[Peace-discuss] From the Independent (UK)

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Noam Chomsky: The US says it is fighting for democracy
	-- but is deaf to the cries of the Iraqis
	They are not building a palatial embassy
	with the intention of going
	Published: 11 February 2007

There was unprecedented élite condemnation of the plans to invade Iraq. 
Sensible analysts were able to perceive that the enterprise carried 
significant risks for US interests, however conceived. Phrases thrown in 
by the official Presidential Directive from the standard boilerplate 
about freedom that accompany every action, and are close to a historical 
universal, were dismissed as meaningless by reasonable people. Global 
opposition was utterly overwhelming, and the likely costs to the US were 
apparent, though the catastrophe created by the invasion went far beyond 
anyone's worst expectations. It's amusing to watch the lying as the 
strongest supporters of the war try to deny what they very clearly said.

On the US motives for staying in Iraq, I can only repeat what I've been 
saying for years. A sovereign Iraq, partially democratic, could well be 
a disaster for US planners. With a Shia majority, it is likely to 
continue improving relations with Iran. There is a Shia population right 
across the border in Saudi Arabia, bitterly oppressed by the US-backed 
tyranny. Any step towards sovereignty in Iraq encourages activism there 
for human rights and a degree of autonomy - and that happens to be where 
most of Saudi oil is.

Sovereignty in Iraq might well lead to a loose Shia alliance controlling 
most of the world's petroleum resources and independent of the US, 
undermining a primary goal of US foreign policy since it became the 
world-dominant power after the Second World War. Worse yet, though the 
US can intimidate Europe, it cannot intimidate China, which blithely 
goes its own way, even in Saudi Arabia, the jewel in the crown - the 
primary reason why China is considered a leading threat. An independent 
energy bloc in the Gulf area is likely to link up with the China-based 
Asian Energy Security Grid and Shanghai Cooperation Council, with Russia 
(which has its own huge resources) as an integral part, and with the 
Central Asian states (already members), possibly India. Iran is already 
associated with them, and a Shia-dominated bloc in the Arab states might 
well go along. All of that would be a nightmare for US planners and 
their Western allies.

There are, then, very powerful reasons why the US and UK are likely to 
try in every possible way to maintain effective control over Iraq. The 
US is not constructing a palatial embassy, by far the largest in the 
world and virtually a separate city within Baghdad, and pouring money 
into military bases, with the intention of leaving Iraq to Iraqis. All 
of this is quite separate from the expectations that matters can be 
arranged so that US corporations profit from the vast riches of Iraq.

These topics, though high on the agenda of planners, are not within the 
realm of discussion, as can easily be determined. That is only to be 
expected. These considerations violate the fundamental doctrine that 
state power has noble objectives, and while it may make terrible 
blunders, it can have no crass motives and is not influenced by domestic 
concentrations of private power. Any questioning of these Higher Truths 
is either ignored or bitterly denounced, also for good reasons: allowing 
them to be discussed could undermine power and privilege.

There is another issue: even the most dedicated scholar/advocates of 
"democracy promotion" recognise that there is a "strong line of 
continuity" in US efforts to promote democracy going back as far as you 
like and reaching the present: democracy is supported if and only if it 
conforms to strategic and economic objectives. For example, supporting 
the brutal punishment of people who committed the crime of voting "the 
wrong way" in a free election, as in Palestine right now, with pretexts 
that would inspire ridicule in a free society. As for democracy in the 
US, élite opinion has generally considered it a dangerous threat which 
must be resisted. But some Iraqis agreed with Bush's mission to bring 
democracy to the world: 1 per cent in a poll in Baghdad just as the 
noble vision was declared in Washington.

On withdrawal proposals from élite circles, however, I think one should 
be cautious. Some may be so deeply indoctrinated that they cannot allow 
themselves to think about the reasons for the invasion or the insistence 
on maintaining the occupation, in one or another form. Others may have 
in mind more effective techniques of control by redeploying US military 
forces in bases in Iraq and in the region, making sure to control 
logistics and support for client forces in Iraq, air power in the style 
of the destruction of much of Indochina after the business community 
turned against the war, and so on.

As to the consequences of a US withdrawal, we are entitled to have our 
personal judgements, all of them as uninformed and dubious as those of 
US intelligence. But they do not matter. What matters is what Iraqis 
think. Or rather, that is what should matter, and we learn a lot about 
the character and moral level of the reigning intellectual culture from 
the fact that the question of what the victims want barely even arises.

The Baker-Hamilton report dismisses partition proposals, even the more 
limited proposals for a high level of independence within a loosely 
federal structure. Though it's not really our business, or our right to 
decide, their scepticism is probably warranted. Neighbouring countries 
would be very hostile to an independent Kurdistan, which is landlocked, 
and Turkey might even invade, which would also threaten the 
long-standing and critical US-Turkey-Israel alliance. Kurds strongly 
favour independence, but appear to regard it as not feasible - for now, 
at least. The Sunni states might invade to protect the Sunni areas, 
which lack resources. The Shia region might improve ties with Iran. It 
could set off a regional war. My own view is that federal arrangements 
make good sense, not only in Iraq. But these do not seem realistic 
prospects for the near-term future.

US policy should be that of all aggressors: (1) pay reparations; (2) 
attend to the will of the victims; (3) hold the guilty parties 
accountable, in accord with the Nuremberg principles, the UN Charter, 
and other international instruments. A more practical proposal is to 
work to change the domestic society and culture substantially enough so 
that what should be done can at least become a topic for discussion. 
That is a large task, not only on this issue, though I think élite 
opposition is far more ferocious than that of the general public.

Adapted from an interview for Z Net with Michael Albert, published 
tomorrow in 'The Drawbridge'. Noam Chomsky's latest book is 'Failed 
States' (Hamish Hamilton, June 2006; Penguin Books, March 2007)