news is that the  
Democrats won. The burning issue -- US withdrawal from Iraq --  
remains as far from resolution as before.

A clear majority of Americans are opposed to the war and almost all  
of them would be very happy if the US military began the process of  
leaving Iraq tomorrow, if not today. The rest of the world would  
breathe a great sigh of relief and their long-running love affair  
with the storybook place called "America" could begin to come back to  
life.

A State Department poll conducted in Iraq this past summer dealt with  
the population's attitude toward the American occupation. Apart from  
the Kurds -- who assisted the US military before, during, and after  
the invasion and occupation, and don't think of themselves as Iraqis  
-- most people favored an immediate withdrawal, ranging from 56% to  
80% depending on the area.

The State Department report added that majorities in all regions  
except Kurdish areas said that the departure of coalition forces  
would make them feel safer and decrease violence.[1]

George W. is on record declaring that if the people of Iraq ask the  
United States to leave, the US will leave. He also has declared that  
the Iraqis are "not happy they're occupied. I wouldn't be happy if I  
were occupied either."[2]

Yet, despite all this, and much more, the United States remains, with  
predictions from Pentagon officials that American forces will be in  
Iraq for years. Large US military bases are being constructed there;  
they're not designed as temporary structures. Remember that 61 years  
after the end of World War II the United States still has major bases  
in Germany. Fifty-three years after the end of the Korean War the US  
has tens of thousands of troops in South Korea.

Washington insists that it can't leave Iraq until it has completed  
training and arming a police force and army which will keep order.  
Not only does this inject thousands more armed men -- often while in  
uniform -- into the raging daily atrocities, it implies that the  
United States is concerned about the welfare and happiness of the  
Iraqi people, a proposition rendered bizarre by almost four years of  
inflicting upon those same people a thousand and one varieties of  
hell on earth, literally destroying their ancient and modern  
civilization. We are being asked to believe that the American  
military resists leaving because some terrible thing will befall  
their beloved Iraqi brethren. ("We bomb you because we care about  
you" ... suitable to be inscribed on the side of a cruise missile.)    
Even as I write this, on November 14, I read: "An overnight US raid  
killed six people in mainly-Shia east Baghdad, sparking angry anti-US  
protests. Thirty died in a US raid on the Sunni stronghold of Ramadi,  
Iraqi officials said."[3]

At the same time, the American occupation fuels hostility by the  
Sunnis toward Shiite "collaborators" with the occupation, and vice- 
versa. And each attack of course calls for retaliation.  And the  
bodies pile up.  If the Americans left, both sides could negotiate  
and participate in the reconstruction of Iraq without fear of being  
branded traitors. The Iraqi government would lose its quisling  
stigma. And Iraq's security forces would no longer have the handicap  
of being seen to be working on behalf of foreign infidels against  
fellow Iraqis.

So why don't the Yanquis just go home? Is all this not rather odd?  
Three thousand of their own dead, tens of thousands critically  
maimed. And still they stay. Why, they absolutely refuse to even  
offer a timetable for withdrawal. No exit plan. No nothing.

No, it's not odd. It's oil.

Oil was not the only motivation for the American invasion and  
occupation, but the other goals have already been achieved --  
eliminating Saddam Hussein for Israel's sake, canceling the Iraqi use  
of the euro in place of the dollar for oil transactions, expansion of  
the empire in the middle east with new bases.

American oil companies have been busy under the occupation, and even  
before the US invasion, preparing for a major exploitation of Iraq's  
huge oil reserves. Chevron, ExxonMobil and others are all set to go.  
Four years of preparation are coming to a head now. Iraq's new  
national petroleum law -- written in a place called Washington, DC --  
is about to be implemented. It will establish agreements with foreign  
oil companies, privatizing much of Iraq's oil reserves under  
exceedingly lucrative terms. Security will be the only problem,  
protecting the oil companies' investments in a lawless country. For  
that they need the American military close by.[4]


What a mad raving dinosaur am I!

Democratic Party leaders think that the election validates their  
pursuing a centrist path. Arnold Schwarzenegger credits his re- 
election as California governor to his moving to the center (or at  
least pretending to do so). They and their colleagues would have us  
all believe that the American people have resolutely moved to the  
center, abandoning the "extremes". But is that really so? I maintain  
that most Americans are liberal, and many even further left. I think  
that this would be revealed if the public was asked questions along  
the following lines?

Would you like to have a government-run health care system, which put  
an end to the for-profit health care corporations and hospitals, and  
which covered all residents for all ailments at very affordable  
premiums?

Do you think that when corporations are faced with a choice between  
optimizing their revenue and doing what's best for the environment  
and public health, that they should always choose in favor of the  
environment?

Do you think that abortion is a question best left up to a woman and  
her doctor?

Do you think that the United States should officially be a totally  
secular nation or one based on religious beliefs?

Do you think that big corporations and their political action  
committees exercise too much political power?

Do you think that corporate executive salaries are highly excessive?

Do you think that the tax cuts for the super rich instituted by the  
Bush administration should be cancelled and their taxes then increased?

Do you think that the minimum wage should be increased to what is  
called a "living wage", which would be at least $10 per hour?

Do you think that all education, including medical school and law  
school, should be free, subsidized by the government?

Do you think that the government should take all measures necessary  
to guarantee that corporations have retirement plans for all workers  
and that the retirement funds are safeguarded?

Do you think that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was a mistake?

Do you think that United States support of Israel is excessive?

Do you approve of the treatment of people captured by the United  
States as part of its so-called War on Terror -- the complete loss of  
legal and human rights, and subjected to torture?

For those readers who think that I'm presuming too much about  
Americans' disenchantment with their economic system, I suggest they  
have a look at my essay: "The United States invades, bombs, and kills  
for it, but do Americans really believe in free enterprise?"[5]

And for those readers who wonder where all the money would come from  
to pay for the education, medical care, etc., keep in mind that one  
year of the US military budget -- that's one year -- is equal to more  
than $30,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.


The Great Decider

Earlier this month the US State Department dropped Vietnam from its  
blacklist of nations that it judges to be serious violators of  
religious freedom. This occurred just days before a visit to Vietnam  
by President Bush. The Department denied any connection between the  
two events. However, to quote George Bernard Shaw: "Not bloody likely."

In removing Vietnam from the list, the State Department was ignoring  
the US government's own Commission on International Religious  
Freedom, a congressionally mandated advisory body, which had called  
for Vietnam to be kept on the list. The Commission also called for  
Pakistan and Turkmenistan to be added. This, too, was ignored by the  
White House.[6]

Foreign policy considerations routinely play a decisive role in  
determining who's included and who's not on various State Department  
lists. This is no small matter, for inclusion on one of the lists can  
lead to economic and other sanctions. It's thus another weapon  
Washington has available to bend the world to its will.

In addition to the report on religious freedom, the State Department  
self-righteously issues annual reports which rate the countries of  
the world on human rights, the war on drugs, trafficking in persons,  
and the war on terrorism, as well as maintaining a list of  
"terrorist" groups. The Department has placed Venezuela in the worst  
category on the trafficking-in-persons list, stating that "Venezuela  
is a source, transit, and destination country for women and children  
trafficked for the purposes of sexual exploitation and forced labor"  
and that "The Government of Venezuela does not fully comply with the  
minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not  
making significant efforts to do so."[7]

It's all rather arbitrary and most of what the State Department  
report says about Venezuela could be said as well about the United  
States and other developed countries. In Washington, DC, for many  
years, there have regularly been cases of foreign diplomats  
"enslaving" and sexually abusing young women whom they brought with  
them from abroad to work in their home. This keeps happening again  
and again and there does not appear to be a clear and tough policy of  
the State Department to make sure it doesn't happen again. The  
stories are reported each time a young woman, after years of  
"slavery" in a Washington suburb, escapes. "Slavery" is indeed the  
term used by the legal authorities.

Categorizing Venezuelan thusly is as arbitrary as including Cuba on  
the list of state supporters of terrorism because a few American  
Black Panthers hijacked planes to Cuba 25 or 30 years ago, and a  
Basque activist lives in Cuba, which Spain has no problem with, but  
which the US wants to make political capital of.


Caution: extremist statement ahead. (You may never see this in print  
again, so clip and save)

France is on the verge of approving legislation which makes it a  
crime to deny the Turkish genocide of Armenians at the time of the  
First World War.

Denying the German Holocaust of Jews is a crime in Germany, Belgium,  
the Czech Republic, France, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland,  
Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Switzerland, and Israel.

In the United States it's not a crime to deny the American holocaust,  
although this particular historical phenomenon encompasses Vietnam,  
Laos, Cambodia, North Korea, Guatemala, El Salvador, Grenada,  
Indonesia, Iraq, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Greece, East Timor, Angola,  
Nicaragua, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yugoslavia, Colombia, and several  
other countries upon whom Washington has bestowed its precious gifts  
of freedom and democracy.

But how long before the neo-Cons and the neo-Dems of America put  
their heads together and make it a crime to affirm the American  
holocaust? Politicians and media people carry around ten-foot poles  
to not touch this with.


The case that is still not closed

I have closely followed and often written about the case of PanAm  
Flight 103, blown out of the sky by a terrorist bomb over Lockerbie,  
Scotland in 1988, taking the lives of 270 people. For well over a  
year afterward, the US and the UK insisted that Iran, Syria, and a  
Palestinian group had been behind the bombing, until the buildup to  
the Gulf War came along in 1990 and the support of Iran and Syria was  
desired for the operation. Suddenly, in October 1990, the US declared  
that it was Libya -- the Arab state least supportive of the US build- 
up to the Gulf War and the sanctions imposed against Iraq -- that was  
behind the bombing after all.

Eventually, in 2001, a Libyan, Abdelbaset al Megrahi, was sentenced  
to life in prison for the crime, although his Libyan co-defendant,  
charged with the same crime and with the same evidence, was  
acquitted. The trial was the proverbial travesty of justice, which  
I've discussed in detail elsewhere. ("I am absolutely astounded,  
astonished," said the Scottish law professor who was the architect of  
the trial. "I was extremely reluctant to believe that any Scottish  
judge would convict anyone, even a Libyan, on the basis of such  
evidence.")[8] The prosecution's star witness, Libyan defector Abdul  
Majid Giaka, groomed and presented by the CIA, was a thoroughly  
dubious character who didn't know much or have access to much, and  
who pretended to be otherwise just to get more CIA payments. And the  
CIA knew it. The Agency refused to fully declassify documents about  
him, using their standard excuse -- that it would reveal confidential  
sources and methods. It turned out they were reluctant because the  
documents showed that the CIA thought him unreliable.

Then, in 2005, we learned that a key piece of evidence linking Libya  
to the crime had been planted by the CIA.[9]  Just like in movie  
thrillers. Just like in conspiracy theories.

For anyone still in doubt about the farcical nature of the trial, now  
comes along Michael Scharf, an attorney who worked on the 103 case at  
the State Department and was the counsel to the counter-terrorism  
bureau when the two Libyans were indicted for the bombing. In the  
past year he trained judges and prosecutors in Iraq in the case that  
led to the conviction and death sentence of Saddam Hussein. Scharf  
recently stated that the Panam case "was largely based on this inside  
guy [Giaka]. It wasn't until the trial that I learned this guy was a  
nut-job and that the CIA had absolutely no confidence in him and that  
they knew he was a liar. It was a case that was so full of holes it  
was like Swiss cheese." He says that the case had a "diplomatic  
rather than a purely legal goal".[10]

Victor Ostrovsky, formerly with the Israeli intelligence service,  
Mossad, has written of Mossad what one could just as correctly say of  
the CIA: "This feeling that you can do anything you want to whomever  
you want for as long as you want because you have the power."[11]

So, let's hope that Abdelbaset al Megrahi is really guilty. It would  
be a terrible shame if he spends the rest of his life in prison  
simply because back in 1990 Washington's hegemonic plans for the  
Middle East needed a convenient scapegoat, which just happened to be  
his country. However, the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission  
is to report in the coming months on whether it believes there was a  
miscarriage of justice in the case.

And by the way, my usual reminder, Libya has never confessed to  
having carried out the act. They've only taken "responsibility", in  
the hope of getting various sanctions against them lifted.


NOTES

[1] Washington Post, September 27, 2006, p.22, article plus chart;  
also August 4, 2006, p.10 for Iraqis' desire for US to leave.
[2] Washington Post, April 14, 2004
[3] BBC, November 14, 2006
[4] Antonia Juhasz, "The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy  
at a Time", chapter 6;
Greg Muttitt, "Oil Pressure", Foreign Policy In Focus, August 28,  
2006, www.fpif.org;
Joshua Holland, "Bush's Petro-Cartel Almost Has Iraq's Oil",  
AlterNet, October 16, 2006, www.alternet.org/story/43045
[5] http://members.aol.com/superogue/system.htm
[6] Agence France Presse, Nov 13, 2006
[7] State Department report on Trafficking in persons, from the  
Department's website, accessed November 21, 2006
[8] http://members.aol.com/bblum6/panam.htm
[9] The Herald (Glasgow), August 19, 2005; Scotland on Sunday  
(Glasgow) August 28, 2005
[10] Sunday Herald (Glasgow), November 12, 2006
[11] Victor Ostrovsky and Claire Hoy, "By Way of Deception" (1990), p. 
335


William Blum is the author of:
Killing Hope: US Military and CIA Interventions Since World War 2
Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower
West-Bloc Dissident: A Cold War Memoir
Freeing the World to Death: Essays on the American Empire
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20061128/cf4e6959/attachment.htm