Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘War-on-Terror’ Category

May God watch over Eli Israel; and if we cannot summon God, then let us watch over him ourselves.

The US.-led invasion into Iraq and the occupation that continues to ensue in its wake constitute international crimes of war. This truth is widely known and accepted, supporting evidence abounds, and counterarguments have steadily diminished in strength; there is nothing left of meaningful, emotion-neutral dialogue

…and still the cannons blaze.

It is for want of willful action on the part of the people, not for insufficient knowledge or awareness, that the prominent decision makers responsible for this horrible conflict are still able to enjoy their privileges and prestige without fear of reprisal for the evil they have committed and the suffering they have caused. Innocent blood saturates the sands of the Middle East, replenished daily as every yesterdays’ victims fade into the searing heat, and survivors of the lost can be confident they’ll be soon to follow. This uninterrupted cycle of violence and injustice is enabled by the masses who suppress their sympathy and refuse their intervention, those who instead mouth empty platitudes of patriotism and allegiance to a war-loving god. There may be no hope in these masses.

The hope for justice, for the return to peace, rests solely in the potential and the willingness of men and women to act, to resist the repugnant but seductive leadership practices, and the cultural norms they seed, of a government that openly detests and deters foreign states’ right to self-determination and self-governance on their own terms.

We are fortunate, as citizens of a free democracy, to have such an opportunity for action; I am fortunate to write the things I write without fear for my own personal safety. I need fear nothing but the frustration that accompanies the exercise of free speech unmet by a forum of concerned citizens.

But not all are so lucky. Eli Israel, a soldier currently deployed in Iraq with the Kentucky National Guard, has discontinued his involvement in a conflict he believes is illegal and unjustified. This is the sort of precedent that can reestablish a global order of peace, recover global norms of nonintervention upon which stability is based, and at long last restore honor to the American identity. But without support, it cannot do any of these things. The precedent will wither and die if not taken up collectively and sustained by the people, by us.

People of comfort, such as ourselves, can do much to protect those brave few who have the strength and courage to boldly act on the front lines. Opportunities to act on the popular but abstract adage “Support our Troops” have never been clearer.

“Please rally whoever you can, call whoever you can, bring as much attention to this as you can. I have no doubt that the military will bury me and hide the whole situation if they can. I’m in big trouble. I’m in the middle of Iraq, surrounded by people who are not on my side. Please help me. Please contact whoever you can, and tell them who I am, so I don’t ‘disappear’”– Eli Israel

Post written by Daniel Black

Read Full Post »

This spring break (in the snow), I discovered Mosaic. This Peabody Award winnig show is only available on LinkTV or via a free video podcast; its relative anonymity, however, should not detract astute news consumers. Mosaic presents a collage of video clips from various Middle Eastern news sources and offers a Middle Eastern viewpoint on world events. Mosaic also publishes a weekly intelligence report. The document, itself a collection of opinion pieces and news stories relating to the Middle East, is available free of charge and by email subscription on the show’s website.

Since American media systematically excludes the opinions of Middle Easterners, Mosaic offers Americans a rare glimpse into regional Middle Eastern politics and an opportunity to witness the effects of American foreign policy on Middle Easterners. Relying on alternative news sources, the intelligence report and the TV show broaden the spectrum of news sources and opinion. This week’s edition of the intelligence report, for instance, included a story about a new University of Maryland/Zogby International 2006 Annual Arab Public Opinion Survey which found that most Middle Easterners “do not see Iran as a major threat to the region.”

When asked to identify two countries that pose the biggest threat to them, 85 percent of respondents said Israel and 72 percent said the United States. In contrast, only 11 percent identified Iran. Furthermore, a majority of respondents were supportive of Iran’s nuclear program, even though more than half also believe that Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. According to the survey, 61 percent believe that Iran has a right to a nuclear program, with only 24 percent agreeing that Tehran should be pressured to stop it.

Interestingly, two-thirds of those surveyed in the UAE and just over half in Saudi Arabia agree that Iran has a right to a nuclear program, despite the issue’s sensitivity among Gulf Arab monarchies. While broadly approving of Iran’s nuclear program, just over half — 51 percent — of those surveyed believe Iran has ambitions to achieve weapons capability, with only 27 percent believing that Iran is intent on using its program for civilian purposes.Of the world leaders admired most by respondents, Hezbollah’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, was first, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad came in third, despite the fact both are Shia Muslims and the latter is not Arab. French President Jacques Chirac and Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez came in second and fourth respectively.

Conversely, U.S. President George W. Bush, former and current Israeli Prime Ministers Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, and U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair were identified as the four most disliked world leaders. Respondents also view Hezbollah more favorably since the July-August 2006 war against Israel. More than two-thirds — or 68 percent — of those surveyed said they had a more positive attitude toward Hezbollah after last year’s war; including 58 percent and 50 percent respectively in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

As much as the dire situation in Iraq, and to a lesser extent the political standoff in Lebanon, have opened up fissures between Arab Sunnis and Shias across the region, the University of Maryland/Zogby International poll shows that fundamental attitudes towards the role of the United States in the region are overwhelmingly negative. Furthermore, Sunni Arab regimes’ fears of an Iranian ascendancy are not shared by those they rule.

“The public of the Arab world is not looking at the important issues through the Sunni-Shiite divide,” Shibley Telhami, a scholar at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy who conducted the poll, told Inter Press Service. “They see them rather through the lens of Israeli-Palestinian issues and anger with U.S. policy. Most Sunni Arabs take the side of the Shiites on the important issues.”Indeed the Bush administration has a job ahead of it to win over hearts and minds in the region. Nearly 80 percent of those surveyed stated they had unfavorable attitudes — 57 very unfavorable and 21 percent unfavorable — towards the United States. More than two-thirds of those surveyed, or 70 percent, said their attitudes towards America were based on U.S. policy, while only 11 percent said they was based on American values.

Despite the fact that Middle East democracy promotion forms the core of the Bush administration’s rhetoric, 65 percent of those surveyed said they did not believe democracy is a real U.S. objective in the region. In fact when asked what they considered to be motivating U.S. policy in the Middle East, “controlling oil” (83 percent), “protecting Israel” (75 percent), “weakening the Muslim world” (69 percent), and “desire to dominate the region” (68 percent) were identified as extremely important factors.

When asked what steps the United States could take to improve its regional standing, 62 percent identified brokering an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal based on 1967 borders. A significant minority of respondents identified withdrawal from Iraq (33 percent), and withdrawal of U.S. forces from the Arabian Peninsula (22 percent) as well. More than half (52 percent) ranked U.S. policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict as “extremely important.” When asked to identify their biggest concern about the consequences of the Iraq War, just under half (49 percent) feared that Iraq may be divided, 42 percent feared Iraq remaining a destabilizing factor for the region, while 42 percent cited a continued U.S. dominance of the country as their biggest concern. Only 15 percent highlighted Iran becoming a more powerful state as a major concern. Prior to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration expected that cultivating a Shiite-led pro-Western democracy in Baghdad would weaken Iran’s theocratic republic and erode Hezbollah’s influence. A new and powerful Iraqi ally would also enable the United States to ease its strategic dependence on Saudi Arabia, an ally which became less trusted after 9/11, the administration’s thinking went.

But Iran has been able to exercise influence in Iraq and Iraq’s Shiites have cooperated with the United States on their own terms, dashing hopes of politically overhauling the Middle East through empowering Shiites. Last year’s Israel-Hezbollah war compelled the Bush administration to reverse this position and return to seeking an alliance with pro-Western Sunni regimes in an effort to contain Iran. While this latest strategy brings the Bush administration closer to the political leadership of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, the Sunni Arab populace in these countries does not see things the same way as their leaders.

In fact the Maryland/Zogby poll reveals that skepticism of the United States’ role in the region, resentment at lack of progress on the Israeli-Palestinian front, and affinity for regional figures who are seen to be standing up to America and/or Israel are still widespread. And despite the sectarian conflict in Iraq and simmering tensions in Lebanon, Iran is not seen as the bogeyman of the region. Perhaps the Islamic Republic is more popular in the broader Middle East than it is within its own borders.

America’s policy in the Middle East cannot ignore Arab history, perception and opinion. If we wish to reduce the threat of ‘terrorism’ or Islamic religious extremism, we must pursue a symbtiotic relationship; American policy cannot undermine the needs and desires of Middle Easterners—such an approach generates resistance and terrorism. If we want to reduce so-called anti-Americanism then we must secede, in some respects, to the demands of the region. We must pull out of Iraq, abandon our blind support for Israeli policy towards the Palestinians (not the state of Israel), allow Iraqis to control their own natural resources, and negotiate with the regional powers.

Our current policy (to extend American hegemony and influence across the Middle East and allow American corporations to control the region’s natural resources) undermines Middle Eastern sovereignty and democracy. In crafting a new approach, we must consider the needs and viewpoints of Middle Easterners– and that’s what Mosaic is all about.

Read Full Post »

George Will’s latest column, A Lack of Courage in Their Convictions, argues that Democratic criticism of the war in Iraq is disingenuous and politically opportunist. “Indiscriminate criticism of President George W. Bush is an infectious disease that may prove crippling to congressional Democrats.” The Democrats refuse to cut off funding for the Iraq war; instead, they condemn the surge rhetorically in a non-binding resolution. “They lack the will to exercise their clearly constitutional power to defund the war. And they lack the power to achieve that end by usurping the commander in chief’s powers to conduct a war.”

I agree with George. Democrats should defund the war and bring home the troops. It’s what the Iraqis want and it’s what we want. But then, Will’s logic takes a turn for the absurd. While urging the Democrats to act on their convictions, Will writes “They can spend this year fecklessly and cynically enacting restrictions that do not restrict. Or they can legislate decisive failure of the Iraq operation — withdrawal — thereby acquiring conspicuous complicity in a defeat that might be inevitable anyway.”

If Democratic support for withdrawal demonstrates “conspicuous complicity in a defeat” George Bush’s policy has made such defeat “inevitable.” But I disagree with the premise. A resolute push for withdrawal (enforced by restricting funding) is the only strategy for saving American lives and resources; to refute American Iraqi policy is to save America from a deeper commitment.

To compare criticism to an “infectious disease” is not just demonstrative of Will’s contempt for democracy but it’s also an indication of his stark partisanship: the Democrats should cut off funding to a policy which will inevitably fail, but if they do, they will take part in a “conspicuous complicity” for failure. Will is urging the Democrats to legislate their convictions; should they do so, however, George Will will criticize them for taking his advise.

— Igor Volsky

Read Full Post »

Most Americans consider the argument that the Bush administration invaded Iraq to control its oil and exert influence over the greater Middle East conspiratorial; but in Iraq, “in one of the first studies of Iraqi public opinion after the US-led invasion of March 2003, the polling firm Gallup asked Iraqis their thoughts on the Bush administration’s motives for going to war. One percent of Iraqis said they believed the motive was to establish democracy. Slightly more – five percent – said to assist the Iraqi people. But far in the lead was the answer that got 43 percent – “to rob Iraq’s oil.”

Here at Writings by the Hudson we’ve syndicated Democracy Now! stories about America’s attempts to gain control over the second largest oil reserves in the world. On today’s program, Raed Jarrar, Iraq Project Director for Global Exchange and Antonia Juhasz, author of “The Bush Agenda: Invading the World One Economy at a Time” discussed a draft copy of a proposed Iraqi oil law which gives American (or other foreign) corporations a great deal of control over Iraq’s most profitable natural resource. Here are the basics:

The proposed legislation legalizes long term contracts between foreign companies and the Iraqi National Oil Company and will allow vast profits to leave the country.

The law establishes the Federal Oil and Gas Council. The Council will include representitives from the Iraqi National Oil Company as well as representatives from foreign oil companies like ExxonMobil, Shell and BP. This board will be responsible for approving Iraqi oil contracts but will treat Iraq’s national company as “just another oil company among lots of other companies, including US oil companies. And this council, the new oil and gas council, is going to be the decision making body to determine what kind of contract the Iraqis can sign.”

The law allows regional provinces to sign oil contracts, without the approval of the federal government (which could only veto a contract). This provision “may open the doors for splitting Iraq into three regions or even maybe three states in the very near future.”

The new foreign-controlled council is the product of the Baker-Hamilton Commission (in fact, this may be the only recommendation the Bush administration adopted). But most Americans will never hear of it; the mainstream media will never report it. The Iraqis, on the other hand, given their history, will most certainly resent the intrusion. Greater violence and instability may ensue but the Bush administration will be able to convince Americans that the insurgency is trying to stifle Iraqi democracy. Maybe he will choke on the irony, maybe not. Either way, he’ll be willing to spill more blood for oil.

— Igor Volsky

Read Full Post »

Sir Francis Bacon’s immortal words, though centuries old, have enjoyed a revival in our culture these recent years. “Silence,” asserts Bacon, “is the virtue of fools.” Although I invite everyone to contribute their thoughts and ideas on the subject, I worry they’ll be dissuaded from doing so by our current government, a government that is encouraging other Americans to join the distinguished group that Bacon describes. Silence, though not yet a public mandate, is clawing its way into the minds of the mainstream, attempting even to affect our children.

Two examples of stifled thought and word, which both occurred this past week, shall suffice. If you think the following words of a serviceman deployed to Guantanamo Prison Facility, “Yeah, this one detainee, you know, really pissed me off, irritated me. So I just, you know, punched him in the face,” would lead to disciplinary action, you are correct. The speaker, however, (the man who undoubtedly is “gathering intelligence” and contributing to the “noble calling of our time”) is not the object of such action; the individual who repeated them is, instead. Sgt Cerveny, a legal aide who spent a week in Guantanamo, repeated these words to investigators and subsequently made herself a target. The investigation was discarded by a superior officer of hers, who called the entire process “oppressive”, but the ordeal is thought-provoking nevertheless. Attempted repression of free speech is alarming even in cases where it does not succeed; the criminality (in constitutional terms) of this behavior is not diminished by the incompetence with which it is executed. I don’t think that anyone could have predicted the remarkable ineptitude with which our political leaders fight our wars, but their crimes are crimes whether committed in fashions sloppy or slick.

Another assault on first amendment rights reached into a public school classroom just before the weekend. On the other side of the Hudson River, a class of fourth graders has been stripped of their right to speak out against “the war.” These kids have written a song appealing to the public conscience to, among other things, be respectful and responsible, end the violence and save humanity, and, ultimately, to “end the war”, but the song was pulled from the program; these children cannot perform the song they wrote together because it is “to political”. Although which war “the war” specifically refers to is never overtly specified in the song’s lyrics, it is the belief of the Goshen PTO that preserving some individuals’ willful ignorance of world affairs supersedes the rights of these children to creatively express themselves and voice their values as a class. A triumph for democracy, I suppose, is known to nations other than ours. Although Francis Bacon’s words might have sounded a bit general or abstract when he expressed them, there’s certainly no mistaking their meaning today.

– – Daniel Black

Read Full Post »

You can flush that New York Times apology for publishing White House propaganda in the lead up to war with Iraq “without the slightest questioning, investigation, or presentation of ample counter-evidence” right down the toilet. Tomorrow’s Times will feature an article by Michael R. Gordon, the reporter who together with Judith Miller is responsible for authoring the must dubious reports on Iraq. This piece, available online tonight, is titled Deadliest Bomb in Iraq Made by Iran, U.S. Says. In the words of the NYT apology, Gordon’s article, which claims that “the most lethal weapon directed against American troops in Iraq is an explosive-packed cylinder that United States intelligence asserts is being supplied by Iran,” is “insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged.”

Since its release the piece has been scrutinized by liberal bloggers Juan Cole, ThinkProgress and others. Cole disputes Gordon’s central allegation (attributed to an unnamed military source) that close to 25 percent of American deaths in the last three months were caused by explosives being smuggled in from Shiite Iran to Shiites in Iraq.

This claim is one hundred percent wrong. Because 25 percent of US troops were not killed fighting Shiites in those three months. Day after day, the casualty reports specify al-Anbar Province or Diyala or Salahuddin or Babil, or Baghdad districts such as al-Dura, Ghaziliyah, Amiriyah, etc.–and the enemy fighting is clearly Sunni Arab guerrillas. And, Iran is not giving high tech weapons to Baathists and Salafi Shiite-killers.

[…]

The attempt to blame these US deaths on Iran is in my view a black psy-ops operation. The claim is framed as though this was a matter of direct Iranian government transfer to the deadliest guerrillas. In fact, the most fractious Shiites are the ones who hate Iran the most. If 25 percent of US troops are being killed and wounded by explosively formed projectiles, then someone should look into who is giving those EFPs to Sunni Arab guerrillas. It isn’t Iran.

Finally, it is obvious that if Iran did not exist, US troops would still be being blown up in large numbers. Sunni guerrillas in al-Anbar and West Baghdad are responsible for most of the deaths. The Bush administration’s talent for blaming everyone but itself for its own screw-ups is on clear display here.

Do newspaper sales increase in times of war? Do some of the Times’ corporate sponsors benefit? Is the corporate media filled with lazy reporters unaccustomed to the shoe-leather of investigative reporting? Is the corporate media structure an echo chamber of government propaganda? The questions mount as frustration builds.

— Igor Volsky

Read Full Post »

A quick note on this Iraq resolution business. First, I think that the entire effort is pointless. The Democrats are demanding debate on a non-binding resolution noting their displeasure with the President’s unpopular escalation strategy. All the while, they are denying the Republicans the right to inroduce their own amendments, the very same right the Democrats themselves demanded while in the minority.

The Democrats should grow a backbone, cut off funding for the escalation, and begin the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. The Democrats should also live up to their campaign promise (to lead the most ethical, democratic congress in history, blah, blah, blah) and allow for open debate on Iraq.

In the lead up to war, most of these lawmakers ignored dissent to support the 2002 resolution for war. Our country has been stifled by ‘group think.’ The Democrats should bring our troops home and restore democracy to Congress; they owe us that much.

— Igor Volsky

Read Full Post »

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. In the wake of COINTELPRO, the surveillance of peace activists and other government dissidents has become part of a long tradition of eliminating, by whip if necessary, those elements of the population which cannot be controlled or subdued though more typical channels. America’s history of “communist” suppression should give pause to any such efforts. Yet the Patriot Act and other similar efforts have reinvigorated programs of domestic thought control.

A majority of Americans now support ending the war in Iraq. Our government has spearheaded a program designed to infiltrate the very groups that advocate on our behalf; because we don’t agree with this administration’s conquer and destroy foreign-policy, we’re being watched.

SAN FRANCISCO – At least 186 antiwar protests in the United States have been monitored by the Pentagon’s domestic surveillance program, according to documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which also found that the Defense Department collected more than 2,800 reports involving Americans in a single anti-terrorism database.

The documents were obtained by the ACLU through a Freedom of Information Act request filed last February.

“It cannot be an accident or coincidence that nearly 200 antiwar protests ended up in a Pentagon threat database,” Ann Beeson, associate legal director of the ACLU, said in a statement. “This unchecked surveillance is part of a broad pattern of the Bush administration using ‘national security’ as an excuse to run roughshod over the privacy and free speech rights of Americans.”

The internal Defense Department documents show it is monitoring the activities of a wide swath of peace groups, including Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Code Pink, the American Friends Service Committee, the War Resisters League, and the umbrella group United for Peace and Justice, which is spearheading what organizers hope will be a massive march on Washington this Saturday.

“This might have a chilling effect on some groups,” United for Peace and Justice’s Leslie Cagan told OneWorld, “particularly among high-risk communities like immigrants who don’t have their papers yet and U.S. citizens or people with green cards who are of Muslim or South Asian or Middle Eastern descent. They’ve already been targeted by the government and they might feel like, with this, it’s just too dangerous to come out and protest.”

— Igor Volsky

Read Full Post »

President Bush’s references to Iran and Hezbollah in Tuesday’s State of the Union address could be harbingers of an impending military invasion or attack. To readers familiar with the President’s drumbeat to war with Iraq, these pronouncements are even more worrisome. While most lawmakers insist that the President must ask for Congressional authorization before taking military action, this administration’s ability to manipulate intelligence and events, and ideological commitment to extending American influence throughout the region suggest that an attack may be imminent. (Recent military deployments have also raised red flags).

In announcing the escalation of troops in Iraq, the President promised to “seek out and destroy” Iranian networks that he said were providing “advanced weaponry and training to our enemies.” Yesterday, the President suggested that Iran is behind much of the violence in Iraq.

“In Afghanistan, Taliban and al Qaeda fighters tried to regain power by regrouping and engaging Afghan and NATO forces. In Iraq, al Qaeda and other Sunni extremists blew up one of the most sacred places in Shia Islam — the Golden Mosque of Samarra. This atrocity, directed at a Muslim house of prayer, was designed to provoke retaliation from Iraqi Shia — and it succeeded. Radical Shia elements, some of whom receive support from Iran, formed death squads. The result was a tragic escalation of sectarian rage and reprisal that continues to this day. “

Such rhetoric certainly radicalizes Muslims in Iran and the greater Muslim world and shores up support for the current Iranian regime. But, the Los Angeles Times is reporting that evidence of a connection between Iran and the Iraqi violence is flimsy at best.

For all the aggressive rhetoric, however, the Bush administration has provided scant evidence to support these claims. Nor have reporters traveling with U.S. troops seen extensive signs of Iranian involvement. During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered. British officials have similarly accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs, but say they have not found Iranian-made weapons in areas they patrol.

The lack of publicly disclosed evidence has led to questions about whether the administration is overstating its case. Some suggest Bush and his aides are pointing to Iran to deflect blame for U.S. setbacks in Iraq. Others suggest they are laying the foundation for a military strike against Iran.

Before invading Iraq, the administration warned repeatedly that Saddam Hussein was developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Those statements proved wrong. The administration’s charges about Iran sound uncomfortably familiar to some. “To be quite honest, I’m a little concerned that it’s Iraq again,” Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said last week, referring to the administration’s comments on Iran.

Now, ThinkProgress is reporting that the “Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002.” Their commitment to global hegemony is certainly impressive, but extending America’s influence over the Middle East subjugates Muslims, radicalizes religious extremists and increases America’s vulnerability.

Two things are certain (1) this President is intent on using military force to extend America’s influence over a commercially profitable and resource-rich region (2) he will ignore the moral, democratic, and homeland security implications of doing so.

Are these not high crimes or misdemeanors?

— Igor Volsky

Read Full Post »

Needless to say, the Baker-Hamilton report proved anti-climactic.

While it refused to establish a timeline for troop withdrawal, Baker-Hamilton rebuffed the President on several counts. ‘Stay the course’ is no longer a viable option. Recent violence is the result of sectarian strife, not Al Qaeda, as the President recently claimed. The Administration should engage Iran and Syria in a constructive dialogue, despite Iran’s nuclear intentions, begin to move combat troops out of Iraq by early 2008, and increase the number of military personnel supporting Iraqi units. Given this administration’s recent efforts to distance itself from the commission’s most controversial recommendations and downplay their significance, it is unclear whether the President will implement any changes. Still, even if this report fails to produce a major policy shift (this President can be stubborn), it has handed the Democrats a rhetorical victory. (The President can no longer refer to his critics as proponents of a cut-and-run strategy).

Rising sectarian violence in Iraq (which has created an unstable business environment for U.S. and foreign investors) has legitimized, at least in the eyes of the media, discussion over policy modifications. The Commission’s report proved anti-climactic precisely because their criticisms have been echoed by Democrats and progressive war critics as early as 2004. The Commission’s perceived bipartisanship legitimizes their arguments. But even this is dubious. The group was appointed by Congress and its members lack any experience in the Middle East. If anything, they serve as a political cover for Republicans, who are reluctant to take their marching orders from the opposition.

Their proposals leave much to be desired. Without setting a timetable for withdrawal, recognizing that our presence in Iraq is fueling the insurgency and inspiring global jihadists to take up arms against the United States, the commission’s recommendations legitimize a smaller long-term American presence (which, as I noted earlier, is a business friendly solution). From what I could see of the media coverage, the report makes no reference to America’s defiance of international law in the lead up to the invasion, her war crimes against Iraqi civilians in Fallujah and elsewhere or the opinions of most Iraqis (who wish to see American troops leave Iraq).

By all accounts this is a save-face measure: a means for this administration to shift from an idealistic neoconservative policy–which advocated building up Iraqi oil capability, withdrawing the country from OPEC, privatizing Iraqi industry and establishing a laissez faire liberal economic system to allow for maximum foreign profit and investment (all this cushioned in the language of freedom and democracy)– to a more practical reality-based approach focused on quelling the violence and establishing an American-friendly outpost.

Now we’ll have to wait and see if this President is willing to make that transition.

— Igor Volsky

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »