Iraq is finished
Byrnzie
Posts: 21,037
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article1193108.ece
Sectarian break-up of Iraq is now inevitable, admit officials
By Patrick Cockburn in Amman
Published: 24 July 2006
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, meets Tony Blair in London today as violence in Iraq reaches a new crescendo and senior Iraqi officials say the break up of the country is inevitable.
A car bomb in a market in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad yesterday killed 34 people and wounded a further 60 and was followed by a second bomb in the same area two hours later that left a further eight dead. Another car bomb outside a court house in Kirkuk killed a further 20 and injured 70 people.
"Iraq as a political project is finished," a senior government official was quoted as saying, adding: "The parties have moved to plan B." He said that the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there is a mixed population. "There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into [Shia] east and [Sunni] west," he said.
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told The Independent in an interview, before joining Mr Maliki to fly to London and then Washington, that in theory the government should be able to solve the crisis because Shia, Kurd and Sunni were elected members of it.
But he painted a picture of a deeply divided administration in which senior Sunni members praised anti-government insurgents as "the heroic resistance".
In the past two weeks, at a time when Lebanon has dominated the international news, the sectarian civil war in central Iraq has taken a decisive turn for the worse. There have been regular tit-for-tat massacres and the death toll for July is likely to far exceed the 3,149 civilians killed in June.
Mr Maliki, who is said to be increasingly isolated, has failed to prevent the violence. Other Iraqi leaders claim he lacks experience in dealing with security, is personally very isolated without a kitchen cabinet and is highly dependent on 30-40 Americans in unofficial advisory positions around him.
"The government is all in the Green Zone like the previous one and they have left the streets to the terrorists," said Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraqi politician. He said the situation would be made worse by the war in Lebanon because it would intensify the struggle between Iran and the US being staged in Iraq. The Iraqi crisis would now receive much reduced international attention.
The switch of American and British media attention to Lebanon and away from the rapidly deteriorating situation in Baghdad is much to the political benefit of Mr Blair and Mr Bush.
"Maliki's trip to Washington is all part of the US domestic agenda to put a good face on things for November," a European diplomat in Baghdad was quoted as saying.
Ever since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a succession of Iraqi political leaders have been fêted in London and Washington where they claimed to have the insurgents on the run. Mr Maliki's meetings with Mr Blair today and Mr Bush tomorrow are likely to be lower key but will serve the same purpose before the US Congressional elections in November. US commanders are considering moving more of their troops - there are some 55,000 near the capital * into Baghdad to halt sectarian violence.
Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein has begun to receive fluids voluntarily after being taken to hospital following 17 days on a hunger strike to protest against biased court procedures and the murder of three defence lawyers.Among fellow Sunni his defiant court performances have rehabilitated his reputation, though he is still detested by Kurds and Shia.
Sectarian break-up of Iraq is now inevitable, admit officials
By Patrick Cockburn in Amman
Published: 24 July 2006
The Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, meets Tony Blair in London today as violence in Iraq reaches a new crescendo and senior Iraqi officials say the break up of the country is inevitable.
A car bomb in a market in the Shia stronghold of Sadr City in Baghdad yesterday killed 34 people and wounded a further 60 and was followed by a second bomb in the same area two hours later that left a further eight dead. Another car bomb outside a court house in Kirkuk killed a further 20 and injured 70 people.
"Iraq as a political project is finished," a senior government official was quoted as saying, adding: "The parties have moved to plan B." He said that the Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties were now looking at ways to divide Iraq between them and to decide the future of Baghdad, where there is a mixed population. "There is serious talk of Baghdad being divided into [Shia] east and [Sunni] west," he said.
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, told The Independent in an interview, before joining Mr Maliki to fly to London and then Washington, that in theory the government should be able to solve the crisis because Shia, Kurd and Sunni were elected members of it.
But he painted a picture of a deeply divided administration in which senior Sunni members praised anti-government insurgents as "the heroic resistance".
In the past two weeks, at a time when Lebanon has dominated the international news, the sectarian civil war in central Iraq has taken a decisive turn for the worse. There have been regular tit-for-tat massacres and the death toll for July is likely to far exceed the 3,149 civilians killed in June.
Mr Maliki, who is said to be increasingly isolated, has failed to prevent the violence. Other Iraqi leaders claim he lacks experience in dealing with security, is personally very isolated without a kitchen cabinet and is highly dependent on 30-40 Americans in unofficial advisory positions around him.
"The government is all in the Green Zone like the previous one and they have left the streets to the terrorists," said Mahmoud Othman, a veteran Iraqi politician. He said the situation would be made worse by the war in Lebanon because it would intensify the struggle between Iran and the US being staged in Iraq. The Iraqi crisis would now receive much reduced international attention.
The switch of American and British media attention to Lebanon and away from the rapidly deteriorating situation in Baghdad is much to the political benefit of Mr Blair and Mr Bush.
"Maliki's trip to Washington is all part of the US domestic agenda to put a good face on things for November," a European diplomat in Baghdad was quoted as saying.
Ever since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein a succession of Iraqi political leaders have been fêted in London and Washington where they claimed to have the insurgents on the run. Mr Maliki's meetings with Mr Blair today and Mr Bush tomorrow are likely to be lower key but will serve the same purpose before the US Congressional elections in November. US commanders are considering moving more of their troops - there are some 55,000 near the capital * into Baghdad to halt sectarian violence.
Meanwhile, Saddam Hussein has begun to receive fluids voluntarily after being taken to hospital following 17 days on a hunger strike to protest against biased court procedures and the murder of three defence lawyers.Among fellow Sunni his defiant court performances have rehabilitated his reputation, though he is still detested by Kurds and Shia.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
not this administration - they will ignore all this and push forward. Will we every realize this is nothing more than murder for votes?
What's next?
...
And am I the only one that thinks the Sunnis hate the Shia and vice versa... but, the both hate us more?
Hail, Hail!!!
Maybe ... Regardless of the degree of relative hatred, the result (a sectarian war after the U.S. leaves) is the same.
-Jean-Jacques Rousseau
i mean it is impossible for anyone to win a war when the objective is as clear as mud. which is it? are we preventing the sectarian violence and break up of the country or are we there to make it safer for contractors to do their business? it is obvious that things are going to get worse before they improve. if they are ever going to improve.
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
So... other than the fact that we started this shit... why are we still there? War if we stay, war if we leave... what's the difference? Those fuckers are gonna kill each other whether we are there or not.
We should have known this before we got into it... and many people had a hint of this. Except, I guess, for the ones making the call.
Hail, Hail!!!
We didn't start this shit... it was created decades ago and was exaserbated by years of Saddam's sectarian Bathist bullshit.
We just came in and took the lid off of a can of shit. Sure, the administration has fucked up royally and miss-managed the war. It's obvious they didn't do their homework.
But never-the-less, our endeavor there was and still is very noble. We are just trying to give the people the option to choose a form of government other than a theocracy or a dictatoship.
These people have some very deep-seeded pathologies and there is a lot of revenge killing and other religous fighting going on now that has nothing to do with the US.
The book is not yet closed on Iraq, it could still go either way. But bashing what America has tried to create there is certainly not the way to go.
Do you honestly believe that America is there solely for noble and altruistic purposes? Do you think that if Iraq's main export had been turnips the U.S would have still invaded?
It still could go either way? seriously? if we protected and propped up the government for 50 years (like we probably will do), it will never be a land of freedom and democracy.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Yes, I do believe that. While I realize that oil was a major factor for invading Iraq, I think it's a little short-sighted to think it was the sole reason.
I'll be the first to admit that the war was surely about something much broader than WMD's, and I also readily admit that Bush lied to our country for approval of this war.
I was so confused/upset/angry after about 3 months went by and we didn't find WMD's. It wasn't untill about a year later that I realized why we really invaded Iraq - and although Bush lied, I'm okay with it.
The Middle East needs to change pure and simple. They are breeding religous bigotry and intolerance out the ying yang. This will only serve to divide our world more in the future, and it will only lead to more bloodshed and killing in the long run.
I think the time to initiate change there is now, while America is strong and the Middle East is ripe. We needed to try and establish a democracy somewhere in the region, and Iraq was the most suitable country.
Hopefully we will not fail, and hopefully democracy will catch on with the people there. it was a huge risk, and the strategy has been riddled with mistakes and oversight. Furthermore, Bush is far from the best person to lead this effort - but we're stuck with what we've got, at least for the next few years.
Well we're all entitled to our opinion aren't we? I agree, things aren't looking too good over there. I just don't think it's a lost cause yet.
You speak of bigotry and intolerance and yet in the next sentence you speak of the need to initiate change in the region. Do you not think that your government have been just as guilty of breeding religious and racial bigotry? You must remember that even the Nazis believed that what they were doing was for the good of mankind. Politicians can justify anything to serve their purposes. The fact is yours, and my, governments lied to us. They are corrupt. And you cannot build a future on lies, corruption and murder.
I'm talking about the recent actions... the war and ensuing occupation, not the decades of support the U.S. had given Hussein to keep Iran in check.
And there isn't anything noble about scaring the American people with talk about 'Mushroom Clouds' over our homeland and changing it to 'Spreading Democracy' when that initial justification failed to materialize. I'm talking about blowing up shit and shooting up the place... we are responsible for that and we should be the ones to repair it. Once that's done... fuck 'em, we're outta there. If they want to blow up their own shit and kill each other... that's on them.
There is nothing we can do about changing their culture... that's on them. The only reason the shit didn't explode earlier was because of Hussein's iron fist tactics to keep his opponents at bay. I'm not defending Hussein, I am just telling it as it was. If they wanted Democracy so bad, they should have been the ones to initiate it and called on us to help. Who put us in charge of their lives?
And all of the Middle East is a theocracy. They ask their religious leaders who they should vote for... that's like asking your priest who you should vote for and carrying out the wishes of the church. We should be more worried about them freely electing a Mutada al Sadr-type fundamentalist as their President, than anything Hussein had done. That would be a total fiasco and make Iraq closer to Iran than America.
And if this current fighting is deep seeded tribal warfare... what can we do to stop it? Choose a side? Kill 'em all?
Yeah... the thought of a Westernized capitalistic democracy in the Middle East sounds like a great idea... but, it it realistic? I think it is only if THEY want it for themselves, not by anyone else's hand. And from what I can gather... they each want control of the place and everyone not like them needs to die.
Hail, Hail!!!
And I do agree that there has to be a change in the middle east, but I just don't think that democracy at the point of a gun or at the end of shock and awe was the way to go.
There are some smaller democracies in that region, and there was some progressive change in the region, but I think that with the damage the we did, we've totally reversed that, and the middle east is getting worse instead of improving.
Instead of encouraging and supporting democracy, we've kicked in the door, beat them up and shoved it down their throat.
As long as there is that much oil there (and that much demand in the rest of the world), there will never be much progress there... the people in power have no reason to make life better for their countries, because they are sitting on stacks of oil money.
was like a picture
of a sunny day
“We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
― Abraham Lincoln
Read this:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8709.htm
The secret Downing Street memo
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY
DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02
cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell
IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY, 2002
Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.
This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.
John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.
C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.
The two broad US options were:
(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).
(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.
The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:
(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.
(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.
(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.
The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.
The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.
On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.
For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.
The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.
John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.
The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.
Conclusions:
(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.
(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.
(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.
(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.
He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.
(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.
(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.
(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)
MATTHEW RYCROFT
(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)
See also: - June 12, 2005 Cabinet Office paper: Conditions for military action
Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.
Much agreed with everything here. Although, I do think it took military action in the region to turn some heads and get people seriously thinking about their societies and the changes that need to take place. I think a lot of bad has come from our efforts, but a lot of good has come too.
We have won many hearts and minds over there. I realize we have also lost a lot - but at the end of the day, American soldiers are still dying to give freedom a chance.
I honestly do think there is a lot we can do to change their culture. War can completely change a culture. When you pretty much kill the enemy, their ideology usually dies with them or becomes illegitimate to most of the population.
Look at WWII (Nazi's and Imperial Japan) or the Cold War( Communism). Those ideologies became extinct for the most part after those wars.
Subordinate and Non-Subordinate States
Noam Chomsky interviewed by Khatchig Mouadian
ZNet, May 8, 2006
Khatchig Mouradian- In an article entitled “Domestic Constituencies,” you say: “It is always enlightening to seek out what is omitted in propaganda campaigns.”[1] Can you expand on what is omitted in the US propaganda campaign on Lebanon and Syria after the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafic Hariri in February 2005?
Noam Chomsky- The only thing being discussed is that there was an assassination and Syria was involved in it. How come Syria is in Lebanon in the first place? Why did the US welcome Syria in Lebanon in 1976? Why did George Bush I support Syrian presence and domination and influence in Lebanon in 1991 as part of his campaign against Iraq? Why did the US support the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? Why did the US support Israel’s 22 year occupation of parts of Lebanon, an occupation in violation of Security Council resolutions? All these topics, and many others, are missing from the discussion.
In fact, the general principle is that anything that places US actions in a questionable light is omitted, with very rare exceptions. So if you blame something on an enemy, then you can discuss it, and Syria, right now is the official enemy. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the charges against Syria are wrong. It just means that everything else is omitted.
K.M. - When speaking about regimes in the Middle East, you often quote the expressions “Arab façade” and “local cop on the beat.” What is the role of Lebanon in the area?
N.C. - The phrase “Arab façade” comes from the British Foreign secretary Lord Curzon after WWI. At the time, when the British were planning the organization of the Middle East, their idea was that there should be Arab façades which are apparent governments, behind which they would rule[2]. The expression “local cop on the beat” comes from the Nixon administration. It was their conception of how the Middle East should be run. There should be a peripheral region of gendarme states (Turkey, Iran under the Shah, Israel joined after the ‘67 war, Pakistan was there for a while). These states were to be the local cops on the beat while the US would be the police headquarters.
The place of Lebanon was critical. It was primarily of concern because of the transition of oil and also because it was a financial center. The US was concerned in keeping it under control to ensure that the entire Middle East energy system remains controlled. Incidentally, for the same reasons, the US has regarded Greece as part of the Near East. Greece was actually in the Near East section of the State Department until 1974, because its main role in US planning was to be part of the system by which the Middle East oil gets transported to the west. The same is true with Italy. However, Lebanon had a much more crucial role in this respect, because it is right in the center of the Middle East. The aforementioned, as well as the support for Israel’s action- Israel being a local cop on the beat- were the motivating factors behind Eisenhower’s dispatch of military forces to Lebanon in 1958.
K.M. - And what does the US administration expect from Lebanon today?
N.C. - The role of Lebanon is to be an obedient, passive state which regains its status as a financial center but accommodates to the major US policies, which do include control of the energy resources.
K.M. – What about Lebanon’s role within the context of pressuring Syria?
N.C. - The question of Syria is a separate one. Yes, Lebanon is expected to play a role for putting pressure on Syria. However, the problem for the US is that Syria is not a subordinate state. There are a lot of serious criticisms you can make about Syria, but the internal problems of that country are of no special concern to the US, which supports much more brutal governments. The problem with Syria is that it simply does not subordinate itself to the US program in the Middle East. Syria and Iran are the two countries in the region that have not accepted US economic arrangements. And the policies against such countries are similar. Take the bombing of Serbia in 1999, for example. Why was Serbia an enemy? Certainly it wasn’t because of the atrocities it was carrying out. We know that the bombing was carried out with the expectation that it would lead to a sharp escalation in atrocities. We know the answer from the highest level of the Clinton administration, and the answer was that Serbia was not adopting the proper social and economic reforms. In fact, it was the one corner of Europe which was still rejecting the socioeconomic arrangements that the US wanted to dictate for the world. The problem with Syria and Iran is more or less the same. Why is the US planning or threatening war against Iran? Is it because Iran has been aggressive? On the contrary, Iran was the target of US backed aggression. Is Iran threatening anybody? No. Is Iran more brutal and less democratic than the rest of the Arab world? It’s a joke. The problem is that Iran is not subordinating.
K.M. - In this context, why is Europe increasingly being supportive of US policies in the Middle East?
N.C. - If you look back over the past decades, a major concern of US policy –and it’s very clear in internal planning—is that Europe might strike an independent course. During the cold war period, US was afraid Europe might follow what they called “a third way,” and many mechanisms were used to inhibit any intention on the part of Europe to follow an independent course. That goes right back to the final days of World War II and its immediate aftermath, when US and Britain intervened, in some cases quite violently, to suppress the anti-fascist resistance and restore tradition structures, including fascist-Nazi collaborators. Germany was reconstructed pretty much the same way. The unwillingness to accept a unified neutral Germany in the 1950s was predicated on the same thinking. We don’t know if that would have been possible, but Stalin did offer a unified Germany which would have democratic elections which he was sure to lose, but on condition that it would not be part of a hostile military alliance. However, the US was not willing to tolerate a unified Germany. The establishment of NATO is in large part an effort to ensure European discipline and the current attempts to expand NATO are further planning of the same sort.
European elites have been, by and large, pretty satisfied with this arrangement. They’re not very different from the dominant forces in the US. They are somewhat different, but closely interrelated. There are mutual investments and business relations. The elite sectors of Europe don’t particularly object to the US policies. You can see this very strikingly in the case of Iran. The US has sought to isolate and strangle Iran for years. It had embargos and sanctions, and it has repeatedly threatened Europe to eliminate investments in Iran. The main European corporations have pretty much agreed to that. China, on the other hand, did not. China can’t be intimidated, that’s why the US government is frightened of China. But Europe backs off and pretty much follows US will. The same is true on the Israel-Palestine front. The US strongly supports Israeli takeover of the valuable parts of the occupied territories and pretty much the elimination of the possibility of any viable Palestinian state. On paper, the Europeans disagree with that and they do join the international consensus on a two-state settlement, but they don’t do anything about it. They’re not willing to stand against the US. When the US government decided to punish the Palestinians for electing the wrong party in the last elections, Europe went along, not totally, but pretty much. By and large, European elites do not see it in their interest to confront the US. They’d rather integrate with it. The problem the US is having with China, and Asia more generally, is that they don’t automatically accept US orders.
K.M. - They don’t fall in line…
N.C. - Yes, they won’t fall in line, and, especially in the case of China, they just won’t be intimidated. That’s why, if you read the latest National Security Strategy, China is identified as the major long range threat to the US. This is not because China is going to invade or attack anyone. In fact, of all the major nuclear powers, they’re the one that is the least aggressive, but they simple refuse to be intimidated, not just in their policies regarding the Middle East, but also in Latin America. While the US is trying to isolate and undermine Venezuela, China proceeds to invest in and to import from Venezuela without regard to what the US says.
The international order is in a way rather like the mafia. The godfather has to ensure that there is discipline.
Europe quietly pursues its own economic interests as long as they don’t fall in direct conflict with the US. Even in the case of Iran, although major European corporations did pull out of country, and Europe did back down on its bargain with Tehran on uranium enrichment, nevertheless, Europe does maintain economic relations with Iran. For years, the US has also tried to prevent Europe from investing in Cuba and Europe pretty much kept away, but not entirely. The US has a mixed attitude towards European investment and resource extraction in Latin America. For one thing, the US and European corporate systems are very much interlinked. The US relies on European support in many parts of the world. For Europe to invest in Latin America and import its resources is by no means as threatening to US domination as when China does.
K.M. - In one of his recent speeches, Hasan Nasrallah, the secretary-general of Hizbullah, spoke of solidarity with the resistance movement in the occupied territories and with “our brother Chavez.” Let us speak about the common link that brings people on different sides of the Atlantic, and of different ideological background, together.
N.C. - The common thing that brings them together is that they do not subordinate themselves to US power. Hizbullah knows perfectly well that they’re not going to get help from Venezuela, but the fact that they are both following a course independently of US power and, in fact, in defiance to US orders, links them together.
The US has been trying, unsuccessfully, to topple the Cuban government for more than 45 years now and it remains. The rise of Chavez to power was very frightening to US elites. He has an enormous popular support. The level of support for the elected government in Venezuela has risen very sharply and it is now at the highest in Latin America. And Chavez is following an independent course. He’s doing a lot of things that the US doesn’t like a bit. For example, Argentina, which was driven to total ruin by following IMF orders, has slowly been reconstructing itself by rejecting IMF rules, and has wanted to pay off its debt to rid itself of the IMF. Chavez helped them, and he bought a substantial part of the Argentine debt. To rid oneself from the IMF means to rid oneself from one of the two modalities of control employed by the US: violence and economic force. Yesterday, Bolivia nationalized its gas reserves; the US is only (only??) opposed to that. And Bolivia was able to do that partly because of Venezuelan support.
If countries move in a direction of independent nationalism, that is regarded as unacceptable. Why did the US want to destroy Nasser? Was it because he was more violent and tyrannical than other leaders? The problem was that it was an independent secular nationalism. That just can’t be accepted.
K.M. - You talked about the Chavez government’s popularity at home. The polls show that the same is not true about the Bush Administration and its policies, both at home and abroad. Despite the discontent on a wide range of issues, little has changed in terms of US policy. How do you explain that?
N.C. - In a book that just came out, I talk about this at some length. The US has a growing and by now enormous democratic deficit at home; there’s an enormous divide between public opinion and public policy on a whole range of issues, from the health system to Iraq. The Bush administration has a very narrow grip on power- remember in the last election Bush got about 31 percent of the electorate, Kerry got 29 percent. A few changes in the votes in Ohio and it could have gone the other way- they’re using that narrow grip desperately to try to institutionalize very radical and far reaching changes in the US. They can get away with it because there’s no opposition party. If there were an opposition party, it would have totally overwhelmed the Bush administration. Every week, the Bush administration does something to shoot itself in the foot, whether it’s Hurricane Katrina, corruption scandals, or other issues, but the formal opposition party can’t make any gains. One of the most interesting things about US politics in the past years is that while support for the Bush administration, which was always very thin, has declined very sharply because of one catastrophe after the other, support for the Democrats hasn’t increased. It is increasing only as a reaction to the lack of support to the Republicans. This is because the Democrats are not presenting an alternative.
K.M. - You mentioned your recent book, Failed States. In the Afterword of that book, you say, “No one familiar with history should be surprised that the growing democratic deficit at home is accompanied by declaration of messianic missions to bring democracy to a suffering world.” How much are these “messianic missions” helping the Bush Administration?
N.C. - They’re helping the administration among the educated classes. I discuss this in some length in the book. The messianic missions came along right after the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The invasion was only on the ground that Iraq was just about to attack the US with nuclear weapons. Well, after a few months, they discovered that there were no weapons of mass destruction, so they had to find a new pretext for invading and that became the messianic mission. The intellectual classes, in Europe as well, and even in the Arab world, picked this up: the leader said it therefore we have to believe it.
Among the general population, however, I don’t think these messianic missions have much influence, except indirectly. This whole rhetoric is a weak effort, and in fact by now it’s pretty desperate.
Ideologies are not religious belief. The Germans and Japanese did not change their base religious beliefs. Both of those countries waged war because of economic reasons (Hitler used the 'Jewish Problem' somewhat in the same vein we are using the 'War On Terror' to justify our actions). If Muslim nations come here and destroys your property and family, will you renounce your Christian religious beliefs and convert to Islam? No. This fighting is religious in nature, not based upon economics. You can't truely believe that these deep rooted religious belief are going to change, just because you kill them. You will have to kill them all... which doesn't do them much good.
It is possible for them to share the benefits of a capitalistic economy and maintain their base religious beliefs... but, they have to come to the realization that they are all of the same religion. They have to come to that conclusion and I'm guessing that they won't take the word of, what they see as a sexually decadent, morally bankrupt, money worshipping godless country to show them the light.
Hail, Hail!!!
america has a dark future.
Another habit says its long overdue
Another habit like an unwanted friend
I'm so happy with my righteous self
I wish our foriegn policy was based upon 'Leadership By Example'. In other words, we get our shit together and show others how they can accomplish the same. Make it so they want to be more like us, not us wanting them to be like us. And let the people of other nations decide on what they want, instead of us telling them that if they do as we say, they'd be a lot happier. Who knows, maybe there are those whom only want to peacefully tend a small farm that has been in their family for centuries and has no desire for monetary wealth and cable television. Let them be.
Too much of our foriegn policy is based upon OUR economic growth and stability, not their well being. Increasing the stocks of our company does little for the people in countries whose resources we consume. We need to quit wasting our tax dollars lining the pockets of corrupt government officials who use our weapons to oppress their people. I would much rather see my tax dollars, that are earmarked for foriegn aid, to help the people of other nations, not just the leaders of other nations. I figure, if we can make friends with the people of the world, they wouldn't be cheering as commercial airliners crash into our office buildings.
I know that I'm just a fucking 'Tree-huggin' peacenik' idealist to some... whatever, I don't care how I'm labeled. I just know that if we treat people as humans... the way we like to be treated ourselves, things might not be so shitty.
Hail, Hail!!!
Nice work tree hugger
That is the irony of a lot of debates...I am outside the country and respect is not even the same vocabulary of terms to decribe current American leadership....
Take my hand, my child of love
Come step inside my tears
Swim the magic ocean,
I've been crying all these years
That's the true realty of it.
"WASHINGTON - Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki appealed to Congress Wednesday to press the war in Iraq with money and troops, portraying his country as crucial to the U.S. as a front line in the war on terror and comparing violence there to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Addressing a joint meeting of Congress, al-Maliki said, "Do not imagine that this problem is solely an Iraqi problem because the terrorist front represents a threat to all free countries and free people of the world.""
ref. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_go_co/us_iraq_20;_ylt=AuievhbrzLQ4ScjYoRdDfcdX6GMA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
...
Maybe the supporters of this war should break out their check books... because, you know how the government is incapable of handling money and the private sector is a much better way to go.
Hail, Hail!!!