Finally, in my series, The Hyping of Hawke, it is sobering to reflect on the fact that what is often referred to today as fake news played a crucial role in the erosion of Labor Party opposition to Hawke's obscene rush to join in the US-led war in the Gulf. It is equally sobering to note just how few questioning journalists there were back then - just like today!
Thankfully, there was one back then, the Reporters without Borders representative in Australia, Max Watts:
"In January 1991, the Australian parliament took a vote on whether to join the United States and go to war with Iraq. A journalist, Max Watts, asked one of the Australian [Labor] senators, the late Olive Zakharov, which way she intended to vote. Through her assistant, Max was informed she planned to vote for going to war. Max asked, Why? He was told that Iraqi soldiers had gone into a hospital in Kuwait, taken 306 babies out of their incubators and left them to die. Max, with his decades of experience in identifying inconsistencies in suspect stories, thought it rather odd that the number should be so precise. Who has time to count to 306 in a war zone?
"Max asked a friend, Dr Rosie Kubb... how many incubators are there in Melbourne? The population of Melbourne is about four million people. Dr Kubb checked it out. There were about 80 incubators for the city of Melbourne, which has a population three times that of the whole of Kuwait.
"The life of a lie may be short, but this lie was believed by enough people for long enough to enable George Bush Sr. to execute Gulf War I. The truth about the Kuwaiti Babies story was not exposed until eleven months later, after the war was over and thousands of innocent people had been killed. The story had been fabricated by a United States public relations company, Hill and Knowlton, to 'sell' the war. The company had dressed the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the United States as a nurse, and had her filmed telling the story. She was presented on television as a Kuwaiti nurse who had counted the babies, even though she was in the United States at the time the incident was alleged to have taken place." (Invasion of Iraq: An Eyewitness Account, Waratah Rose Gillespie, 2004, p 13)
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iraq. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 21, 2019
The Hyping of Hawke 3
By now, after reading my previous two posts questioning his virtual canonisation, it should be apparent that the late, former Australian prime minister, Bob Hawke, was, with his fatal decision to involve Australia in the brutal US-led Gulf War of 1991, very much the war hawk.
Of course, the impacts of war today are seldom confined to the immediate area of conflict, but consideration of their wider impact is of scant concern to those who, like Hawke, are hell-bent on waging them. One of those areas of impact is inevitably the home front.
The following three extracts, detailing the dark forces unleashed by St Bob here in Australia, come from academic Christine Asmar's invaluable essay The Arab-Australian Experience, in Australia's Gulf War (1992). Although the 'experience' she describes took place almost ten years before 9/11, it is chilling to note the sheer depth of Arabophobia and Islamophobia of the time, a phenomenon that Hawke cannot evade responsibility for unleashing, and one that continues to haunt us today with a vengeance:
"For Arabs born and brought up in Australia the experience of the Gulf War was shattering: 'I'd never thought of myself as anything but Australian', said Mary Rebehy, 'and suddenly I realised that some people had never accepted us as Australians at all'. Similarly, John Brennan of the Ethnic Affairs Commission told an audience at the University of Sydney of his shock at having to confront in Australia the 'reservoir of pathological loathing' towards both Arabs and Muslims. A writer to the Age expostulated: 'Australians be damned! They are an alien fifth column and should be interned'. Arab children were abused from passing cars as they walked to school and intimidated by fellow-students while at school, sometimes without teachers intervening. Muslim Arab women were spat at, abused, and had their headscarfs ripped off their heads... Islamic institutions such as the mosque and Islamic Centre at Lakemba in Sydney; the mosques at Preston and Coburg in Victoria; and a Muslim primary school in Perth were all subject to abusive calls, bomb threats and break-ins as were the premises of Arab organisations such as the Lebanese Women's Association and the Australian Arabic Welfare Council, both in Sydney. Many Muslim Australian women became afraid to leave home, even to go shopping." (p 65)
"A particular source of contention arose from the belief that ASIO (the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization) had carried out surveillance, and possibly even harassment of members of the Arab community. An article in the Bulletin in January 1991 claimed that ASIO had mounted 'an operation which has seen the surveillance of scores of Moslems living here, phone tapping, [and] a recommendation to intern certain people'. ASIO was reported to have claimed that 'NSW could be a target of Arab terrorist attacks or sabotage', and that six terrorist plots had been foiled in Australia during the Gulf War. Such reports encouraged the tendency to equate 'terrorist' with 'Arab'. Since no Australian of Arab origin has ever been charged with any crime involving political violence, the reports added to the Arabs' sense of being victimized. Responding to a claim that Muslims were behind attacks on Jewish institutions, the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board made it clear that 'there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any Muslim community is behind these attacks'. A large number of individuals in the Arab community, mostly political activists, reported that they had been visited by security personnel and questioned, although there was no suggestion of any physical harassment taking place. Some, however, alleged other forms of harassment and surreptitious surveillance. Whether true or not, those who believed such actions were taking place felt intimidated." (p 73)
"The widespread stereotyping of Arabs left a legacy of vulnerability and alienation. The experience of an unprecedented level of hostility has traumatized many Arabs in Australia, leading some to question the the Australian model of multiculturalism. In the words of Hassan Moussa, a prominent member of the community: 'The war has had a terrible effect on the community's sense of identity. Even today a lot of people are reluctant to say they are of Arab origin. It is very possible that the community may have become isolated and marginalized as a result of this crisis'. Ramsey Jebeile of the Australian Arabic Welfare Council has noticed that, after the Gulf War, Arab schoolchildren and their parents were showing an increased alienation, and a willingness to attribute any unwelcome developments at school to racist discrimination. Even more disturbing is the potentially self-fulfilling sense of hopelessness among school leavers about discrimination ruining their job prospects." (p 79)
To be continued...
Of course, the impacts of war today are seldom confined to the immediate area of conflict, but consideration of their wider impact is of scant concern to those who, like Hawke, are hell-bent on waging them. One of those areas of impact is inevitably the home front.
The following three extracts, detailing the dark forces unleashed by St Bob here in Australia, come from academic Christine Asmar's invaluable essay The Arab-Australian Experience, in Australia's Gulf War (1992). Although the 'experience' she describes took place almost ten years before 9/11, it is chilling to note the sheer depth of Arabophobia and Islamophobia of the time, a phenomenon that Hawke cannot evade responsibility for unleashing, and one that continues to haunt us today with a vengeance:
"For Arabs born and brought up in Australia the experience of the Gulf War was shattering: 'I'd never thought of myself as anything but Australian', said Mary Rebehy, 'and suddenly I realised that some people had never accepted us as Australians at all'. Similarly, John Brennan of the Ethnic Affairs Commission told an audience at the University of Sydney of his shock at having to confront in Australia the 'reservoir of pathological loathing' towards both Arabs and Muslims. A writer to the Age expostulated: 'Australians be damned! They are an alien fifth column and should be interned'. Arab children were abused from passing cars as they walked to school and intimidated by fellow-students while at school, sometimes without teachers intervening. Muslim Arab women were spat at, abused, and had their headscarfs ripped off their heads... Islamic institutions such as the mosque and Islamic Centre at Lakemba in Sydney; the mosques at Preston and Coburg in Victoria; and a Muslim primary school in Perth were all subject to abusive calls, bomb threats and break-ins as were the premises of Arab organisations such as the Lebanese Women's Association and the Australian Arabic Welfare Council, both in Sydney. Many Muslim Australian women became afraid to leave home, even to go shopping." (p 65)
"A particular source of contention arose from the belief that ASIO (the Australian Security and Intelligence Organization) had carried out surveillance, and possibly even harassment of members of the Arab community. An article in the Bulletin in January 1991 claimed that ASIO had mounted 'an operation which has seen the surveillance of scores of Moslems living here, phone tapping, [and] a recommendation to intern certain people'. ASIO was reported to have claimed that 'NSW could be a target of Arab terrorist attacks or sabotage', and that six terrorist plots had been foiled in Australia during the Gulf War. Such reports encouraged the tendency to equate 'terrorist' with 'Arab'. Since no Australian of Arab origin has ever been charged with any crime involving political violence, the reports added to the Arabs' sense of being victimized. Responding to a claim that Muslims were behind attacks on Jewish institutions, the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board made it clear that 'there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that any Muslim community is behind these attacks'. A large number of individuals in the Arab community, mostly political activists, reported that they had been visited by security personnel and questioned, although there was no suggestion of any physical harassment taking place. Some, however, alleged other forms of harassment and surreptitious surveillance. Whether true or not, those who believed such actions were taking place felt intimidated." (p 73)
"The widespread stereotyping of Arabs left a legacy of vulnerability and alienation. The experience of an unprecedented level of hostility has traumatized many Arabs in Australia, leading some to question the the Australian model of multiculturalism. In the words of Hassan Moussa, a prominent member of the community: 'The war has had a terrible effect on the community's sense of identity. Even today a lot of people are reluctant to say they are of Arab origin. It is very possible that the community may have become isolated and marginalized as a result of this crisis'. Ramsey Jebeile of the Australian Arabic Welfare Council has noticed that, after the Gulf War, Arab schoolchildren and their parents were showing an increased alienation, and a willingness to attribute any unwelcome developments at school to racist discrimination. Even more disturbing is the potentially self-fulfilling sense of hopelessness among school leavers about discrimination ruining their job prospects." (p 79)
To be continued...
Monday, May 20, 2019
The Hyping of Hawke 2
Here's Paul Kelly's version of the late former PM Hawke's contribution to the Gulf War (August 1990 - February 1991), otherwise known as Operation Desert Shield:
"In early 1991 after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and his defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, Hawke authorised Australia's most important military commitment since Vietnam. For Hawke, the argument was irrefutable - it was a repelling [of] aggression, it involved support for the alliance since US President George H W Bush was spearheading the action; but, more decisively, it meant support for the UN authorised position. In November 1990 the Security Council passed its 'war resolution' approving 'all necessary means' to reverse the invasion. Australia's contribution was a modest three ships. Hawke had considered five but, worried about casualties, opted for caution. For the Labor Party and the Left - still shaped by the Vietnam experience - this was a turning point. Many feared a disaster but the war was short and successful. While Australia's contribution was small, the significance of the decision was great - the nation had moved beyond the psychology of Vietnam." (Lover, fighter & peacemaker, The Australian, 17/5/19)
Needless to say, Kelly's is a caricature of the reality, designed solely to burnish the image of St Bob. The following data has been culled from The Case Against Australian Participation by Janet Powell & Richard Bolt, in Australia's Gulf War (1992). (Powell was the parliamentary leader of the Australian Democrats, 1990-91.) I set it out here by way of rebutting each of Kelly's propaganda points in the order in which they are raised:
Saddam's alleged "defiance of UNSC resolutions":
"In fact Iraq had in several statements demonstrated sufficient realism to comprehend that it would have to withdraw for the crisis to end. Its recent history shows reversals of apparently intractable positions as the pressure of circumstances demanded; for example, in handing back territory won from Iran during their recent war... This was clear from a leaked UN transcript of Secretary-General [Peres] de Cuellar's 13 January meeting with President Saddam Hussein, in a last minute bid to avert war. Despite public claims that the Iraqi leader had refused to even discuss withdrawing the transcript reveals that President Hussein 'produced a map of Kuwait and asked... 'Where should Iraq withdraw to?' But he also said that open discussion of withdrawal 'as war was looming' would be damaging to him. Contrary to the rhetoric of war advocates, a negotiated settlement backed by sanctions would not have required that Iraq be appeased with unprincipled enticements to withdraw. Assurances could have been given that withdrawal, payment of compensation, and the dismantling of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would be followed by increased efforts to convene a Middle East peace conference, and agreement that the World Court should adjudicate on Iraq's claims over the disputed Rumaila oilfield on its border with Kuwait... Such assurances were ruled out simply to reduce the prospects of success in the contrived eleventh hour-hour negotiations initiated by the United States." (p 32-3)
"It was a repelling of aggression":
"The Australian Government justified its commitment of naval forces as a contribution to the enforcement of sanctions, which it claimed could not be effective without policing. However, other successful sanctions regimes, such as that against South Africa, were not enforced. And the multi-national naval task force in the Gulf was far larger than needed for enforcement... In fact, the predominantly US naval force was structured from the outset to give the Bush Administration the option of launching war against Iraq. It was based on Operation Plan 90-1002', an existing contingency plan for an oil war in the Middle East... Sanctions enforcement was thus a convenient pretext for deploying warships in anticipation of war." (pp 29-30)
"It meant support for the UN authorised position":
"The US-led blockade usurped the Security Council, which has the power to authorize a blockade where sanctions 'have proved to be inadequate'. The UN Charter requires that the military forces contributed to a blockade by member countries be subject to the 'strategic direction' of the Council's Military Staff Committee. Because sanctions had not proved to be inadequate, with diplomatic pressure serving an effective means of sanctions enforcement, and to avoid the shackles of the Military Staff Committee's control, the Bush Administration bypassed the United Nations by citing Section 51 of the UN Charter, which upholds nations' right of collective self-defence. President Bush obtained an invitation from the Emir of Kuwait to impose a blockade in defence of his country. Prime Minister Hawke fully supported the United States by announcing on 10 August that Australia's deployment of two warships and a supply vessel was primarily to 'enforce the blockade on Iraq and Kuwait'. But no request for Australian help had been received from the Emir of Kuwait (it arrived some time later) and no blockade had been approved by the Security Council. This was such a blatant breach of the UN Charter that it was later disowned by Senator [Gareth] Evans. After weeks of wrangling, the Security Council finally gave its retrospective blessing for the sanctions to be enforced by those countries that were already doing so. However, its Military Staff Committee was not placed in overall command; this was a US, not a UN blockade." (p 30)
"The advocates of war cited Security Council Resolution 678 as evidence that this was a UN war, consistent with its Charter's provisions for military action. But 678 was worded to leave all decisions on the war... to the US. The Security council had simply rubber-stamped a decision of the Bush Administration. As UN Secretary-General Peres de Cuellar said as his alarm at the loss of life grew, 'This is not a United Nations war'." (pp 36-37)
"The war was short and successful":
"The pre-war suffering of Iraqi civilians was magnified economically by the war, as the [US-led] coalition systematically bombed Iraq's civil infrastructure: power stations, water purification plants, communications facilities, roads and bridges. Thousands died from the direct effect of the blasts - homes, hospitals, markets, mosques... were incidentally destroyed - and many more from the resultant collapse of health and transport services, the loss of clean water, and food shortages. The most authoritative estimate so far is that 9,000 to 21,000 Iraqi civilians died from the effects of the war. The resultant civil uprising crushed by the Iraqi leadership left 20,000 Iraqis dead, with another 15,000 to 30,000 refugees dying on the road or in camps. The war 'resulted in the largest movement of people in the shortest amount of time in any modern war', as millions fled their homes. The civilian death toll is mounting as normally treatable diseases - diarrhoea (causing infant death from dehydration), typhoid, gastroenteritis, hepatitis, meningitis, polio and cholera - sweep the country. A Harvard University team estimates that 170,000 Iraqi children will die from the after-effects of the war.... Finally, the slaughter of Iraq's armed forces raises serious humanitarian questions. Some 100,000 to 120,000 perished with half dying in the last few days, many while retreating to Iraq. They were mostly a dictator's conscripts who faced execution for deserting, and whose lives could have been spared by reliance on sanctions." (pp 34-36)
Then there's this uncritical, almost casual assertion of Kelly's that deserves attention: "The nation had moved beyond the psychology of Vietnam." The nation had moved, or Hawke had moved? Was this necessarily a good, or a bad thing? Should not the lessons to e learnt from of our uncritical and overzealous involvement in Vietnam have been uppermost in the mind of any prime minister worth his salt, let alone in that of a Labor prime minister? All of these matters are, of course, bypassed in Kelly's hagiographical account. More broadly, could it not be said of Hawke that, by involving Australia in America's first assault on Iraq, he helped pave the way for Liberal prime minister John Howard to involve Australia in America's war on Iraq in 2003?
Finally, just to highlight Hawke's (and Bush senior's) hypocrisy on this matter, consider these pertinent words of Powell's:
"This was not a war which saw the United Nations at last fulfill its Charter, free of Cold War shackles, but one in which the United Nations was hijacked by the United States in pursuit of largely national interests and in violation of the spirit of the UN Charter. Contrary to Mr Hawke's claim, this was not a war which carried a message that big nations cannot invade small ones and get away with it. Syria is still in Lebanon, Israel is tightening its grip over the Occupied Territories, the United States has not renounced its unlawful invasion of Panama, Indonesia's annexation of East Timor remains appeased by the United States and Australia, Turkey still occupies Cyprus, China is in Tibet, and so on. None of these countries are under threat of sanctions, let alone war, despite numerous UN resolutions which have not been complied with. The Gulf War was an oil-based exception to this pattern of appeasement." (p 38)
To be continued...
"In early 1991 after Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait and his defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions, Hawke authorised Australia's most important military commitment since Vietnam. For Hawke, the argument was irrefutable - it was a repelling [of] aggression, it involved support for the alliance since US President George H W Bush was spearheading the action; but, more decisively, it meant support for the UN authorised position. In November 1990 the Security Council passed its 'war resolution' approving 'all necessary means' to reverse the invasion. Australia's contribution was a modest three ships. Hawke had considered five but, worried about casualties, opted for caution. For the Labor Party and the Left - still shaped by the Vietnam experience - this was a turning point. Many feared a disaster but the war was short and successful. While Australia's contribution was small, the significance of the decision was great - the nation had moved beyond the psychology of Vietnam." (Lover, fighter & peacemaker, The Australian, 17/5/19)
Needless to say, Kelly's is a caricature of the reality, designed solely to burnish the image of St Bob. The following data has been culled from The Case Against Australian Participation by Janet Powell & Richard Bolt, in Australia's Gulf War (1992). (Powell was the parliamentary leader of the Australian Democrats, 1990-91.) I set it out here by way of rebutting each of Kelly's propaganda points in the order in which they are raised:
Saddam's alleged "defiance of UNSC resolutions":
"In fact Iraq had in several statements demonstrated sufficient realism to comprehend that it would have to withdraw for the crisis to end. Its recent history shows reversals of apparently intractable positions as the pressure of circumstances demanded; for example, in handing back territory won from Iran during their recent war... This was clear from a leaked UN transcript of Secretary-General [Peres] de Cuellar's 13 January meeting with President Saddam Hussein, in a last minute bid to avert war. Despite public claims that the Iraqi leader had refused to even discuss withdrawing the transcript reveals that President Hussein 'produced a map of Kuwait and asked... 'Where should Iraq withdraw to?' But he also said that open discussion of withdrawal 'as war was looming' would be damaging to him. Contrary to the rhetoric of war advocates, a negotiated settlement backed by sanctions would not have required that Iraq be appeased with unprincipled enticements to withdraw. Assurances could have been given that withdrawal, payment of compensation, and the dismantling of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction would be followed by increased efforts to convene a Middle East peace conference, and agreement that the World Court should adjudicate on Iraq's claims over the disputed Rumaila oilfield on its border with Kuwait... Such assurances were ruled out simply to reduce the prospects of success in the contrived eleventh hour-hour negotiations initiated by the United States." (p 32-3)
"It was a repelling of aggression":
"The Australian Government justified its commitment of naval forces as a contribution to the enforcement of sanctions, which it claimed could not be effective without policing. However, other successful sanctions regimes, such as that against South Africa, were not enforced. And the multi-national naval task force in the Gulf was far larger than needed for enforcement... In fact, the predominantly US naval force was structured from the outset to give the Bush Administration the option of launching war against Iraq. It was based on Operation Plan 90-1002', an existing contingency plan for an oil war in the Middle East... Sanctions enforcement was thus a convenient pretext for deploying warships in anticipation of war." (pp 29-30)
"It meant support for the UN authorised position":
"The US-led blockade usurped the Security Council, which has the power to authorize a blockade where sanctions 'have proved to be inadequate'. The UN Charter requires that the military forces contributed to a blockade by member countries be subject to the 'strategic direction' of the Council's Military Staff Committee. Because sanctions had not proved to be inadequate, with diplomatic pressure serving an effective means of sanctions enforcement, and to avoid the shackles of the Military Staff Committee's control, the Bush Administration bypassed the United Nations by citing Section 51 of the UN Charter, which upholds nations' right of collective self-defence. President Bush obtained an invitation from the Emir of Kuwait to impose a blockade in defence of his country. Prime Minister Hawke fully supported the United States by announcing on 10 August that Australia's deployment of two warships and a supply vessel was primarily to 'enforce the blockade on Iraq and Kuwait'. But no request for Australian help had been received from the Emir of Kuwait (it arrived some time later) and no blockade had been approved by the Security Council. This was such a blatant breach of the UN Charter that it was later disowned by Senator [Gareth] Evans. After weeks of wrangling, the Security Council finally gave its retrospective blessing for the sanctions to be enforced by those countries that were already doing so. However, its Military Staff Committee was not placed in overall command; this was a US, not a UN blockade." (p 30)
"The advocates of war cited Security Council Resolution 678 as evidence that this was a UN war, consistent with its Charter's provisions for military action. But 678 was worded to leave all decisions on the war... to the US. The Security council had simply rubber-stamped a decision of the Bush Administration. As UN Secretary-General Peres de Cuellar said as his alarm at the loss of life grew, 'This is not a United Nations war'." (pp 36-37)
"The war was short and successful":
"The pre-war suffering of Iraqi civilians was magnified economically by the war, as the [US-led] coalition systematically bombed Iraq's civil infrastructure: power stations, water purification plants, communications facilities, roads and bridges. Thousands died from the direct effect of the blasts - homes, hospitals, markets, mosques... were incidentally destroyed - and many more from the resultant collapse of health and transport services, the loss of clean water, and food shortages. The most authoritative estimate so far is that 9,000 to 21,000 Iraqi civilians died from the effects of the war. The resultant civil uprising crushed by the Iraqi leadership left 20,000 Iraqis dead, with another 15,000 to 30,000 refugees dying on the road or in camps. The war 'resulted in the largest movement of people in the shortest amount of time in any modern war', as millions fled their homes. The civilian death toll is mounting as normally treatable diseases - diarrhoea (causing infant death from dehydration), typhoid, gastroenteritis, hepatitis, meningitis, polio and cholera - sweep the country. A Harvard University team estimates that 170,000 Iraqi children will die from the after-effects of the war.... Finally, the slaughter of Iraq's armed forces raises serious humanitarian questions. Some 100,000 to 120,000 perished with half dying in the last few days, many while retreating to Iraq. They were mostly a dictator's conscripts who faced execution for deserting, and whose lives could have been spared by reliance on sanctions." (pp 34-36)
Then there's this uncritical, almost casual assertion of Kelly's that deserves attention: "The nation had moved beyond the psychology of Vietnam." The nation had moved, or Hawke had moved? Was this necessarily a good, or a bad thing? Should not the lessons to e learnt from of our uncritical and overzealous involvement in Vietnam have been uppermost in the mind of any prime minister worth his salt, let alone in that of a Labor prime minister? All of these matters are, of course, bypassed in Kelly's hagiographical account. More broadly, could it not be said of Hawke that, by involving Australia in America's first assault on Iraq, he helped pave the way for Liberal prime minister John Howard to involve Australia in America's war on Iraq in 2003?
Finally, just to highlight Hawke's (and Bush senior's) hypocrisy on this matter, consider these pertinent words of Powell's:
"This was not a war which saw the United Nations at last fulfill its Charter, free of Cold War shackles, but one in which the United Nations was hijacked by the United States in pursuit of largely national interests and in violation of the spirit of the UN Charter. Contrary to Mr Hawke's claim, this was not a war which carried a message that big nations cannot invade small ones and get away with it. Syria is still in Lebanon, Israel is tightening its grip over the Occupied Territories, the United States has not renounced its unlawful invasion of Panama, Indonesia's annexation of East Timor remains appeased by the United States and Australia, Turkey still occupies Cyprus, China is in Tibet, and so on. None of these countries are under threat of sanctions, let alone war, despite numerous UN resolutions which have not been complied with. The Gulf War was an oil-based exception to this pattern of appeasement." (p 38)
To be continued...
Sunday, April 21, 2019
Extraordinary Death Experience
I've heard of election pitches, but this:
"The Liberal Party needs a variety of views, including people who have extraordinary life experience... I ran the war in Iraq for a year. That is unique experience." (Molan mounts insurgency to keep seat, David Wroe, Sydney Morning Herald, 18/4/19)
Yes folks, without Major-General Molan in charge, the war in Iraq would've been a complete and utter disaster.
"The Liberal Party needs a variety of views, including people who have extraordinary life experience... I ran the war in Iraq for a year. That is unique experience." (Molan mounts insurgency to keep seat, David Wroe, Sydney Morning Herald, 18/4/19)
Yes folks, without Major-General Molan in charge, the war in Iraq would've been a complete and utter disaster.
Sunday, February 17, 2019
'I Was an Occupier & All That Entails'
In a time of accelerating US regime-change criminality - first Iraq, then Libya, then Syria, and now Iran and Venezuela - it's timely that we be reminded of just what the Anglo-American invasion and occupation (dressed up by president George W. Bush and his neocon operatives as Operation Iraqi Freedom) was really all about.
Nico Walker, a former US army medic in Iraq, now doing time for armed robbery, has just produced his first book, Cherry, a novel, of which he says in interview: "The military parts are the ones that most closely mirror my experience." (Nico Walker: 'I needed to show how bad Iraq was', Killian Fox, theguardian.com, 17/2/19). Here's an excerpt from that interview:
"It was something I didn't want to lie about. I needed to show it for how it really was and dispel any myths. It was a pretty bad experience. We had been told there was this existential threat [to the Iraqis] we were supposed to prevent and it turned out not to be the case. Going there, you find out you're the problem. It seemed like we were trying to provoke as much fighting as we could... I don't want to give this wrong idea that I was some kind of pacifist or observer - I was an active participant. Maybe not to extremes, but I certainly didn't try to ever stop anything and I endorsed whatever was going on just by being there. I look back on it and think, wow, I was an occupier and all that entails."
Walker goes on to say: "Compared with what I'd been doing in Iraq, robbing banks seemed like kids' stuff. Obviously it was wrong; I realise this now."
There you have it - an army of jackboots, sent to Iraq on a pack of lies, which turned the place upside down and inside out. Remember this when you read your next installment of recycled regime-change propaganda from the Washington Post and New York Times in the Sydney Morning Herald, or from the Times and Wall Street Journal in the Australian.
[See also my 18/7/08 post Enlist Now! for an extract from that wonderful Iraq War expose (The Deserter's Tale) by another US soldier, Joshua Key.]
Nico Walker, a former US army medic in Iraq, now doing time for armed robbery, has just produced his first book, Cherry, a novel, of which he says in interview: "The military parts are the ones that most closely mirror my experience." (Nico Walker: 'I needed to show how bad Iraq was', Killian Fox, theguardian.com, 17/2/19). Here's an excerpt from that interview:
"It was something I didn't want to lie about. I needed to show it for how it really was and dispel any myths. It was a pretty bad experience. We had been told there was this existential threat [to the Iraqis] we were supposed to prevent and it turned out not to be the case. Going there, you find out you're the problem. It seemed like we were trying to provoke as much fighting as we could... I don't want to give this wrong idea that I was some kind of pacifist or observer - I was an active participant. Maybe not to extremes, but I certainly didn't try to ever stop anything and I endorsed whatever was going on just by being there. I look back on it and think, wow, I was an occupier and all that entails."
Walker goes on to say: "Compared with what I'd been doing in Iraq, robbing banks seemed like kids' stuff. Obviously it was wrong; I realise this now."
There you have it - an army of jackboots, sent to Iraq on a pack of lies, which turned the place upside down and inside out. Remember this when you read your next installment of recycled regime-change propaganda from the Washington Post and New York Times in the Sydney Morning Herald, or from the Times and Wall Street Journal in the Australian.
[See also my 18/7/08 post Enlist Now! for an extract from that wonderful Iraq War expose (The Deserter's Tale) by another US soldier, Joshua Key.]
Saturday, January 12, 2019
Magic Mike Does Cairo
US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has just (10/1) given a speech at the American University in Cairo. It is essentially, to borrow the words of The Bard, a tale told by a Christian Zionist idiot, full of imperial sound and fury, signifying God-only-knows-what in the years ahead. Since Pompeo is a little shaky on historical context, not to mention the most basic understanding of modern Western history - "In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation" - I couldn't help but comment and quip as the spirit moved me. These gems, btw, are but excerpts, albeit in chronological order:
"This trip is especially meaningful to me as an evangelical Christian... In my office, I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and the Truth."
OMG! Note the capitals.
"America's penchant for wishful thinking led us to look the other way as Hizballah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime, accumulated a massive arsenal of approximately 130,000 rockets and missiles... aimed squarely at our ally Israel."
Of course, Hezbollah was only formed to resist the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982. And Hezbollah only exists today to prevent the Israeli re-occupation of south Lebanon. And of course Israel couldn't possibly be described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the US, now could it? Or is it the other way around?
"The good news is this. The age of self-inflicted American shame is over... Now comes the real new beginning... The Trump administration did not stand idly by when Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his people."
US imperialism has never known shame. Nor has it ever stood idly by.
"For those who fret about the US of American power, remember this: America has always been, and always will be, a liberating force, not an occupying power. We've never dreamed of domination in the Middle East. Can you say the same about Iran? In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation. (!) Fifty years later, we assembled a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Would the Russians and Chinese come to your rescue in the same way... that we have?"
So, in Iraq, the US was a "liberating force, not an occupying power," while the tread of Iranian jackboots can be heard over vast swathes of the Middle East. Really, inhabiting a parallel universe doesn't begin to describe the world of Pompeo and his fellow Christian Zionist brethren.
And yes, he did say that American troops "helped free North America from Nazi occupation." But then again, he comes from a country where only 1% of university graduates study history.
"Let's turn to Iran. President Trump has reversed our willful blindness to the regime and withdrew from the failed nuclear deal, with its false promises. The US re-imposed sanctions that should never have been lifted. We embarked on a new pressure campaign to cut off the revenues the regime uses to spread terror and destruction throughout the world. We joined the Iranian people in calling for freedom and accountability. And importantly, we fostered a common understanding with our allies of the need to counteract the Iran regime's revolutionary agenda. Countries increasingly understand that we must confront the ayatollahs, not coddle them."
"Pressure campaign" = war of regime change.
"Spreading terror and destruction around the world": an precise description of the globe-girding depredations of the American capitalism and imperialism.
"We're building out (?) a healthy dialogue with the Government of Iraq, a thriving and young democracy. We're also building relationships for our shared prosperity. It is time for old rivalries to end for the sake of the greater good of the region."
To quote Tacitus' rendition of the words of the Caledonian chieftain who fought the Romans in first century Scotland: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
"We're also seeing remarkable change. New bonds are taking root that were unimaginable until very recently. Who could have believed a few years ago that an Israeli prime minister would visit Muscat?... In October of last year, the Israeli national anthem played as an Israeli judo champion was crowned the winner of a tournament in the United Arab Emirates. It was the first time - the first time - that an Israeli delegation was allowed to participate under its own national flag. It was also the first time an Israeli culture and sports minister attended a sports event in the Gulf. She said, and I quote, 'It is a dream come true. For two years we had talks in order to reach this moment.' It was hard for her to stop the tears."
I know the feeling.
"We strongly support Israel's efforts to stop Tehran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon."
And I can fully understand the Lebanese people strongly supporting Hezbollah's efforts to stop Tel Aviv from turning south Lebanon into the next Golan Heights.
"It is important to know also that we will not cease our campaign to stop Iran's malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world, the nations of the Middle East will never enjoy security, achieve economic stability, or advance the dreams of their people if Iran's revolutionary regime persists on its current course. February 11th will mark 40 years since the oppressive regime came to power in Tehran. America's economic sanctions against the regime are the strongest in history, and will keep getting tougher until Iran starts behaving like a normal country."
No mention, of course, of the CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, or the oppressive US-backed regime of the Shah (1941-1979), which led to the birth of "the oppressive regime (which) came to power in Tehran" in 1979.
And what's with this rhetoric about "security" and "economic stability" in the Arab world that Iran is supposedly standing in the way of? What Pompeo really means here is that the Arab world must lie back, spread its legs wide, and allow US corporations (and Israel) to have their way.
"Iran may think it owns Lebanon. Iran is wrong."
The mind boggles.
"In Iraq, the United States will help our partners build a nation free of Iranian influence."
With friends like the US, who needs enemies?
"And I think this is clear, but it is worth reiterating: The United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself against the Iranian regime's aggressive adventurism. We will continue to ensure that Israel has the military capacity to do so decisively."
He means here that the US will underwrite Israel's top-dog status in the Middle East as per the doctrine of maintaining its QME (qualitative military edge) over the Arabs.
"The Trump administration will also continue to press for a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Again, we've adhered to our word. President Trump campaigned on the promise to recognize Jerusalem - the seat of Israel's government - as the nation's capital. In May, we moved our embassy there. These decisions honor a bipartisan congressional resolution from more than two decades ago. President Trump acted on this commitment."
Oh, the Palestinians! Yes, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will ineluctably lead to "a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians." How come only Trump, Bolsanaro, Morales and Morrison could manage to come up with this magic solution to the Israeli lion lying down with the Arab lamb in Palestine/Israel? Nobel peace prizes all round. Now!
"This trip is especially meaningful to me as an evangelical Christian... In my office, I keep a Bible open on my desk to remind me of God and His Word, and the Truth."
OMG! Note the capitals.
"America's penchant for wishful thinking led us to look the other way as Hizballah, a wholly owned subsidiary of the Iranian regime, accumulated a massive arsenal of approximately 130,000 rockets and missiles... aimed squarely at our ally Israel."
Of course, Hezbollah was only formed to resist the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon in 1982. And Hezbollah only exists today to prevent the Israeli re-occupation of south Lebanon. And of course Israel couldn't possibly be described as a wholly owned subsidiary of the US, now could it? Or is it the other way around?
"The good news is this. The age of self-inflicted American shame is over... Now comes the real new beginning... The Trump administration did not stand idly by when Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his people."
US imperialism has never known shame. Nor has it ever stood idly by.
"For those who fret about the US of American power, remember this: America has always been, and always will be, a liberating force, not an occupying power. We've never dreamed of domination in the Middle East. Can you say the same about Iran? In World War II, American GIs helped free North America from Nazi occupation. (!) Fifty years later, we assembled a coalition to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Would the Russians and Chinese come to your rescue in the same way... that we have?"
So, in Iraq, the US was a "liberating force, not an occupying power," while the tread of Iranian jackboots can be heard over vast swathes of the Middle East. Really, inhabiting a parallel universe doesn't begin to describe the world of Pompeo and his fellow Christian Zionist brethren.
And yes, he did say that American troops "helped free North America from Nazi occupation." But then again, he comes from a country where only 1% of university graduates study history.
"Let's turn to Iran. President Trump has reversed our willful blindness to the regime and withdrew from the failed nuclear deal, with its false promises. The US re-imposed sanctions that should never have been lifted. We embarked on a new pressure campaign to cut off the revenues the regime uses to spread terror and destruction throughout the world. We joined the Iranian people in calling for freedom and accountability. And importantly, we fostered a common understanding with our allies of the need to counteract the Iran regime's revolutionary agenda. Countries increasingly understand that we must confront the ayatollahs, not coddle them."
"Pressure campaign" = war of regime change.
"Spreading terror and destruction around the world": an precise description of the globe-girding depredations of the American capitalism and imperialism.
"We're building out (?) a healthy dialogue with the Government of Iraq, a thriving and young democracy. We're also building relationships for our shared prosperity. It is time for old rivalries to end for the sake of the greater good of the region."
To quote Tacitus' rendition of the words of the Caledonian chieftain who fought the Romans in first century Scotland: "To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire, and where they make a desert, they call it peace."
"We're also seeing remarkable change. New bonds are taking root that were unimaginable until very recently. Who could have believed a few years ago that an Israeli prime minister would visit Muscat?... In October of last year, the Israeli national anthem played as an Israeli judo champion was crowned the winner of a tournament in the United Arab Emirates. It was the first time - the first time - that an Israeli delegation was allowed to participate under its own national flag. It was also the first time an Israeli culture and sports minister attended a sports event in the Gulf. She said, and I quote, 'It is a dream come true. For two years we had talks in order to reach this moment.' It was hard for her to stop the tears."
I know the feeling.
"We strongly support Israel's efforts to stop Tehran from turning Syria into the next Lebanon."
And I can fully understand the Lebanese people strongly supporting Hezbollah's efforts to stop Tel Aviv from turning south Lebanon into the next Golan Heights.
"It is important to know also that we will not cease our campaign to stop Iran's malevolent influence and actions against this region and the world, the nations of the Middle East will never enjoy security, achieve economic stability, or advance the dreams of their people if Iran's revolutionary regime persists on its current course. February 11th will mark 40 years since the oppressive regime came to power in Tehran. America's economic sanctions against the regime are the strongest in history, and will keep getting tougher until Iran starts behaving like a normal country."
No mention, of course, of the CIA's overthrow of Iran's democratically elected prime minister, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, or the oppressive US-backed regime of the Shah (1941-1979), which led to the birth of "the oppressive regime (which) came to power in Tehran" in 1979.
And what's with this rhetoric about "security" and "economic stability" in the Arab world that Iran is supposedly standing in the way of? What Pompeo really means here is that the Arab world must lie back, spread its legs wide, and allow US corporations (and Israel) to have their way.
"Iran may think it owns Lebanon. Iran is wrong."
The mind boggles.
"In Iraq, the United States will help our partners build a nation free of Iranian influence."
With friends like the US, who needs enemies?
"And I think this is clear, but it is worth reiterating: The United States fully supports Israel's right to defend itself against the Iranian regime's aggressive adventurism. We will continue to ensure that Israel has the military capacity to do so decisively."
He means here that the US will underwrite Israel's top-dog status in the Middle East as per the doctrine of maintaining its QME (qualitative military edge) over the Arabs.
"The Trump administration will also continue to press for a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Again, we've adhered to our word. President Trump campaigned on the promise to recognize Jerusalem - the seat of Israel's government - as the nation's capital. In May, we moved our embassy there. These decisions honor a bipartisan congressional resolution from more than two decades ago. President Trump acted on this commitment."
Oh, the Palestinians! Yes, moving the US embassy to Jerusalem will ineluctably lead to "a real and lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians." How come only Trump, Bolsanaro, Morales and Morrison could manage to come up with this magic solution to the Israeli lion lying down with the Arab lamb in Palestine/Israel? Nobel peace prizes all round. Now!
Sunday, December 23, 2018
US Coalition 'Cure' Worse than IS Disease
So Trump is at last pulling US forces out of Syria. In my view, the sooner the US gets out of Syria, not to mention the entire Middle East - and stays out - the better.
If you want to know why, read the following chilling news report - keeping in mind, as you read, that it was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 that unleashed Islamic State, first on Iraq, then on Syria:
"An Amnesty International report last June said [Raqqa's] civilian casualty figures admitted by the US-led coalition were grossly under-representative. Before that report, the coalition suggested only 23 Syrian civilians had died in its campaign in Raqqa, which destroyed nearly 80% of the city. Britain's Ministry of Defence consistently and incredibly claimed it had no evidence of civilian casualties caused by the 275 British airstrikes in Raqqa or to more than 750 in Mosul, Iraq... 'At least the Americans admit to having caused civilian casualties,' Airwars director Chris Woods said yesterday. 'Britain, like Russia, France, Australia, Belgium and the Dutch, claim their bombs only kill bad people, which is ridiculous'.
"The operation by the Syrian recovery teams [of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces] suggests Amnesty and Airwars are accurate in their assessment of civilian casualties. Data shared with The Times, which was up to date on December 11, said teams had recovered 3280 corpses since work began in January. This included the bodies of 604 children younger than 16; 538 adult civilian women; 1251 civilian men; and 792 fighters. In 95 cases, it was not possible to identify age or sex. Thousands of civilians were wounded during the operation, in which US forces fired more than 30,000 artillery shells into the city as well as airstrikes by jets from Britain, Australia and France. American units fired more artillery into Raqqa than into any other city since the Vietnam War...
"Hannan Mukhlaf, 27, lost two brothers, two sisters, two sisters-in-law and their five children in a coalition airstrike on her family's home in August last year... 'Islamic State were cruel to all but the coalition used airstrikes against us as if we were animals. If just one person in the West was killed in such a way, everybody would be talking about it. But thousands of us died like this here - bombed like we were animals'. The grim work of recovering bodies goes on." (Raqqa's dead tell a haunting tale of coalition civilian casualties by the thousands, Anthony Lloyd, The Times/The Australian, 21/12/18)
The fact is that the US is directly responsible both for inflicting the IS contagion on Syria, and for inflicting on its hapless Syrian victims an aerial and artillery bombardment infinitely worse than the disease itself.
Typically, there are those who either don't get it or don't care. One such is Australia's prime minister. Fresh from his Jerusalem debacle:
"Scott Morrison has vowed to stay the course in the war against terrorism in the Middle East, warning that 'we cannot be complacent' about the threat of a resurgence of Islamic State, a day after Donald Trump withdrew US troops from Syria and amid reports he is planning to draw down forces in Afghanistan." (PM's vow on terror alliance, Paul Maley/ Cameron Stewart, The Australian, 22/12/18)
Apparently, this stems from the dogma that we must "deny terrorist organisations safe havens in which to plan and export terror attacks across the globe, including the Indo-Pacific." (ibid)
Whenever you hear this kind of simple-minded rhetoric about "denying terrorist organisations safe havens," please remember the fate of the thousands of mangled and maimed civilians in Raqqa and Mosul.
If you want to know why, read the following chilling news report - keeping in mind, as you read, that it was the US invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003 that unleashed Islamic State, first on Iraq, then on Syria:
"An Amnesty International report last June said [Raqqa's] civilian casualty figures admitted by the US-led coalition were grossly under-representative. Before that report, the coalition suggested only 23 Syrian civilians had died in its campaign in Raqqa, which destroyed nearly 80% of the city. Britain's Ministry of Defence consistently and incredibly claimed it had no evidence of civilian casualties caused by the 275 British airstrikes in Raqqa or to more than 750 in Mosul, Iraq... 'At least the Americans admit to having caused civilian casualties,' Airwars director Chris Woods said yesterday. 'Britain, like Russia, France, Australia, Belgium and the Dutch, claim their bombs only kill bad people, which is ridiculous'.
"The operation by the Syrian recovery teams [of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces] suggests Amnesty and Airwars are accurate in their assessment of civilian casualties. Data shared with The Times, which was up to date on December 11, said teams had recovered 3280 corpses since work began in January. This included the bodies of 604 children younger than 16; 538 adult civilian women; 1251 civilian men; and 792 fighters. In 95 cases, it was not possible to identify age or sex. Thousands of civilians were wounded during the operation, in which US forces fired more than 30,000 artillery shells into the city as well as airstrikes by jets from Britain, Australia and France. American units fired more artillery into Raqqa than into any other city since the Vietnam War...
"Hannan Mukhlaf, 27, lost two brothers, two sisters, two sisters-in-law and their five children in a coalition airstrike on her family's home in August last year... 'Islamic State were cruel to all but the coalition used airstrikes against us as if we were animals. If just one person in the West was killed in such a way, everybody would be talking about it. But thousands of us died like this here - bombed like we were animals'. The grim work of recovering bodies goes on." (Raqqa's dead tell a haunting tale of coalition civilian casualties by the thousands, Anthony Lloyd, The Times/The Australian, 21/12/18)
The fact is that the US is directly responsible both for inflicting the IS contagion on Syria, and for inflicting on its hapless Syrian victims an aerial and artillery bombardment infinitely worse than the disease itself.
Typically, there are those who either don't get it or don't care. One such is Australia's prime minister. Fresh from his Jerusalem debacle:
"Scott Morrison has vowed to stay the course in the war against terrorism in the Middle East, warning that 'we cannot be complacent' about the threat of a resurgence of Islamic State, a day after Donald Trump withdrew US troops from Syria and amid reports he is planning to draw down forces in Afghanistan." (PM's vow on terror alliance, Paul Maley/ Cameron Stewart, The Australian, 22/12/18)
Apparently, this stems from the dogma that we must "deny terrorist organisations safe havens in which to plan and export terror attacks across the globe, including the Indo-Pacific." (ibid)
Whenever you hear this kind of simple-minded rhetoric about "denying terrorist organisations safe havens," please remember the fate of the thousands of mangled and maimed civilians in Raqqa and Mosul.
Friday, April 20, 2018
Iraq: No 'War for Oil'
I watched George Galloway's fine 2017 doco The Killing$ of Tony Blair last night. If you haven't already seen it, I can assure you it's well worth it.
Should you do so, I have only one, albeit rather large, caution: the film has footage of Noam Chomsky parroting his nonsense about the US invasion and destruction of Iraq being a 'war for oil', a line unfortunately repeated by Galloway at the conclusion of the film.
Just to clarify, here are my top authorities, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on this furphy:
"Saddam was eager to sell his oil to any customer willing to pay for it. Moreover, if the United States wanted to conquer another country to gain control of its oil, Saudi Arabia - with larger reserves and a smaller population - would have been a much more attractive target. Plus, bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, and fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who struck the United States on September 11 were Saudis (none were from Iraq). If control of oil were Bush's real objective, 9/11 would have been an ideal pretext to act... There is also hardly any evidence that oil interests were actively pushing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2002-03." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 254)
Should you do so, I have only one, albeit rather large, caution: the film has footage of Noam Chomsky parroting his nonsense about the US invasion and destruction of Iraq being a 'war for oil', a line unfortunately repeated by Galloway at the conclusion of the film.
Just to clarify, here are my top authorities, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, on this furphy:
"Saddam was eager to sell his oil to any customer willing to pay for it. Moreover, if the United States wanted to conquer another country to gain control of its oil, Saudi Arabia - with larger reserves and a smaller population - would have been a much more attractive target. Plus, bin Laden was born and raised in Saudi Arabia, and fifteen of the nineteen terrorists who struck the United States on September 11 were Saudis (none were from Iraq). If control of oil were Bush's real objective, 9/11 would have been an ideal pretext to act... There is also hardly any evidence that oil interests were actively pushing the Bush administration to invade Iraq in 2002-03." (The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy, 2007, p 254)
Sunday, April 8, 2018
The Middle East's First 'Shock & Awe' 1
"The thing that hath been, it is that which shall be; and that which is done is that which shall be done: and there is no new thing under the sun." Ecclesiastes 1:9
Remember Bush's 'shock & awe', unleashed on Baghdad in March 2003? Wikipedia describes it as "a campaign tactic... based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force designed to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight."
It's worth pointing out, however, that, as with all forms of imperial criminality in the Middle East, not to mention elsewhere, the British got there first with their bombardment of the Egyptian port city of Alexandria in July 1882.
Never heard of it? Neither had I. To fill you in on the gory details, and the British invasion of Egypt that followed, here's the first of 2 posts on the subject, taken from Jeremy Salt's invaluable history, The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (2008):
"In Egypt the khedives [Ottoman viceroys] had slowly sunk into a morass of debt. Mehmet Ali [1769-1849], understanding full well where economic dependence leads, had refused to accept money from foreign lenders. His descendants had to learn the lesson the hard way. They borrowed heavily on European markets to finance various projects. Indebtedness had compelled the Khedive Ismail to sell Egypt's share of the Suez Canal company to Britain for the paltry sum of P4 million... The country's finances and public works were placed under the dual control of the British and the French, but by 1879 the situation was such a mess that the two powers had succeeded in securing the sultan's assent to Ismail's deposition in favour of his son Tawfiq.
"By this time the nationalists had adopted a slogan that was to be repeated until Egypt finally won independence through the revolution of 1952: 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' Their leader was Urabi Pasha (1841-1911), an army colonel. Patriotic and a man of the people, whereas the khedive was an alien in all ways, he had risen through the ranks, capturing the imagination of the people and compelling the khedive (whom he regarded as no more than an instrument of foreign domination) to bring him into the government. By late spring 1882 popular support for Urabi had forced the khedive to accept him as war minister. The establishment of a defiant patriotic government ended foreign supervision of Egypt's finances. The controllers left the country. Momentarily impotent, Britain and France demanded that the khedive dismiss the government and send Urabi and his troublemaking colleagues into the country. No sooner had he bowed to their demands than the Alexandria garrison mutinied, forcing Tawfiq to reappoint the ministry as quickly as he had brought about its downfall.
"A torrent of propaganda was now directed at Urabi from afar. Egypt had 'fallen into the hands of a clique of obscure officers, most of whose names had never been heard of in Egypt twelve months before.' [British PM] Gladstone, using language strikingly reminiscent of Sir Anthony Eden's attacks on President Gamal abd Al Nasser in 1956, called Urabi a 'usurper and dictator.' British and French warships were sent to Alexandria in the name of being on hand to protect the lives of Europeans should the 'rabble' turn on them. They took up their positions in the late spring and lay waiting, as motionless at anchor as crouched animals on a hot day. The British fleet consisted of nine warships (Alexandra - the flagship - Inflexible, Superb, Tremeraire, Sultan, Condor, Monarch, Invincible, and Penelope) and five gunboats (Bittern, Cygnet, Beacon, Helicon, and Decoy) fitted with 'torpedo apparatus' as well as the Gatling guns and Nordenfeld cannon with which the ironclads were also equipped. They were later joined by the warship Achilles. This display of naval power must have filled the inhabitants of the city with rising apprehension as the days went by without the warships moving.
"Alexandria's population of about 230,000 included 70,000 'Europeans,' a category that included Maltese, Armenians, Greeks, and Jews as well as the nationals of European states (including about 4,500 Britons). The provocative, ominous presence of the warships inevitably ended in disturbances. On June 11, a fight in the Rue des Soeurs between two donkey boys - one a Maltese Christian and the other a Muslim - triggered rioting in which about 300 people died. The estimated 150 European dead included the chief engineer of the Superb and two other Englishmen... who were 'literally done to death' in the street. Many of the victims were Maltese; others were Muslims cut down with rifles distributed beforehand to local Christians by the British consul... with the help and planning of the commander of the British fleet and the 'implicit backing' of the Foreign office and the Admiralty.
"News of the rioting caused panic in Cairo. Thousands of European and local Christians fled to Alexandria to book passages on ships out of the country. About fourteen thousand had left by June 17, and a further eight thousand were waiting to leave. The departure of so many trained personnel threatened to disrupt government services, including railways, posts, telegraphs, and the provision of water to Alexandria. The khedive was urged to move government offices to the port city, where the British fleet riding at anchor would be close at hand in case of further trouble.
"A conference that was convened in Constantinople to resolve the crisis ended without a solution being found. On July 3, the commander of the British flotilla (Sir Beauchamp Seymour) warned the Egyptian government to stop strengthening coastal fortifications at Alexandria or face the consequences, and on July 9 Gladstone gave his approval for an attack two days later. Having stationed their warships off the coast of another country and triggered serious disorders by their presence, the British now claimed the right to attack as 'a measure of self defence'."
Remember Bush's 'shock & awe', unleashed on Baghdad in March 2003? Wikipedia describes it as "a campaign tactic... based on the use of overwhelming power and spectacular displays of force designed to paralyze the enemy's perception of the battlefield and destroy its will to fight."
It's worth pointing out, however, that, as with all forms of imperial criminality in the Middle East, not to mention elsewhere, the British got there first with their bombardment of the Egyptian port city of Alexandria in July 1882.
Never heard of it? Neither had I. To fill you in on the gory details, and the British invasion of Egypt that followed, here's the first of 2 posts on the subject, taken from Jeremy Salt's invaluable history, The Unmaking of the Middle East: A History of Western Disorder in Arab Lands (2008):
"In Egypt the khedives [Ottoman viceroys] had slowly sunk into a morass of debt. Mehmet Ali [1769-1849], understanding full well where economic dependence leads, had refused to accept money from foreign lenders. His descendants had to learn the lesson the hard way. They borrowed heavily on European markets to finance various projects. Indebtedness had compelled the Khedive Ismail to sell Egypt's share of the Suez Canal company to Britain for the paltry sum of P4 million... The country's finances and public works were placed under the dual control of the British and the French, but by 1879 the situation was such a mess that the two powers had succeeded in securing the sultan's assent to Ismail's deposition in favour of his son Tawfiq.
"By this time the nationalists had adopted a slogan that was to be repeated until Egypt finally won independence through the revolution of 1952: 'Egypt for the Egyptians.' Their leader was Urabi Pasha (1841-1911), an army colonel. Patriotic and a man of the people, whereas the khedive was an alien in all ways, he had risen through the ranks, capturing the imagination of the people and compelling the khedive (whom he regarded as no more than an instrument of foreign domination) to bring him into the government. By late spring 1882 popular support for Urabi had forced the khedive to accept him as war minister. The establishment of a defiant patriotic government ended foreign supervision of Egypt's finances. The controllers left the country. Momentarily impotent, Britain and France demanded that the khedive dismiss the government and send Urabi and his troublemaking colleagues into the country. No sooner had he bowed to their demands than the Alexandria garrison mutinied, forcing Tawfiq to reappoint the ministry as quickly as he had brought about its downfall.
"A torrent of propaganda was now directed at Urabi from afar. Egypt had 'fallen into the hands of a clique of obscure officers, most of whose names had never been heard of in Egypt twelve months before.' [British PM] Gladstone, using language strikingly reminiscent of Sir Anthony Eden's attacks on President Gamal abd Al Nasser in 1956, called Urabi a 'usurper and dictator.' British and French warships were sent to Alexandria in the name of being on hand to protect the lives of Europeans should the 'rabble' turn on them. They took up their positions in the late spring and lay waiting, as motionless at anchor as crouched animals on a hot day. The British fleet consisted of nine warships (Alexandra - the flagship - Inflexible, Superb, Tremeraire, Sultan, Condor, Monarch, Invincible, and Penelope) and five gunboats (Bittern, Cygnet, Beacon, Helicon, and Decoy) fitted with 'torpedo apparatus' as well as the Gatling guns and Nordenfeld cannon with which the ironclads were also equipped. They were later joined by the warship Achilles. This display of naval power must have filled the inhabitants of the city with rising apprehension as the days went by without the warships moving.
"Alexandria's population of about 230,000 included 70,000 'Europeans,' a category that included Maltese, Armenians, Greeks, and Jews as well as the nationals of European states (including about 4,500 Britons). The provocative, ominous presence of the warships inevitably ended in disturbances. On June 11, a fight in the Rue des Soeurs between two donkey boys - one a Maltese Christian and the other a Muslim - triggered rioting in which about 300 people died. The estimated 150 European dead included the chief engineer of the Superb and two other Englishmen... who were 'literally done to death' in the street. Many of the victims were Maltese; others were Muslims cut down with rifles distributed beforehand to local Christians by the British consul... with the help and planning of the commander of the British fleet and the 'implicit backing' of the Foreign office and the Admiralty.
"News of the rioting caused panic in Cairo. Thousands of European and local Christians fled to Alexandria to book passages on ships out of the country. About fourteen thousand had left by June 17, and a further eight thousand were waiting to leave. The departure of so many trained personnel threatened to disrupt government services, including railways, posts, telegraphs, and the provision of water to Alexandria. The khedive was urged to move government offices to the port city, where the British fleet riding at anchor would be close at hand in case of further trouble.
"A conference that was convened in Constantinople to resolve the crisis ended without a solution being found. On July 3, the commander of the British flotilla (Sir Beauchamp Seymour) warned the Egyptian government to stop strengthening coastal fortifications at Alexandria or face the consequences, and on July 9 Gladstone gave his approval for an attack two days later. Having stationed their warships off the coast of another country and triggered serious disorders by their presence, the British now claimed the right to attack as 'a measure of self defence'."
Saturday, March 24, 2018
Salivating Zionists
John Howard responds to Kevin Rudd (see my 21/3/18 post More Fool He) in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald:
"The statement of [Rudd's] about the existence of WMDs, to which I... have most frequently referred over the years was contained in a speech he delivered to the State Zionist Council of Victoria on October 15, 2002. In it he asserted that it was 'an empirical fact' that Iraq possessed WMDs. He based his assertion not on intelligence material, but on a bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists, which listed Iraq among a number of states in possession of chemical and biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program."
"The statement of [Rudd's] about the existence of WMDs, to which I... have most frequently referred over the years was contained in a speech he delivered to the State Zionist Council of Victoria on October 15, 2002. In it he asserted that it was 'an empirical fact' that Iraq possessed WMDs. He based his assertion not on intelligence material, but on a bulletin from the Federation of American Scientists, which listed Iraq among a number of states in possession of chemical and biological weapons and with the capacity to develop a nuclear program."
Wednesday, March 21, 2018
More Fool He
Kevin Rudd in today's Sydney Morning Herald:
"In virtually every speech Howard has given on Iraq since 2003, he has also sought to justify his decision to go to war on the grounds that I, too, had said at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As in fact had most people. But there is a small problem with this argument. Like most Australians then, I had no access to intelligence material. I accepted the government's claims about the existence of Iraqi WMDs at face value - it didn't cross my mind that Howard would flagrantly misrepresent its content." (Monstrous strategic mistake that took us to war in Iraq)
It didn't cross his mind? Really? Well, I never...
"In virtually every speech Howard has given on Iraq since 2003, he has also sought to justify his decision to go to war on the grounds that I, too, had said at the time that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. As in fact had most people. But there is a small problem with this argument. Like most Australians then, I had no access to intelligence material. I accepted the government's claims about the existence of Iraqi WMDs at face value - it didn't cross my mind that Howard would flagrantly misrepresent its content." (Monstrous strategic mistake that took us to war in Iraq)
It didn't cross his mind? Really? Well, I never...
Tuesday, March 20, 2018
Britain's 'Collective Amnesia'
Ever get the feeling that the Iraq war (2003-), the great war for regime change and Israeli hegemony in the Middle East (let's cut the crap about oil), has largely receded from living memory?
That the impact of digital amnesia and neoliberal policies on peoples' lives has been so great that the 21st century's equivalent of World War I now seems almost as remote as that war?
That one of the reasons people are so gulled by the official 'rebels vs the dictator' line on Syria is because they've forgotten what the Iraq war was really all about?
Now I haven't read British writer Will Self's latest novel but I cannot fault his response to the following interview question:
The Iraq war also features heavily in Phone. Why was it important to you to include?
"I cannot think of a serious literary novelist in this country who's tackled the Iraq war at all. And I think it is the biggest stain on our national character of the past 20 years. And I think that collective amnesia about it and refusal to engage with it is playing out in political decisions that are being made now." (Will Self: 'The novel is absolutely doomed', Alex Clark, theguardian.com, 18/3/18)
But it's worse than that: never forget that "the biggest stain on [Britain's] national character" of the past 100 years is the Palestine problem and that not one "serious [British] literary novelist," except the now forgotten Ethel Mannin (1900-1984)*, has tackled that particular stain.
[The Road to Beersheba (1963); The Night & its Homing (1966)]
That the impact of digital amnesia and neoliberal policies on peoples' lives has been so great that the 21st century's equivalent of World War I now seems almost as remote as that war?
That one of the reasons people are so gulled by the official 'rebels vs the dictator' line on Syria is because they've forgotten what the Iraq war was really all about?
Now I haven't read British writer Will Self's latest novel but I cannot fault his response to the following interview question:
The Iraq war also features heavily in Phone. Why was it important to you to include?
"I cannot think of a serious literary novelist in this country who's tackled the Iraq war at all. And I think it is the biggest stain on our national character of the past 20 years. And I think that collective amnesia about it and refusal to engage with it is playing out in political decisions that are being made now." (Will Self: 'The novel is absolutely doomed', Alex Clark, theguardian.com, 18/3/18)
But it's worse than that: never forget that "the biggest stain on [Britain's] national character" of the past 100 years is the Palestine problem and that not one "serious [British] literary novelist," except the now forgotten Ethel Mannin (1900-1984)*, has tackled that particular stain.
[The Road to Beersheba (1963); The Night & its Homing (1966)]
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
Did Adam Bandt Really Need to Apologise to Jim Molan?
"Liberal senator Jim Molan has refused to accept the apology of the Greens MP who questioned his military record in Iraq, insisting his threat of defamation is still on the table. Melbourne Greens MP Adam Bandt suggested in a TV interview on Wednesday the senator may have committed war crimes during the battle for Fallujah. Senator Molan, a retired major-general who served as the chief of operations of the US-led coalition forces in Iraq, quickly threatened to pursue the Greens MP to the courts for defamation." (Greens MP Adam Bandt has apologised for questioning Liberal senator Jim Molan's military action in Iraq, after been threatened with defamation, sbs.com.au, 9/2/18)
If Adam Bandt had read the following text - IOW, if he'd done his homework - maybe he wouldn't have been intimidated into issuing his apology:
"The siege of Fallujah, carried out by US forces upon a mainly civilian population, contravened 70 individual articles of the Geneva Conventions.
"The US, an original signatory to the Conventions, is in its activities in Iraq currently in breach of nearly every major area of concern identified by them...Those in command have chosen to drive a tank trough a century and a half of delicately crafted regulations on the treatment of those involved in conflict...The Conventions are the basis of international law in times of war, and not a simple formality or series of guidelines; the American actions in Fallujah are therefore grave indeed."(The Siege of Fallujah and the Geneva Conventions, Jonathan Holmes, quoted in Fallujah; Eyewitness testimony from Iraq's besieged city, Jonathan Holmes, 2007, pp 112-13)
If Adam Bandt had read the following text - IOW, if he'd done his homework - maybe he wouldn't have been intimidated into issuing his apology:
"The siege of Fallujah, carried out by US forces upon a mainly civilian population, contravened 70 individual articles of the Geneva Conventions.
"The US, an original signatory to the Conventions, is in its activities in Iraq currently in breach of nearly every major area of concern identified by them...Those in command have chosen to drive a tank trough a century and a half of delicately crafted regulations on the treatment of those involved in conflict...The Conventions are the basis of international law in times of war, and not a simple formality or series of guidelines; the American actions in Fallujah are therefore grave indeed."(The Siege of Fallujah and the Geneva Conventions, Jonathan Holmes, quoted in Fallujah; Eyewitness testimony from Iraq's besieged city, Jonathan Holmes, 2007, pp 112-13)
Tuesday, September 26, 2017
The Iraqi Kurdish Independence Referendum
Kurdish warlords plot independence course to fill the ISIS vacuum, The Economist/The Australian, 25/9/17:
"As the jihadists of the so-called Islamic State retreat, the Arab and Kurdish forces allied against it in Iraq are turning their arms towards each other.
"Rather than celebrate victory, Masoud Barzani, the President of Iraqi Kurdistan, called a referendum on independence for today, not just in his constitutionally recognised autonomous zone but in the vast tracts that his forces seized from Islamic State. Protesting against this threat to Iraq's integrity, Iraq's Prime Minster Haider al-Abadi gathered his commanders at Makhmour, opposite the Kurdish front lines. If the referendum went ahead, Kurdistan 'might disappear', he warned. Hoping to prevent to prevent their allies from sparring, Western mediators have stepped in. But yesterday Barzani remained committed to his referendum.
"Kurdistan is far from ready for statehood. The government is steeped in debt; its coffers are empty. The Peshmerga, its vaunted fighting force, is split among family-led factions.
"Barzani, for his part, has made a mockery of the political system. In 2015 he shut parliament after it tried to limit his powers and questioned how he spends oil revenues. Instead of dealing with the region's ills ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections planned for November, he has used the referendum to distract the public and rouse nationalist fervour. Rallies across Kurdistan feature fireworks and fiery rhetoric. 'Whatever it takes (to gain independence),' says a normally cool-headed official at a rally. A toll of half a million dead, he suggests, could be acceptable.
"Neighbours around the enclave are uniting against the Kurds. Iraqi politicians speak of closing its airspace. Fearing that the referendum will stir separatists sentiments among their own Kurds, Turkey and Iran have mulled closing their borders with Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey is conducting military exercises on the frontier. It could turn off the tap of the territory's only pipeline, blocking its oil exports. Western powers are also threatening to withhold aid to Kurdistan if Barzani rejects their proposals.They are offering Barzani and Abadi a room in the US embassy to negotiate a deal under their auspices. Abadi might endorse a process that buys him time. Barzani is still hoping for a path to independence.
"Many Kurds, for now at least, would prefer their leaders focus on improving Kurdistan rather than seceding. Even in the Kurdish capital, Irbil, the referendum has left many nonplussed. As the threat of a siege mounts - Kurdistan imports almost everything - people are stockpiling basics. Flights out of Irbil are packed. But many are feeling squeezed financially. The referendum is 'a luxury only the rich like Barzani can afford,' complains a teacher, who moonlights as a taxi driver because of cuts to salaries. Beyond Barzani's strongholds the campaign for independence has begun belatedly, if at all. In a straw poll in the main market of Sulaymaniyah, in the east, your correspondent could not find one Kurd who said he would vote.
"In the Nineveh Plains, where an earthen wall splits the Arab- and Kurdish-ruled areas, other minorities view the referendum as an impossible loyalty test. 'Each side is forcing us to choose when we should just abstain,' says a priest at St Joseph's, a towering Chaldean church that serves displaced Christians in Irbil. Abadi is planning a conference for Christians to air their grievances at the end of the month. Barzani is urging priests not to go.
"The tensions are also affecting Kurds beyond Kurdistan. Under Saddam Hussein, Baghdad was Iraq's largest Kurdish city. Many Kurds have since drifted north, but hundreds still hold positions in the government and the army. Their loyalty has been questioned and jobs put at risk.
"If violence flares, Kirkuk may be where it starts. The fighting could spread quickly along the region's ethnic faultlines into Syria, where Arab and Kurdish forces are also competing to take land from Islamic State.
"Even if the referendum passes, Barzani is not obliged to declare independence. A deal might better serve his interests. Right now, he risks ignominy if the exuberance of statehood that he has stoked should dissipate, and his people flee a failed and besieged state. With an accord, he could boast of at least bringing evasive Iraqi officials to the table. He might yet win their agreement to restore the old subsidy for the Kurds that was cut when they began selling Kirkuk's plentiful oil independently. And he might add the Peshmerga to the Iraqi government's payroll, as was done for the Shia militias. He would thus alleviate Kurdish fears of being marginalised, having served their purpose in fighting Islamic State.
"Come the election in November, Western powers are likely to turn a blind eye if the ballot is again postponed. If so, Barzani could thus secure his position as Kurdistan's preeminent warlord, and prolong his one-man rule."
"As the jihadists of the so-called Islamic State retreat, the Arab and Kurdish forces allied against it in Iraq are turning their arms towards each other.
"Rather than celebrate victory, Masoud Barzani, the President of Iraqi Kurdistan, called a referendum on independence for today, not just in his constitutionally recognised autonomous zone but in the vast tracts that his forces seized from Islamic State. Protesting against this threat to Iraq's integrity, Iraq's Prime Minster Haider al-Abadi gathered his commanders at Makhmour, opposite the Kurdish front lines. If the referendum went ahead, Kurdistan 'might disappear', he warned. Hoping to prevent to prevent their allies from sparring, Western mediators have stepped in. But yesterday Barzani remained committed to his referendum.
"Kurdistan is far from ready for statehood. The government is steeped in debt; its coffers are empty. The Peshmerga, its vaunted fighting force, is split among family-led factions.
"Barzani, for his part, has made a mockery of the political system. In 2015 he shut parliament after it tried to limit his powers and questioned how he spends oil revenues. Instead of dealing with the region's ills ahead of parliamentary and presidential elections planned for November, he has used the referendum to distract the public and rouse nationalist fervour. Rallies across Kurdistan feature fireworks and fiery rhetoric. 'Whatever it takes (to gain independence),' says a normally cool-headed official at a rally. A toll of half a million dead, he suggests, could be acceptable.
"Neighbours around the enclave are uniting against the Kurds. Iraqi politicians speak of closing its airspace. Fearing that the referendum will stir separatists sentiments among their own Kurds, Turkey and Iran have mulled closing their borders with Iraqi Kurdistan. Turkey is conducting military exercises on the frontier. It could turn off the tap of the territory's only pipeline, blocking its oil exports. Western powers are also threatening to withhold aid to Kurdistan if Barzani rejects their proposals.They are offering Barzani and Abadi a room in the US embassy to negotiate a deal under their auspices. Abadi might endorse a process that buys him time. Barzani is still hoping for a path to independence.
"Many Kurds, for now at least, would prefer their leaders focus on improving Kurdistan rather than seceding. Even in the Kurdish capital, Irbil, the referendum has left many nonplussed. As the threat of a siege mounts - Kurdistan imports almost everything - people are stockpiling basics. Flights out of Irbil are packed. But many are feeling squeezed financially. The referendum is 'a luxury only the rich like Barzani can afford,' complains a teacher, who moonlights as a taxi driver because of cuts to salaries. Beyond Barzani's strongholds the campaign for independence has begun belatedly, if at all. In a straw poll in the main market of Sulaymaniyah, in the east, your correspondent could not find one Kurd who said he would vote.
"In the Nineveh Plains, where an earthen wall splits the Arab- and Kurdish-ruled areas, other minorities view the referendum as an impossible loyalty test. 'Each side is forcing us to choose when we should just abstain,' says a priest at St Joseph's, a towering Chaldean church that serves displaced Christians in Irbil. Abadi is planning a conference for Christians to air their grievances at the end of the month. Barzani is urging priests not to go.
"The tensions are also affecting Kurds beyond Kurdistan. Under Saddam Hussein, Baghdad was Iraq's largest Kurdish city. Many Kurds have since drifted north, but hundreds still hold positions in the government and the army. Their loyalty has been questioned and jobs put at risk.
"If violence flares, Kirkuk may be where it starts. The fighting could spread quickly along the region's ethnic faultlines into Syria, where Arab and Kurdish forces are also competing to take land from Islamic State.
"Even if the referendum passes, Barzani is not obliged to declare independence. A deal might better serve his interests. Right now, he risks ignominy if the exuberance of statehood that he has stoked should dissipate, and his people flee a failed and besieged state. With an accord, he could boast of at least bringing evasive Iraqi officials to the table. He might yet win their agreement to restore the old subsidy for the Kurds that was cut when they began selling Kirkuk's plentiful oil independently. And he might add the Peshmerga to the Iraqi government's payroll, as was done for the Shia militias. He would thus alleviate Kurdish fears of being marginalised, having served their purpose in fighting Islamic State.
"Come the election in November, Western powers are likely to turn a blind eye if the ballot is again postponed. If so, Barzani could thus secure his position as Kurdistan's preeminent warlord, and prolong his one-man rule."
Tuesday, August 22, 2017
Spain's Tony Blair
What a piece of work is (this) man:
"This time it was Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. I am especially aggrieved at the brutal violence that has left dozens dead and injured in one of Europe's most important cities and one of the places I love the most... ," writes former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar in yesterday's Australian (For us not to be defeated, we must defeat terrorists).
Aznar, you'll recall, Spain's prime minister from 1996-2004, joined the 2003 Bush, Blair, Howard jihad against Iraq, which opened that country up to al-Qaida, led directly to the Madrid train bombings of March 2004 (192 killed and over 1,800 wounded), and contributed to his massive defeat in the 2004 Spanish elections.
"A personal responsibility is linked with a political purpose within those who voluntarily sign up for this jihad in its different manifestations. Any anti-terrorist policy that wishes to be successful must actively address these two aspects. In this respect, any self-blame, any reasoning designed to ignore the underlying political purpose, any desire to excuse the terrorist or blame the societies that suffer terrorism - including those with Muslim majorities - is completely out of place." (ibid)
But for Aznar there was no "personal responsibility" attached to "voluntarily signing up" to Bush's jihad in Iraq, nor one iota of "self-blame":
"I am going with my head held high and proud of the job I have done," he declared after being booted out of office in 2004. (Spain's Aznar: No regrets on Iraq War, foxnews.com, 22/3/04)
And, when asked how he felt about the carnage in Madrid, he uttered these words:
"Calm, serene, fulfilling my responsibilities and obligations as always... I see a lot of light in hope and in the future."
Maybe that explains why this war criminal is now a director of News Corp and opining in Murdoch's Australian.
"This time it was Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. I am especially aggrieved at the brutal violence that has left dozens dead and injured in one of Europe's most important cities and one of the places I love the most... ," writes former Spanish prime minister Jose Maria Aznar in yesterday's Australian (For us not to be defeated, we must defeat terrorists).
Aznar, you'll recall, Spain's prime minister from 1996-2004, joined the 2003 Bush, Blair, Howard jihad against Iraq, which opened that country up to al-Qaida, led directly to the Madrid train bombings of March 2004 (192 killed and over 1,800 wounded), and contributed to his massive defeat in the 2004 Spanish elections.
"A personal responsibility is linked with a political purpose within those who voluntarily sign up for this jihad in its different manifestations. Any anti-terrorist policy that wishes to be successful must actively address these two aspects. In this respect, any self-blame, any reasoning designed to ignore the underlying political purpose, any desire to excuse the terrorist or blame the societies that suffer terrorism - including those with Muslim majorities - is completely out of place." (ibid)
But for Aznar there was no "personal responsibility" attached to "voluntarily signing up" to Bush's jihad in Iraq, nor one iota of "self-blame":
"I am going with my head held high and proud of the job I have done," he declared after being booted out of office in 2004. (Spain's Aznar: No regrets on Iraq War, foxnews.com, 22/3/04)
And, when asked how he felt about the carnage in Madrid, he uttered these words:
"Calm, serene, fulfilling my responsibilities and obligations as always... I see a lot of light in hope and in the future."
Maybe that explains why this war criminal is now a director of News Corp and opining in Murdoch's Australian.
Monday, May 22, 2017
Unpacking Trump's Saudi Speech
* Wahhabi Saudi Arabia is to become HQ for combatting the spread of... Wahhabism:
"Later today, we will make history again with the opening of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology - located right here, in this central part of the Islamic World. This groundbreaking new center represents a clear declaration that Muslim-majority countries must take the lead in combating radicalization, and I want to express our gratitude to King Salman for this strong demonstration of leadership..." (Trump's speech to the Arab Islamic American Summit, Riyadh, 21/5/17)
* Ignoring the fact that Wahhabist Saudi Arabia spawned 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, Trump cites... "the atrocities of September 11th":
"With God's help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed... But this future can only be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it. Few nations have been spared its violent reach. America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks - from the atrocities of September 11th..."
(After, of course, once blaming 9/11 on the Saudis.)
* Trump, borrowing from Netanyahu's script, illegitimately conflates national resistance movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas with globalist Islamist movements:
"The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams."
* The leader of the country that has done the most to promote sectarianism in the Middle East tells assembled Arab leaders that:
"This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, different civilizations."
(And this as the Saudi army is engaged in a military assault on the Saudi Shiite town of Awamia.)
* Trump takes square aim at the very forces - Iran, Syria and Hezbollah - who are fighting to roll back the Wahhabi/jihadi/takfiri terrorist gangs in Iraq and Syria:
"From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror. It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room. Among Iran's most tragic and destabilizing interventions have been in Syria. Bolstered by Iran, Assad has committed unspeakable crimes..."
***
Saddam Hussein presciently told his CIA interrogators following his capture in December 2003 that:
"Wahhabism is going to spread in the Arab nation and probably faster than anyone expects. And the reason why is that people will view Wahhabism as an idea and a struggle... Iraq will be a battlefield for anyone who wants to carry arms against America. And now there is an actual battlefield for a face-to-face confrontation." (Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, John Nixon, 2016, p 4)
His prophecy of an Arab world turned Wahhabi battlefield has, of course, stood the test of time.
The process began, of course, with Bush's war on Iraq in 2003, which saw the emergence, first of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), and then Islamic State (IS), both of whom have since spread into Syria. But even someone as experienced as Saddam could hardly have imagined the US, post 9/11, both backing ('moderate') and battling ('extremist') Wahhabi gangs in Syria.*
Moreover, Trump's $US460 billion (110bn upfront/350bn over 10 years) sale of WMD to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia will not only enable it to further fuel existing Wahhabi fires in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, but light new ones in Iran and Lebanon.
And then there's Zionist Israel, now a de facto ally of the Saudi Wahhabis, and with an even greater stockpile of American WMD...
Stop the world, I want to get off.
[*FYI: "This chapter [12. Washington, terrorism & ISIS: the evidence] has presented sufficient evidence for us to safely draw these conclusions. First, Washington planned a bloody wave of regime change in its favour in the Middle East, getting allies such as the Saudis to use sectarian forces in the process of 'creative destruction'. Second, the US directly financed and armed a range of so-called 'moderate' terrorist groups against the sovereign state of Syria while its key allies the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey financed, armed and supported with arms and medical treatment every anti-Syrian armed group, whether 'moderate' or extreme. Third, 'jihadists' for Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS were actively recruited in many countries, indicating that the rise of those groups was not due to a simple anti-western 'Sunni' reaction within the region. Fourth, NATO member Turkey functioned as a 'free transit zone' for every type of terrorist group passing into Syria. Fifth, there is testimony from a significant number of senior Iraqi officials that US arms have been delivered directly to ISIS. Sixth, the ineffective, or at best selective, US 'war' against ISIS tends to corroborate the Iraqi and Syrian views that there is a controlling relationship. In sum we can conclude that the US has built a command relationship with all of the anti-Syrian terrorist groups, including al Nusra [and] ISIS, either directly or through its close regional allies, the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey. Washington has attempted to play a 'double game' in Syria and Iraq, using its old doctrine of 'plausible deniability' to maintain the fiction of a 'war on terrorism' for as long as is possible." (The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change & Resistance, Tim Anderson, 2016, pp 251-52)]
"Later today, we will make history again with the opening of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology - located right here, in this central part of the Islamic World. This groundbreaking new center represents a clear declaration that Muslim-majority countries must take the lead in combating radicalization, and I want to express our gratitude to King Salman for this strong demonstration of leadership..." (Trump's speech to the Arab Islamic American Summit, Riyadh, 21/5/17)
* Ignoring the fact that Wahhabist Saudi Arabia spawned 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers, Trump cites... "the atrocities of September 11th":
"With God's help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed... But this future can only be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it. Few nations have been spared its violent reach. America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks - from the atrocities of September 11th..."
(After, of course, once blaming 9/11 on the Saudis.)
* Trump, borrowing from Netanyahu's script, illegitimately conflates national resistance movements such as Hezbollah and Hamas with globalist Islamist movements:
"The true toll of ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams."
* The leader of the country that has done the most to promote sectarianism in the Middle East tells assembled Arab leaders that:
"This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, different civilizations."
(And this as the Saudi army is engaged in a military assault on the Saudi Shiite town of Awamia.)
* Trump takes square aim at the very forces - Iran, Syria and Hezbollah - who are fighting to roll back the Wahhabi/jihadi/takfiri terrorist gangs in Iraq and Syria:
"From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror. It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room. Among Iran's most tragic and destabilizing interventions have been in Syria. Bolstered by Iran, Assad has committed unspeakable crimes..."
***
Saddam Hussein presciently told his CIA interrogators following his capture in December 2003 that:
"Wahhabism is going to spread in the Arab nation and probably faster than anyone expects. And the reason why is that people will view Wahhabism as an idea and a struggle... Iraq will be a battlefield for anyone who wants to carry arms against America. And now there is an actual battlefield for a face-to-face confrontation." (Debriefing the President: The Interrogation of Saddam Hussein, John Nixon, 2016, p 4)
His prophecy of an Arab world turned Wahhabi battlefield has, of course, stood the test of time.
The process began, of course, with Bush's war on Iraq in 2003, which saw the emergence, first of al-Qa'ida in Iraq (AQI), and then Islamic State (IS), both of whom have since spread into Syria. But even someone as experienced as Saddam could hardly have imagined the US, post 9/11, both backing ('moderate') and battling ('extremist') Wahhabi gangs in Syria.*
Moreover, Trump's $US460 billion (110bn upfront/350bn over 10 years) sale of WMD to Wahhabi Saudi Arabia will not only enable it to further fuel existing Wahhabi fires in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, but light new ones in Iran and Lebanon.
And then there's Zionist Israel, now a de facto ally of the Saudi Wahhabis, and with an even greater stockpile of American WMD...
Stop the world, I want to get off.
[*FYI: "This chapter [12. Washington, terrorism & ISIS: the evidence] has presented sufficient evidence for us to safely draw these conclusions. First, Washington planned a bloody wave of regime change in its favour in the Middle East, getting allies such as the Saudis to use sectarian forces in the process of 'creative destruction'. Second, the US directly financed and armed a range of so-called 'moderate' terrorist groups against the sovereign state of Syria while its key allies the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey financed, armed and supported with arms and medical treatment every anti-Syrian armed group, whether 'moderate' or extreme. Third, 'jihadists' for Jabhat al Nusra and ISIS were actively recruited in many countries, indicating that the rise of those groups was not due to a simple anti-western 'Sunni' reaction within the region. Fourth, NATO member Turkey functioned as a 'free transit zone' for every type of terrorist group passing into Syria. Fifth, there is testimony from a significant number of senior Iraqi officials that US arms have been delivered directly to ISIS. Sixth, the ineffective, or at best selective, US 'war' against ISIS tends to corroborate the Iraqi and Syrian views that there is a controlling relationship. In sum we can conclude that the US has built a command relationship with all of the anti-Syrian terrorist groups, including al Nusra [and] ISIS, either directly or through its close regional allies, the Saudis, Qatar, Israel and Turkey. Washington has attempted to play a 'double game' in Syria and Iraq, using its old doctrine of 'plausible deniability' to maintain the fiction of a 'war on terrorism' for as long as is possible." (The Dirty War on Syria: Washington, Regime Change & Resistance, Tim Anderson, 2016, pp 251-52)]
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Paul McGeough: History Overboard
Paul McGeough's "analysis" in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald is a perfect example of the appalling history overboard school of journalism so lucidly described by Peter Hitchens in my last post.
Here's McGeough's opener:
"If there was a selfish, inward-looking core to Donald Trump's election-winning 'America First' philosophy, it took a backseat to human decency on Thursday, when the President ordered a swift and stunning missile assault on a Syrian air base as punishment for a poisonous gas attack that killed more than 80 civilians this week." (Syria's complex fight is now more complex)
Not only is Syria's guilt assumed, but the hitherto reviled Trump is deemed to have finally done the decent thing by unleashing his missiles! Next thing you know, McGeough will be hailing Trump as 'presidential'."
Some more McGeough gems from the same piece:
"But what happens next - how do Russia and Iran, patrons of the beleaguered Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad respond?"
McGeough's takfiri head-choppers are everywhere on the defensive in Syria, yet it's Asad who's "beleaguered"?
"Compared with 2013, when President Barack Obama failed to act on his 'red-line' to the Damascus regime that Washington would launch military strikes against the regime if it used chemical weapons - but didn't... "
No mention, of course, that Obama "failed to act" for the very best of reasons - Asad hadn't, in fact, crossed his red-line. (See my 8/4/17 post Why Obama Didn't Do What Trump Has Just Done.)
"[Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson, cold-heartedly, insisted that it was up to the war-ravaged Syrians, not the US, to decide Assad's fate."
Unbelievable! If only George W Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had "cold-heartedly" declared that it was up to the Iraqis, not the US, to decide Saddam Hussein's fate!
Here's McGeough's opener:
"If there was a selfish, inward-looking core to Donald Trump's election-winning 'America First' philosophy, it took a backseat to human decency on Thursday, when the President ordered a swift and stunning missile assault on a Syrian air base as punishment for a poisonous gas attack that killed more than 80 civilians this week." (Syria's complex fight is now more complex)
Not only is Syria's guilt assumed, but the hitherto reviled Trump is deemed to have finally done the decent thing by unleashing his missiles! Next thing you know, McGeough will be hailing Trump as 'presidential'."
Some more McGeough gems from the same piece:
"But what happens next - how do Russia and Iran, patrons of the beleaguered Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad respond?"
McGeough's takfiri head-choppers are everywhere on the defensive in Syria, yet it's Asad who's "beleaguered"?
"Compared with 2013, when President Barack Obama failed to act on his 'red-line' to the Damascus regime that Washington would launch military strikes against the regime if it used chemical weapons - but didn't... "
No mention, of course, that Obama "failed to act" for the very best of reasons - Asad hadn't, in fact, crossed his red-line. (See my 8/4/17 post Why Obama Didn't Do What Trump Has Just Done.)
"[Secretary of State Rex] Tillerson, cold-heartedly, insisted that it was up to the war-ravaged Syrians, not the US, to decide Assad's fate."
Unbelievable! If only George W Bush's Secretary of State, Colin Powell, had "cold-heartedly" declared that it was up to the Iraqis, not the US, to decide Saddam Hussein's fate!
Mainstream Media as History-Free Zone
Must-read: It's WMD all over again. Why don't you see it? by Peter Hitchens:
"Actually knowing something, remembering history and having experience of the world is becoming a disadvantage. How much easier it would be to join in with the flow of opinion about Syria, to listen happily to, and read contentedly, media reports on the subject.
"As it is, I feel something close to physical pain as I do this.
"Today's frenzy over illegal use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair's WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it in exactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.
"How can trained journalists (and experienced diplomats) be so lacking in the desire or ability to question what they are told. How come that they accept without hesitation reports which have not come from their own staff, but instead come from within terrifying war zones where gangs of fanatical murderers are the only law? One or two at least have the decency to refer to the new reports as 'suspected' or alleged, but most present them as established fact. 'All the hallmarks' mean in such cases what? Though millions believe this has been proven, past accusations of gas use by Damascus have never been independently shown to be true." (hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk, 8/4/17)
Worth reading in full.
"Actually knowing something, remembering history and having experience of the world is becoming a disadvantage. How much easier it would be to join in with the flow of opinion about Syria, to listen happily to, and read contentedly, media reports on the subject.
"As it is, I feel something close to physical pain as I do this.
"Today's frenzy over illegal use of poison gas in Syria is the 2017 version of Anthony Blair's WMD in Iraq. Why can you not see it? Did you think they would do it in exactly the same way again? You are being assailed through your emotions, to act first and think long after, and far too late.
"How can trained journalists (and experienced diplomats) be so lacking in the desire or ability to question what they are told. How come that they accept without hesitation reports which have not come from their own staff, but instead come from within terrifying war zones where gangs of fanatical murderers are the only law? One or two at least have the decency to refer to the new reports as 'suspected' or alleged, but most present them as established fact. 'All the hallmarks' mean in such cases what? Though millions believe this has been proven, past accusations of gas use by Damascus have never been independently shown to be true." (hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk, 8/4/17)
Worth reading in full.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Bombs Away!
Syrian kids in harm's way? No sweat. A few American cruise missiles, and they'll be right as rain.
And anyway, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, wait:
"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah which was bombarded by US marines in 2004 exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study." (Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima', Patrick Cockburn, independent.co.uk, 23/7/10)
Damn, better ask America's favorite Syrian kid what she thinks first.
Hi, Bana, Uncle Donald here. Hope you and your mum are recovering from your war wounds over there in Turkey, and Uncle Recip's taking good care of you. Say, what do you think we should do about Syria?
"I am a Syrian child who suffered under Bashar al Asad & Putin. I welcome Donald Trump action against the killers of my people." (Bana Alabed tweet, 7/4/17)
Then bombs away it is!
And anyway, what could possibly go wrong?
Oh, wait:
"Dramatic increases in infant mortality, cancer and leukaemia in the Iraqi city of Fallujah which was bombarded by US marines in 2004 exceed those reported by survivors of the atomic bombs that were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, according to a new study." (Toxic legacy of US assault on Fallujah 'worse than Hiroshima', Patrick Cockburn, independent.co.uk, 23/7/10)
Damn, better ask America's favorite Syrian kid what she thinks first.
Hi, Bana, Uncle Donald here. Hope you and your mum are recovering from your war wounds over there in Turkey, and Uncle Recip's taking good care of you. Say, what do you think we should do about Syria?
"I am a Syrian child who suffered under Bashar al Asad & Putin. I welcome Donald Trump action against the killers of my people." (Bana Alabed tweet, 7/4/17)
Then bombs away it is!
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
'Republic of Fear' Revisited
In his moving feature, The women of Mosul & liberation from IS, Fairfax journalist Michael Bachelard writes that:
"Repression of all kinds was routine. Conservative Islam might require modesty but IS demanded invisibility. Under strictly enforced clothing rules, it was virtually impossible to visit the public square - certainly not without a male relative. 'Everyone was looking at you, all the time. Everyone was watching your movements,' says mother-of-five Ayat, at the Jada'ah camp near Qayyarah. 'We were to afraid to do anything... so we stopped going out at all.' Failing to wear gloves, flat shoes, or the double veil; even allowing a glimpse of flesh by lifting the veil a crack to check money at the market or to sip a drink - any of these breaches could lead to punishment. Some women were fined 50,000 ($50) or 100,000 dinars, others were whipped or hit with a wooden baton." (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/3/17)
This is Iraq 2017, 14 years on from the US overthrow of the secular, Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. While Saddam's Iraq may now be just a distant memory for women like Ayat, older Iraqi women would perhaps remember it with more than just nostalgia, even, relative to the present, as a kind of paradise lost.
It is worth remembering just how that relative paradise was viewed in the West before it was swept away in 2003, and replaced with the current nightmare world of Shia sectarianism in Baghdad and Wahhabi sectarian madness in Mosul.
Perhaps the most influential book on the subject of pre-2003 Iraq was the best-selling Republic of Fear (1989), written by Iraqi expat, Samir al-Khalil, the nom de plume of Kanan Makiya,
Makiya's thesis is that "Fear is the cement that holds together this strange body politic in Iraq. All forms of organization not directly controlled by the party have been wiped out. The public is atomized and broken up, which is why it can be made to believe anything. A society that used to revel in politics is not only subdued and silent, but profoundly apolitical. Fear is the agency of that transformation; the kind of fear that comes not only from what the neighbours might say, but that makes people careful of what they say in front of their children." (p 275)
Makiya, it should be pointed out, along with the likes of Ahmad Chalabi and Fouad Ajami, went on to become the 'native informant' component of the US ziocons, whose strident advocacy of regime change in Iraq was critical to the Bush/Blair invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he is on record as having described the initial US 'shock and awe' bombing of Baghdad as "music to my ears."*
Needless to say, without that invasion and occupation, first Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), and then its even more extreme offspring, Islamic State (IS), would never have appeared on the Iraqi scene, let alone gone on to take key Iraqi cities such a Mosul and transform them into the kind of Wahhabi sectarian hellholes described by women such as Ayat.
Makiya, writing on the subject of Iraqi women under Baathist rule in Republic of Fear, depicts, relative to the lives of women in Mosul under Islamic State, what must seem to us now as a near golden age of feminism:
"The entry of women into the educational system as a whole is another noteworthy Ba'thist accomplishment. In 1970-71, there were 318,524 girls in primary school, 88,595 at the secondary level, and 9,212 at the university level. For the 1979-80 school year the absolute numbers were respectively as follows: 1,165,856, 278,485, and 28,647. By 1980 women accounted for 46% of all teachers, 29% of physicians, 46% of dentists, 70% of pharmacists, 15% of accountants, 14% of factory workers, and 16% of civil servants [...] The important thing about all the legislation on women was precisely where it chose to make the break with tradition. Islamic law has always been clear regarding its view of the subordinate status of women in relation to men as a direct consequence of their sex... Moreover, there is nothing in the very sincere and far-reaching efforts of the Bath to involve women in the labour force or to mobilize them that is un-Islamic, although it certainly represents a radical break with traditional society and deeply cherished values. One need only mention the masses of veiled women mobilized by the Islamic movement in Iran, not only against the Shah, but to break up some of the early feminist demonstrations against Khomeini's edict on the veil." (pp 89-91)
All of which only accentuates the culpability of Bush, the Ziocons, and their Arab fellow travellers, for the appalling plight of the women so vividly described by Bachelard.
[*See Advocating a war in Iraq & offering an apology for what came after, Tim Arango, nytimes.com, 13/5/16]
"Repression of all kinds was routine. Conservative Islam might require modesty but IS demanded invisibility. Under strictly enforced clothing rules, it was virtually impossible to visit the public square - certainly not without a male relative. 'Everyone was looking at you, all the time. Everyone was watching your movements,' says mother-of-five Ayat, at the Jada'ah camp near Qayyarah. 'We were to afraid to do anything... so we stopped going out at all.' Failing to wear gloves, flat shoes, or the double veil; even allowing a glimpse of flesh by lifting the veil a crack to check money at the market or to sip a drink - any of these breaches could lead to punishment. Some women were fined 50,000 ($50) or 100,000 dinars, others were whipped or hit with a wooden baton." (Sydney Morning Herald, 5/3/17)
This is Iraq 2017, 14 years on from the US overthrow of the secular, Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003. While Saddam's Iraq may now be just a distant memory for women like Ayat, older Iraqi women would perhaps remember it with more than just nostalgia, even, relative to the present, as a kind of paradise lost.
It is worth remembering just how that relative paradise was viewed in the West before it was swept away in 2003, and replaced with the current nightmare world of Shia sectarianism in Baghdad and Wahhabi sectarian madness in Mosul.
Perhaps the most influential book on the subject of pre-2003 Iraq was the best-selling Republic of Fear (1989), written by Iraqi expat, Samir al-Khalil, the nom de plume of Kanan Makiya,
Makiya's thesis is that "Fear is the cement that holds together this strange body politic in Iraq. All forms of organization not directly controlled by the party have been wiped out. The public is atomized and broken up, which is why it can be made to believe anything. A society that used to revel in politics is not only subdued and silent, but profoundly apolitical. Fear is the agency of that transformation; the kind of fear that comes not only from what the neighbours might say, but that makes people careful of what they say in front of their children." (p 275)
Makiya, it should be pointed out, along with the likes of Ahmad Chalabi and Fouad Ajami, went on to become the 'native informant' component of the US ziocons, whose strident advocacy of regime change in Iraq was critical to the Bush/Blair invasion and occupation of Iraq, and he is on record as having described the initial US 'shock and awe' bombing of Baghdad as "music to my ears."*
Needless to say, without that invasion and occupation, first Al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), and then its even more extreme offspring, Islamic State (IS), would never have appeared on the Iraqi scene, let alone gone on to take key Iraqi cities such a Mosul and transform them into the kind of Wahhabi sectarian hellholes described by women such as Ayat.
Makiya, writing on the subject of Iraqi women under Baathist rule in Republic of Fear, depicts, relative to the lives of women in Mosul under Islamic State, what must seem to us now as a near golden age of feminism:
"The entry of women into the educational system as a whole is another noteworthy Ba'thist accomplishment. In 1970-71, there were 318,524 girls in primary school, 88,595 at the secondary level, and 9,212 at the university level. For the 1979-80 school year the absolute numbers were respectively as follows: 1,165,856, 278,485, and 28,647. By 1980 women accounted for 46% of all teachers, 29% of physicians, 46% of dentists, 70% of pharmacists, 15% of accountants, 14% of factory workers, and 16% of civil servants [...] The important thing about all the legislation on women was precisely where it chose to make the break with tradition. Islamic law has always been clear regarding its view of the subordinate status of women in relation to men as a direct consequence of their sex... Moreover, there is nothing in the very sincere and far-reaching efforts of the Bath to involve women in the labour force or to mobilize them that is un-Islamic, although it certainly represents a radical break with traditional society and deeply cherished values. One need only mention the masses of veiled women mobilized by the Islamic movement in Iran, not only against the Shah, but to break up some of the early feminist demonstrations against Khomeini's edict on the veil." (pp 89-91)
All of which only accentuates the culpability of Bush, the Ziocons, and their Arab fellow travellers, for the appalling plight of the women so vividly described by Bachelard.
[*See Advocating a war in Iraq & offering an apology for what came after, Tim Arango, nytimes.com, 13/5/16]
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)