The invasion of Iraq:
A road map for the "new" Middle East


Dr. Majed Nassar, Deputy Director, Health Work Committees
Nassar Ibrahim, Alternative Information Center
25 March 2003

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal Government.

Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, 17 January 1961

"What kind of peace do we seek? Not a 'Pax Americana' enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of a slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children—not merely peace for Americans, but peace for all men and women; not merely peace in our time, but peace for all time." (John F. Kennedy, 1963)

******************************

On 20 March 2003, the United States and Britain launched a war against Iraq, with the help of a dubious “coalition” of various and sundry war partners. Even before the beginning of this war, disagreements within the international community overshadowed the usual and well-known attempts at diplomacy. Despite clear opposition from the international community at the United Nations, as well as innumerable protests from peoples and governments around the world, the US plowed ahead with its illegal and illegitimate war as Britain dutifully tagged along.

This war is different in a number of ways:

1.Through the wonders of media technology, the war is being waged right in our living rooms as TV screens bring minute-to-minute news and images of the battlefield. War has become a daily reality for everyone.
2.A certain “objectivity” in reporting is available due to the multiplicity and variety of media stations. (Except in the United States where only Fox News and CNN are reporting in a censored form)
3.False information is rapidly and easily revealed.( except in the United States)
4.In contrast to the first Gulf War, there is not even a semblance of international consensus on the justification for or the implementation of this war.
5.The US clearly underestimated the Iraqi people and their army, and made a gross miscalculation regarding their inevitable revolt against their government
6.The belief that Iraqi government officials would flee into exile or surrender is yet another US miscalculation.

US and British officials repeatedly told us the war would be swift, clean, decisive, and fruitful. So far, we’ve seen that it’s slow, foul, confused, and ultimately fruitless.


Ignorance, Lies, and Sins of Omission

After the first 17 days of this “brief” war, we were told frankly by US Defense Minister Donald Rumsfeld that he doesn't really know how long it will last. He doesn't know how much it will cost. He doesn't know the number of Iraqi prisoners or casualties. He doesn’t know why friendly fire killed more than 36 US marines and British soldiers and injured dozens of others. He doesn't know why 23 US soldiers have already died in accidents. He doesn't know why a US F-16 shot a Patriot battery. He doesn't know why the captain of an Apache helicopter intentionally shot a British soldier. He doesn't know where the sandstorms came from. He doesn't know why his soldiers raised the US flag over Um Qasr, only to take it down shortly afterwards. He doesn't know why a small town like Um Qasr can resist the US and British armies for 6 days. He doesn't know why so much contradictory information is given to the US public.

One day he declares that the entire Iraqi 51st tank division, with 8,000 soldiers, had surrendered. A short time later we hear from General Franks that the number of soldiers who had surrendered is only between one and two thousand. And yet soon after, we see with our own eyes the commander of the 51st tank division in top form inside Basra waiting for the showdown with US and British troops. It seems that the main characteristics of this war are deceit and misinformation. While the people of Iraq are being attacked by some of the most sophisticated weaponry in the world, we are being bombarded with lies!

Rumsfeld lied when he said that Iraq burned the oil fields. The British lied when they announced they captured a high-ranking Iraqi officer, though they later admitted the lie. They lied when they said the Iraqi people would welcome the "liberating" army with flowers. They lied when they said their "liberating" army would bring "happiness" to the Iraqi people. They lied when they claimed they brought fresh water to the people in south Iraq. In fact, they did bring fresh water, but not for the Iraqi people. They brought it for their own forces who had destroyed the water systems and reservoirs in Basra. They lied when they said they would bring 200 tons of food for the Iraqi people (after having bombed a food store of 75,000 tons). They lied when they said that they would not target civilians and basic infrastructure. Simple neighborhoods with no evidence of military installations are being attacked every day, leaving thousands of casualties – neighborhoods like Mansour, Shu'la, Sha'ab, Amin, and Karradeh. A bus traveling to Syria and a car carrying seven children were bombed. Four ships packed with food and medicine for Iraq were prevented from docking in Um Qasr harbor. This is the “liberation” of the US and British armies. This is “protection” for civilians. We hear that small towns have “surrendered,” yet at the same time, on another TV station, we hear that fighting inside those same small towns is still going on, and in fact, no town has surrendered yet.

US and British media declare that there is an uprising in Basra. Another lie. Then we’re told that Rumsfeld believes the people of Basra should NOT revolt because he fears for their safety!

Then come the sins of omission…. It seems that Rumsfeld “forgot” to inform us that the Shi'a in southern Iraq have openly professed their allegiance to the Iraqi government and their refusal to cooperate with the colonialists. He forgot to mention that 150,000 Iraqis left Jordan for Iraq to defend Baghdad. He forgot to tell us that the Iraqi Government distributed weapons to 7 million Iraqis to help them resist the invaders. He forgot to tell us that it was a farmer who shot down the Apache helicopter. (Admittedly, it was a coincidence, but in Iraq, who cares for such minor details?) He forgot to relate the story of the 20 US paratroopers who, after landing somewhere in northern Iraq, were attacked and forced to withdraw by 4,000 farmers. He forgot to mention that until now, no Iraqis have willingly left their homes and towns. He forgot to tell us that they have stated clearly their intention to stay in their homes and their rejection of US army “protection.” He forgot to tell us that this is the reason that hundreds of tents erected at the Jordanian border are empty.

Mr. Rumsfeld neglected to explain why five Syrian civilians were bombed to death in a bus while going back to Syria or why seven women and children were shot in a civilian car. He neglected to explain why over 600 persons (clearly not all were soldiers) were killed in the last assault on Karbala. He conveniently forgot to tell us that, confronted with massive popular support for the Iraqi regime, the US army will “have to” kill hundreds of thousands of civilians – the very same civilians that the US allegedly came to save! He neglects to tell us that the reason for cutting off the water and electricity supply to 1.8 million people in Basra was to force them to revolt against their government.

Lies and omissions are part and parcel of this war, it seems. Without the diverse media coverage, we may even be tempted to believe the lies. US and British officials were offended by Iraqi TV’s airing of prisoners and dead soldiers. They are not offended, however, to see Iraqi prisoners on their TV screens. Will we soon hear that US and British media (along with Kuwaiti TV perhaps?) have a broadcasting monopoly?

The United States believed it had recovered from the Vietnam War after the Gulf War of 1991. Now, it seems that Iraq’s recovery from the Gulf War of 1991 has precipitated a new outbreak of “Vietnam complex” in the United States. Meanwhile, Bush remains ignorant as usual and indulges in repetitive rhetoric, boring us to the bones with all his clichés.

Asked why the war is not going as smoothly as he envisioned, Mr. Rumsfeld defended his cowardly self by saying: "It’s not me! It’s General Franks who made the military plans!”

**********************************

Why this war on Iraq?

The US couldn't prove that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. The United Nation’s inspectors couldn’t find any evidence for any nuclear weapons, nor any bacteriological or poisonous gas. Even the invading US and British army declared that they have not found any evidence for weapons of mass destruction.
While Iraq tried to avoid the war cooperating with the United Nations, the United States didn’t get tired of finding excuses to launch the war. First it was the weapons of mass destruction. When these were not found, a connection to Ben Laden and international terrorism was invented. When this connection proved wrong, a regime change became necessary. When this proved to be not so simple, freedom for the Iraqi people was put forward. But,
We all know about the rich oil fields and the strategic geographic location of Iraq. But do we understand what Iraq represents in terms of progressive thought, culture, history and Arab nationalism? Iraq in deed did not abide by the conditions of US globalization and worked against US hegemonic plans. Iraq made a clear difference among its neighbors and established itself as a progressive, modern, secular and ambitious state, despite the style of the regime in Baghdad, in particular when we compare with all those backwards feudal but US friendly regimes surrounding Iraq. Universities, advanced science, schools, hospitals, books, social security and a relatively high standard of living characterized the social life in Iraq. In addition Iraq provided jobs, before the embargo, for more than one million Egyptian workers and others worth more than all US aid given to Egypt. Tens of thousands of students from the Arab World were able to study in Iraq completely free of charge. In deed, Iraq grew as an economic and political power in the region. According to US administration this model of independence had to end.
It is clearly not the weapons of mass destruction because Iraq has none. It is also not the dictatorial style of the regime in Baghdad. There are awfully plenty of them in the world especially among US friends. It is the defiance of Iraq to US conditions that were seen by the US administration, as a permanent threat for US ambitions in the region. The war on Iraq is meant to be a clear message, not only for Iraq but also for all those who might dare oppose US terms of globalization: We, the US, are enforcing the Pax Americana!


Another vital dimension to the war

But what we may not know or understand is how Iraq fits into the broader picture of the US (and Israeli) plan for the Middle East. We may not understand why the Iraqi people truly believe and are utterly convinced that the US Zionist lobby and Israel are another driving force behind the aim to destroy Iraq.
Patrick Seale described the aims of the war as follows: “Since 1991:to affirm America’s global supremacy in a strategically vital, oil-rich part of the world, and to protect Israel’s regional supremacy and its monopoly of weapons of mass destruction”. (In 1985 Israel destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor before it was finished).

All this may become clearer as we study a report published by the US-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies in 1996. The report was prepared by the “Study Group on a New Israeli Strategy Toward 2000,” long before the events of September 11, 2001. Some of the authors of the report are presently senior advisors in the Bush Administration. Among the authors are Richard Perle (who recently resigned his position for ambiguous reasons), Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser. The report, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” has some interesting points to ponder:


·The Israeli Government under Netanyahu is advised to back away from the concept of "comprehensive peace" with its neighbors and move toward a "peace for peace" formula.
·Israel is advised to work closely with Turkey and Jordan “to contain, destabilize, and roll-back some of its most dangerous threats.”
·Israel is advised “to change the nature of its relation with the Palestinians, including the ‘right of hot pursuit’ for self defense into all Palestinian areas and nurturing alternatives to Arafat...”
·A new approach to peace is presented, in which the land for peace formula, which "placed Israel in the position of cultural, economic, political, diplomatic, and military retreat," should be changed into “‘peace for peace,’” ‘peace through strength’ and self reliance: the balance of power.”
·“We have for four years pursued peace based on a New Middle East. We in Israel cannot play innocents abroad in a world that is not innocent. Peace depends on the character and behavior of our foes. We live in a dangerous neighborhood, with fragile states and bitter rivalries. Displaying moral ambivalence between the effort to build a Jewish state and the desire to annihilate it by trading "land for peace" will not secure “peace now.” Our claim to the land…is legitimate and noble. It is not within our own power, no matter how much we concede, to make peace unilaterally. Only the unconditional acceptance by Arabs of our rights, especially in their territorial dimension, “peace for peace” is a solid basis for the future."
·The northern border has to be secured by engaging Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran as the “principal agents of aggression in Lebanon” by “establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces.” If striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon “should prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper” is an acceptable tactic. Israel should take every opportunity to "remind the world of the nature of the Syrian regime."
·“Negotiations with repressive regimes like Syria require cautious realism. One cannot sensibly assume the other side's good faith. It is dangerous for Israel to deal naïvely with a regime murderous of its own people, openly aggressive toward its neighbors, criminally involved with international drug traffickers and counterfeiters, and supportive of the most deadly terrorist organizations. Given the nature of the regime in Damascus, it is both natural and moral that Israel abandon the slogan ‘comprehensive peace’ and move to contain Syria, drawing attention to its weapons of mass destruction program...”
·“Israel can shape its strategic environment in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan by weakening and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq (italics ours) - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right…
·“Jordan has challenged Syria's regional ambitions recently by suggesting the restoration of the Hashemites in Iraq.”
·“Israel has an interest supporting diplomatically, militarily and operationally Turkey's and Jordan’s actions against Syria, such as securing tribal alliances with Arab tribes that cross into Syrian territory and are hostile to the Syrian ruling elite.”
·“Were the Hashemites to control Iraq, they could use their influence over Najaf to help Israel wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hizbollah, Iran, and Syria.”


****************************

Originally, the US and British vision for the success of the war depended on three premises; one of them or all three together would have led to the successful outcome of a swift and decisive war:
First, the people would rise up against the regime
Second, the army would engage in its own revolt against the regime
Third, the Iraqi Government would collapse due to fear and embarrassment.

Based on these three premises, Mr. Rumsfeld and his generals predicted that the war would be brief. Not six days, of course, but maybe six weeks. But definitely not six months.

The first 17 days are over and there is no end in sight. On the contrary, the US has even resorted to sending in “reinforcements” of an additional 120,000 US troops. The media war is as brutal as the war itself and preliminary reports indicate that the US and Britain are losing. Peter Arnett, the former CNN reporter during the first Gulf War in 1991, has been fired from his job at NBC and at National Geographic because he dared to say that the first stage of this war has been a fiasco for the coalition forces. Censorship is evident all over the news in the United States as only Fox News and CNN are “allowed” to broadcast.


The Iraqi Government, as well as its army, has proven so far to be professional, disciplined, and effective. Their display of courage on the battlefield has surprised all the analysts. How else can we explain that a small town like Um Qasr is able to resist for six days? How else can we explain that a small city like Nasiriya and other Iraqi towns continue their brave resistance?

In view of this new and unexpected reality, and facing the increasing worldwide protests against the war, especially in the Arab World, George Bush, Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Colin Powell have deemed the time is right to introduce the “Road Map” as a possible solution for the Middle East conflict. Jack Straw confesses guilt over double standards and Powell promises to go ahead with the Road Map "as soon as possible." (How soon we may never know!) Once again the Palestine Question has been pushed into the core of the day’s events, even though it was used as an escape hatch by Britain and the US.

****************************

The Iraqi people love Iraq. Their passion for their country is greater than their hatred for Saddam Hussein. And their hatred for the US Government and its inhumane embargo that caused the death of hundreds of thousands, and destroyed their infrastructure, causing poverty, illness, and death, and forced a prosperous country with a relatively high standard of living to beg for its own money from the United Nations, is infinitely greater than their hatred for Saddam Hussein's regime. The people of Iraq sincerely believe that the US Government is the cause of their misery. And the Iraqi people truly believe that the United States and Britain are the new colonialists and occupiers, driven by the US Zionist lobby and Israel. They give examples of how the Russian people hated Stalin but they stood beside him and fought with him against Hitler.

The United States, facing the unity and the determination of the Iraqi people to defend their homeland and independence against the invaders, just may end up bombing and killing all those whom they have come allegedly to liberate.

The pictures of US and British soldiers lining up Iraqi people against the wall, binding their hands behind their backs, blindfolding them or hooding them and humiliating them, in addition to the pictures of the blown away civilians and the destroyed markets and homes remind the world, the Arab World and the Palestinians in particular, of the similarity between the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the new US/British occupation of Iraq.

The pictures of the destruction and bombardment of Iraqi cities, people and culture will remain for years to come a clear mark of disgrace in the history of the United States and England. The resistance of the Iraqi people proves that they do not want, nor desire, nor cherish nor love the “freedom for Iraq” ala United States/England or Israel. In addition, as the economic vultures are already roaming over the corpses of Iraq dividing and playing “catch as catch can”, the Iraqis have no reason at all to believe the good will of the occupation and the words of Mr. Bush. (Most probably, after he leaves office, he will be heading a petroleum company, that will be digging in Iraq.) The Iraqi people know for sure and out of history that, the Iraqi oil, Mr. Bush came allegedly to save will be shamelessly used to the benefit of the multi corporations.

The battle in Iraq might be won by the US and British army because of their clear military supremacy, but the war in Iraq is far away from being over. The Iraqi spirit of resistance, which proved itself on the ground in the last 17 days, surprised all political and military analysts who were predicting a quick surrender. The battle of Baghdad will play a decisive role. The United States is now bombarding Baghdad and all other Iraqi cities with tons of bombs and thousands of rockets hoping that by killing thousands of civilians, the resistance movement will cease to exist. (See Canadian TV report: Red Cross horrified by number of dead civilians 4.4.2003)

The outcome of this war is not certain by any means. Whoever believes that a happy Hollywood ending is in store for this new American blockbuster is sorely mistaken.