Showing posts with label US foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US foreign policy. Show all posts

Sunday, June 10, 2012

American Heroes

“Now let your American heroes know how grateful you are for their service as they protect our freedom!” – Heard at any sporting event in the US

The voice from the loud-speaker prompts the crowd at a sporting event as half a dozen drab-dressed soldiers walk onto center stage.  The crowd rises to its feet and cheers as the uniformed soldiers wave.

Which of our freedoms do US soldiers protect? 

Do they protect our freedom to have our crotches groped at airports, train stations, and bus stops by government agents?

Do they protect our freedom to be strip-searched by our jailers after routine traffic stops?[1]

Do they protect our freedom to be monitored as decided by secret tribunals? [2] [3]

Do they protect our freedom to be stopped at random checkpoints to be commanded to show our “papers please” or to submit to a pat-down or luggage search?[4]

Do they protect our freedom to pay for unmanned drones to kill US citizens overseas and now to watch us at home?[5] [6] [7]

Do they protect our freedom to have our cell phones monitored?[8]

Attack the Messenger

“I feel uncomfortable about the word hero because it seems to me that it is so rhetorically proximate to justifications for more war.” – MSNBC host Chris Hayes generated a storm of criticism for daring to doubt the heroism of soldiers fighting in the US government’s perpetual war on terrorism.[9]

“But in fact the forces aren’t ‘serving their country’ or ‘keeping us free.’ They are doing the bidding of hack politicians, well-connected economic interests, and court intellectuals who are striving to satisfy personal ambition, attain wealth, or create historical legacies.” - Libertarian writer James Bovard[10]

During Memorial Day weekend, MSNBC host Chris Hayes was castigated by many for jeopardizing their illusion that US troops “defending the Homeland” (called the Fatherland in another time and place whose heroes were honored with the Iron Cross) were not performing a heroic task.[11]

And if the charges against Bradley Manning are true, Manning did even more than just suggest US troops are not on a heroic mission: Manning showed that US government actions overseas are terrorism—which is supposed to be what the other guys do.  

Manning, currently in a US military prison, is accused of leaking information to WikiLeaks that the US government would prefer to keep secret from the American public:

  • video of US troops and contractors killing innocent civilians and two journalists in Baghdad in 2007 with an attitude similar to teenage boys playing video games[12]
  • video of the Granai airstrike in Afghanistan on May 4, 2009 which killed over one hundred civilians, mainly women and children[13]
  • numerous US diplomatic cables on torture, diplomatic relations, drone attacks in Yemen, and other matters embarrassing to the US government.

How did American public respond to these revelations?

They didn’t—it didn’t immediately affect them.

How did the US government respond?

As evidenced by Manning’s imprisonment and the charges against him: with persecution and prosecution for aiding the enemy.[14]  The US government didn’t prosecute those who killed civilians, nor did it acknowledge its mistakes.  Instead, it attacked not only the whistleblower, but also WikiLeaks and Julian Assange, who had the courage to publish the information.[15]

Blowback

"We have gone a long way down the road of creating a situation where we are creating more enemies than we are removing from the battlefield. We are already there with regards to Pakistan and Afghanistan…. If you strike them indiscriminately you are running the risk of creating a terrific amount of popular anger. They have tribes and clans and large families. Now all of a sudden you have a big problem … I am very concerned about the creation of a larger terrorist safe haven in Yemen." - Robert Grenier, former CIA chief of counter-terrorism

The real danger will come from the response of those terrorized by US military actions.  Chalmers Johnson called it “blowback,” a euphemism for people in foreign countries who fight back against the oppressive foreign policies of the US.

The Obama administration has increasingly used unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists overseas.  The drone strike campaign diverts the attention of the public and lulls Americans to sleep because the drones are remotely piloted and there are fewer US troops in the battle zone.  Dennis C. Blair, former director of national intelligence, calls the drone strikes “dangerously seductive”:

“It is the politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no U.S. casualties, gives the appearance of toughness.  It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term.”[16]

Former CIA chief of counter-terrorism, Robert Grenier, criticizes the US government use of drones in the Middle East.  The indiscriminate strikes kill so many civilians and so outrage the population that Grenier expects a blowback response:

“We have been seduced by them and the unintended consequences of our actions are going to outweigh the intended consequences."[17]

A Nation of Suspects

In 2010, the Obama administration wrote a secret memo to rationalize the legality of killing US citizens overseas.  Again the public outcry was minimal, limited to Ron Paul and a few others who were marginalized by the media.  Most Americans ignored the US government murder of Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, without due process. 

Now drones are not just used overseas.  While we were sleeping, the federal government brought drones home to spy on us.  Michael Donley, Secretary of the Air Force, released a memorandum on 23 April 2012 authorizing the use of drones to spy on US citizens in the US.[18] [19] America is now a nation of suspects.  Our American “heroes” spy on us.

Section 9.5 of the memo authorizes the military to release photos taken by the spy drones to others in the government if “the recipient is reasonably perceived to have a specific, lawful governmental function requiring it.”

But don’t worry: the military will be careful when it violates our constitutional rights in the name of national security.  According to page 2 of the memo:

“Intelligence oversight (IO) involves a balancing of two fundamental interests: obtaining the intelligence information required to protect national security and protecting individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the laws of the United States (US).”

Section 7 of the memo talks about protections against intelligence agents who break the rules while operating in the US.  This is merely lip service as we remember how the government persecuted Bradley Manning for exposing the killing of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Despite all of the words in section 7 of the memo, the truth is: the government doesn’t really care if it breaks the rules; it just doesn’t want the public to know about it.

What will happen when the troops using spy drones in the US abuse their power?  Will another Bradley Manning step forward to be imprisoned for defending the rights of US citizens?

Heroes and Pawns

Supporters of the war make good use of the dead, who can’t speak for themselves, but they have no use for Bradley Manning, who allegedly told the world what the US government did to civilians overseas.  Unfortunately, US citizens’ response to proof of US forces killing civilians has been underwhelming.  And a collective yawn has greeted the PATRIOT Act, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) allowing indefinite detention of US citizens without trial, the TSA treating travelers like farm animals, and now the use of spy drones in the US.

Who are the heroes?  Those men and women who, however well-meaning, invade and occupy foreign countries because the government hoodwinks them into believing they’re protecting their country’s freedom?  Or are the real heroes those who point out the evils done by their own government and now sit in jail because of it?

“Memorial Day should be a time to remember the government’s crimes against the people. Politicians have perennially sent young Americans to die for false causes or on wild-goose chases.” – James Bovard

[1] Supreme Court of the United States, Florence v. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington et al., October Term 2011, (Accessed at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-945.pdf on June 3, 2012).

[5] “Drone Use Takes Off on the Home Front,” April 20, 2012, By ANDY PASZTOR and JOHN EMSHWILLER, Wall Street Journal, (Accessed at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304331204577354331959335276.html# on Apr 21, 2012).

Local organizations are applying to use drones:

“The more than 50 institutions that received approvals to operate remotely piloted aircraft…include not only agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security but also smaller ones such as the police departments in North Little Rock, Ark., and Ogden, Utah, as well the University of North Dakota and Nicholls State University in Louisiana.

“The information, released by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, came to light as the Federal Aviation Administration gears up to advance the widespread use of the drones. By the fall of 2015, Congress wants the agency to integrate remotely piloted aircraft throughout U.S. airspace.”

[6] “Gov.: Drones over Va. 'great'; cites battlefield success,” 5/29/2012, WTOP, by Paul D. Shinkman, (Accessed at http://www.wtop.com/120/2882193/Governor-Drones-over-Va-great-right-thing-to-do on May 31, 2012).

[7] “The Age Of Drones: Military May Be Using Drones In US To Help Police,” by Charles Feldman, CBS LA, June 4, 2012, (Accessed at http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/04/the-age-of-drones-military-may-be-using-drones-in-us-to-help-police/ on June 5, 2012).

“The revised Air Force report is a continuation of a policy already a few years old, but is causing more alarm now as drones appear poised to soon become a ubiquitous presence in U.S. skies thanks to a federal policy to promote their use, first by law enforcement agencies, and then by commercial concerns.”

[8] “Police Are Using Phone Tracking as a Routine Tool,” By ERIC LICHTBLAU, Mar 31, 2012, NY Times, (Accessed at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/01/us/police-tracking-of-cellphones-raises-privacy-fears.html?_r=2&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=all on Apr 1, 2012).

[11] “Blogs rip MSNBC's Chris Hayes on 'heroes',” By MACKENZIE WEINGER, 5/28/12, Politico.com, (Accessed at http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76799.html on June 3, 2012).

[18] “AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 14-104,” 23 APRIL 2012, Intelligence, OVERSIGHT OF INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES, (Accessed at http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/afi14-104.pdf on June 9, 2012).

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, May 29, 2011

The Roman Eagle

image

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Gaius Marius (157 BC – 86 BC)—Roman leader who strengthened the connection between the people of Rome and their military by allowing all Roman citizens into the legion, regardless of social class.  This drew poorer citizens to military service with the prospect of owning land in conquered territory.  Marius decreed that the eagle standard of the Roman legion would be the symbol of the Senate and People of Rome (or Senatus Populusque Romanus SPQR).

Over two thousand years ago, Julius Caesar (100 BC – 44 BC), as Roman governor of Gaul, had almost completed Rome’s conquest of Gaul when Vercingetorix, a Gallic nobleman, organized a rebellion.  Using hit and run tactics against a superior Roman military force, Vercingetorix nearly succeeded.  Caesar defeated the Gallic rebel leader at the Siege of Alesia in 52 BC. 

Romans may have viewed the defeat of Vercingetorix as a good thing, but three years later, Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon river and marched on Rome to start a five year civil war.  Caesar’s military success and eventual assumption of dictatorial powers was the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic.  Four years after defeating Vercingetorix, Caesar was appointed dictator, and he was appointed dictator-for-life shortly before his assassination.

The tyrant had four celebratory triumphs in Rome to boast of his military prowess.  The Roman mob, accustomed to crucifixions and other brutal displays of state power, were treated to the public strangulation of Vercingetorix six years after his surrender.  Vercingetorix was no longer a threat, but his execution was a useful reminder to the mob of the fate for those who dared to oppose the oligarchy.  Most Romans probably figured Vercingetorix was a bad man—after all, he didn’t want to be ruled by Rome. 

US and “Afpak”

Today’s Rome and Gaul are the US and the Afghanistan-Pakistan region (Afpak in now obsolete government-speak), and the US treats the Middle East as ancient Rome treated its conquered territories: as sources of commodities.[1]  And today’s Vercingetorix is Osama bin Laden.  But Americans pretend they’re unique in history, so they can’t see the parallels between American militarism and Roman imperialism.

The US does differ from ancient Rome in that Americans are a video culture isolated from reality.  Instead of a public execution of Osama bin Laden to demonstrate the brutal power of the state as Caesar did with Vercingetorix, pictures sufficed.  Michelle Bachmann and a handful of lawyer/legislators, isolated from what happens to real people, got to look at photos of the executed opponent of the US federal government.  “Our representatives” were convinced bin Laden was dead, just as an earlier hoax photograph on the Internet convinced Senator Scott Brown (R).[2] 

Today’s mob is so well-trained it was convinced by the word of its leaders without even seeing pictures.  Perhaps pictures were not released because it occurred to our rulers that pictures might cause some of the mob to have second thoughts about executing an unarmed opponent. 

Rome of Caesar’s day didn’t hesitate to shed blood to remind the populace that the state was a ruthless parent and infanticide was widely practiced.  Today, the US pretends to be a gentle Big Brother with only the people’s welfare as its concern.  Beneath the pretense, the US government is just as brutal to those who refuse to submit to its power.

The most recent version of the story of bin Laden’s death released by the US government was that bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed.[3]  Stories also said bin Laden’s wives were held for questioning.  But why murder bin Laden when he could have been taken prisoner?  If bin Laden was still a threat, wouldn’t he be more useful alive?  Why pretend to ask his wives what he was thinking after he was executed?  Unless you don’t really care about the answers?  Or unless the US still isn’t telling the truth? 

President Obama (D) told Americans that he had conferred with former President George W. Bush (R) after the execution.   Bush, interviewed later about his reaction to the news of the death of an enemy to the state, praised the fighting spirit of US government warriors, just as Julius Caesar had when writing of his soldiers who fought for booty in the Gallic Wars.[4] [5]  Bush, obviously pleased by the SEALs’ attitude, related a conversation he’d had with a SEAL Team Six warrior:

"I met SEAL Team Six in Afghanistan. They are awesome, skilled, talented and brave," he added. "I said, 'I hope you have everything you need. One guy said, 'We need your permission to go into Pakistan and kick ass.'" 

That’s just how our leaders like it: warriors completely loyal to our dog pack and completely oblivious to the US Constitution.

Standing behind a podium with the symbol of Rome, the golden eagle, prominently displayed upon it, President Obama announced bin Laden’s execution to the cheering mob (video and video).[6]

Of course Obama is no Caesar, no dictator for life.  Today’s news cycles are much shorter.  But even if Obama doesn’t win re-election, he’ll have been in control longer and with much more power than “tyrant-for-life” Julius Caesar.[7]  As the US government continues down a path similar to that of the Roman Republic, so too does the American mob, as it continues to embrace the power of the military.

__________________________________

[1] “Osama bin Laden mission agreed in secret 10 years ago by US and Pakistan,” Declan Walsh, May 9, 2011, The Guardian, (Accessed at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/may/09/osama-bin-laden-us-pakistan-deal on May 23, 2011).

A former US official explains US-Pakistan relations (keep your people in line or we will):

“The former US official said that impetus for the co-operation, much like the Bin Laden deal, was driven by the US. "It didn't come from Musharraf's desire. On the Predators, we made it very clear to them that if they weren't going to prosecute these targets, we were, and there was nothing they could do to stop us taking unilateral action.

“’We told them, over and again: “We'll stop the Predators if you take these targets out yourselves.”’”

[2] “Bachmann, other lawmakers see bin Laden photos; convinced ‘we got our man’,”  Dan Farber, Lucy Madison, CBS News, May 12, 2011, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20062269-503544.html May 23, 2011).

[3] “SEAL helmet cams recorded entire bin Laden raid,” By David Martin, May 12, 2011, CBS News, (Accessed at http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/12/eveningnews/main20062410.shtml on May 23, 2011).

[4] “George W. Bush Gives First Public Reaction to Osama Bin Laden Death,” By DEVIN DWYER, May 13, 2011, (Accessed at http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/george-bush-reacts-publicly-osama-bin-laden-death/story?id=13592860 on May 22, 2011).

[5] Julius Caesar related similar sympathies in his troops during a siege in Gaul (from Commentaries on the war in Gaul, book 7, chapters 14-31):

“Things were so serious, in fact, that for several days the men had no grain at all and managed to avoid starvation only by bringing in cattle from distant villages.

“But even so, no one uttered a word that was unworthy of the greatness of Rome or of the victories they had already won. Indeed, when I went round and spoke to the men of each legion as they worked, saying that I would raise the siege if they were finding their privations too much to bear, every man of them begged me not to. They had now served under me, they said, for many years without ever losing their good name or anywhere abandoning a task they had once begun. They would be disgraced if they gave up the siege they had started, and they would rather endure any hardship than fail to avenge the Roman citizens who had been killed at Orleans through the treachery of the Gauls. They made these same feelings known to the centurions and military tribunes, with requests that they should pass them on to me.”

Caesar’s rewarded his soldiers with slaves, plunder, booty, and bonuses in addition to their regular pay.

[6] At a bipartisan Congressional Dinner the day after his announcement, Obama decries the loss of the unity that was experienced immediately after 9-11.  Having a common enemy is a useful distraction for the mob and the oligarchs who rule them:

“I know that that unity that we felt on 9/11 has frayed a little bit over the years, and I have no illusions about the difficulties of the debates that we’ll have to be engaged in, in the weeks and months to come…And so tonight, it is my fervent hope that we can harness some of that unity and some of that pride to confront the many challenges that we still face.”

[7] Caesar was assassinated one month after he was declared “dictator for life.”

Posted by at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, October 2, 2010

Doublethink (Part 2)

“Then, with a movement which was as nearly as possible unconscious, he crumpled up the original message and any notes that he himself had made, and dropped them into the memory hole to be devoured by the flames.”

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 4, p. 36 by George Orwell.[1]

The Search for Iraqi WMD Flushed Down the Memory Hole

Within 18 months of the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Bush (R) administration segued to an invasion of Iraq to prevent Saddam Hussein’s use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD).  But when President Obama (D) declared the end of US combat in Iraq over seven years later on August 31, 2010, he didn’t dare mention the original reason for the preemptive invasion of Iraq—the search for WMD.

Did Obama remind anyone of how Condoleezza Rice (R), then-National Security advisor and later Bush administration Secretary of State,  made headlines in 2002 by warning about a “mushroom cloud” from Iraqi WMD?  Did he remind everyone how 9/11 was linked to non-existent WMD in Iraq in the minds of many Americans?

Obama couldn’t tell you that the Bush administration lied to Americans about the reasons to invade Iraq.  If he did, how could he justify his leaving 50,000 troops and 100,000 mercenaries stationed in Iraq?  The lie that the war was about WMD had been flushed down the memory hole.

Instead Obama talked about how “our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future.”

Bush followed a similar theme in his May 1, 2003 speech:

“In this battle, we have fought for the cause of liberty, and for the peace of the world. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment — yet it is you, the members of the United States military, who achieved it. Your courage — your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other — made this day possible. Because of you, our nation is more secure. Because of you, the tyrant has fallen, and Iraq is free.”

Because the real reason the US preemptively invaded Iraq—the search for WMD—had been flushed down the memory hole, history has been rewritten so that now, liberating Iraq was the reason the US invaded. 

President Obama said he was “awed” by the sacrifice of US troops who “defeated a regime that had terrorized its people.”  According to the latest spin, Saddam Hussein’s Baathist regime terrorized his people, so he had to be removed.  Obama couldn’t mention US contributions to terrorizing the Iraqi people.  He couldn’t mention the US contributions because they are all destined for the memory hole:

  • The only WMD Hussein possessed were chemical weapons (pdf) known by, and their use against Iranians and Kurds accepted by the US under the Reagan (R) administration when it supported Iraq in its war against Iran.[2][3]
  • The 13 years of US-supported UN sanctions on Iraq from 1990 to 2003 that contributed to an estimated 500,000 Iraqi deaths before the US invasion.[4]
  • The torture and abuse of Iraqis by their “American liberators” at Abu Ghraib after US troops deposed Hussein. 
  • The WikiLeaks video showing two Apache helicopters flown by “American liberators” killing civilians in Iraq in 2007.

If Obama mentioned any of the above, how could he pretend that the sacrifice of US troops in Iraq was to liberate Iraq? 

If he mentioned any of the above, how could he justify leaving (“non-combat”) troops in Iraq?

“He, Winston Smith, knew that Oceania had been in alliance with Eurasia as short a time as four years ago. But where did that knowledge exist? Only in his own consciousness, which in any case must soon be annihilated. And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth.”    

Nineteen Eighty-Four  Part 1 Chapter 3, p. 32 by George Orwell.

________________________________

[1] Nineteen Eighty-Four, by George Orwell, New American Library, N.Y., 1949, p. 36.

[2] "De-classified Report" (PDF), House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, June 21, 2006, (Accessed at http://intelligence.house.gov/Media/PDFS/DNILetter.pdf on Oct 1, 2010).

[3] “U.S. DOCUMENTS SHOW EMBRACE OF SADDAM HUSSEIN IN EARLY 1980s DESPITE CHEMICAL WEAPONS, EXTERNAL AGGRESSION, HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES,” George Washington University, National Security Archive, (Accessed at http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/press.htm on Sept. 30, 2010).

[4] Estimates of how many Iraqis died because of the UN-sanctions vary.  Some are over one million.  Critics dispute the claim that sanctions killed any Iraqis:

Critics ignore the purpose of sanctions (embargoes)—to make life so uncomfortable for people in a country that they force their government to submit.  The following US State Department summary ignores that fact and practices doublethink:

1. It pretends that sanctions aren’t intended to harm civilians in a country.

2. It ignores the question of why anyone should expect Hussein’s or any tyrannical government without a free market to be good and efficient at taking care of people even before sanctions are imposed.

Impact of Sanctions

Summary

Sanctions were imposed on Iraq by the international community in the wake of Iraq's brutal invasion of Kuwait. They are intended to prevent the Iraqi regime access to resources that it would use to reconstitute weapons of mass destruction. Sanctions can only be lifted when Iraq complies fully with all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Saddam Hussein's regime remains a threat to its people and its neighbors, and has not met any of its obligations to the UN that would allow the UN to lift sanctions.

The international community, not the regime of Saddam Hussein, is working to relieve the impact of sanctions on ordinary Iraqis.

Impact of Sanctions

Sanctions are not intended to harm the people of Iraq. That is why the sanctions regime has always specifically exempted food and medicine. The Iraqi regime has always been free to import as much of these goods as possible. It refuses to do so, even though it claims it wants to relieve the suffering of the people of Iraq.

________________________________________

The following state department Executive Summary also practices doublethink.  Again, if Hussein is so bad and his government is a dictatorship, then why expect him to be efficient at distributing resources?  It takes a free market for that.  Hasn’t the US learned that any and all foreign aid to dictatorships gets “taxed” by a huge middleman commission to the foreign government?

SADDAM HUSSEIN'S IRAQ

Prepared by the U.S. Department of State
Released September 13, 1999
(Updated 3/24/00)

(PDF version - 2.62MB)
Click here to get a free Adobe Acrobat Reader for PDF files.

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present the facts concerning Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

There are a wealth of charges and counter-charges concerning actions undertaken by Saddam and by the international community towards Iraq.

Based on publicly available information, the facts contained in this report demonstrate that under the regime of Saddam Hussein, Iraq continues to repress its people, threaten the region, and obstruct international efforts to provide humanitarian relief.

We are helping the Iraqi people in their efforts to bring about a regime that is committed to living in peace with its neighbors and respecting the rights of its citizens.

We want to see Iraq return as a respected and prosperous member of the international community, and as the evidence shows, this is unlikely to happen as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.

As long as Saddam Hussein is in power, we are determined to contain the Iraqi regime and prevent it from threatening the region or its own people. We will also continue our efforts to increase humanitarian relief for the people of Iraq, over the obstructions of the regime.

________________________________________

This US State Department page on the Hussein regime’s Misuse of Resources also ignores the fact that non-free market economies are inefficient.  Imposing an embargo only makes things worse.

Misuse of Resources by the Regime

Summary

Rather than spend money to help its people, Iraq's leaders enrich themselves.

Mismanagement

With Iraqi oil revenues burgeoning, it's hard to understand why the people of Iraq aren't better off. The reason is because the government of Iraq is mismanaging the oil-for-food program, either deliberately or through incompetence.

  • Despite reports of widespread health problems, the government has still not spent the full $200 million for medical supplies allocated under phase five of the oil-for-food program (which ended in May). Only 40% of the money was used to purchase medicines for primary care, while 60% was used to buy medical equipment.

  • While the average Iraqi needs basic medicines and medical care, the government of Iraq spent $6 million on a gamma knife, an instrument used for complicated neurosurgery that requires extremely advanced training to use. Another several million was spent on a MRI machine, used for high-resolution imaging. Such exotic treatment is reserved for regime bodyguards and other members of the elite. This total of $10 million could instead have benefited thousands of Iraqi children if it had been spent on vaccines, antibiotics, and the chemotherapeutics necessary to treat the large numbers of children that are allegedly dying due to lack of medicine.

Personal Enrichment

While the people of Iraq go wanting, their leaders enrich themselves.

  • In July 1999, Forbes Magazine estimated Saddam Hussein's personal wealth at $6 billion, acquired primarily from oil and smuggling.

  • Medicines received through the oil-for-food program are sold by the regime to private hospitals at exorbitant prices.

  • Members of the government and top military and security officials are provided with extra monthly food rations, Mercedes automobiles, and monthly stipends in the thousands of dollars. By comparison, the average monthly government salary is 6,500 dinars, or about $3.50.

Saddam's Excesses

In addition to the revenues generated under the oil-for-food program, the government of Iraq earns money from other sources which it controls. Rather than spend these funds to help the people of Iraq, Saddam Hussein chooses to build monuments to himself. In addition, he deprives those in need of water and other scarce resources in order to favor elites and other supporters of the regime.

  • Saddam celebrated his birthday this year by building a resort complex for regime loyalists. Since the Gulf War, Saddam has spent over $2 billion on presidential palaces. Some of these palaces boast gold-plated faucets and man-made lakes and waterfalls, which use pumping equipment that could have been used to address civilian water and sanitation needs.

    photo 2
    Photo 2: Saddamiat al Tharthar, Iraq, a resort city built for Regime VIPs, April 1999. View larger image

  • In April 1999, Iraqi officials inaugurated Saddamiat al Tharthar. Located 85 miles west of Baghdad, this sprawling lakeside vacation resort contains stadiums, an amusement park, hospitals, parks, and 625 homes to be used by government officials. This project cost hundreds of millions of dollars. There is no clearer example of the government's lack of concern for the needs of its people than Saddamiat al Tharthar (see photo 2).

  • In July, Baghdad increased taxes on vehicle ownership and marriage dowries, after earlier increases in taxes, fees, and fuel and electricity prices. This is in part what pays for Saddam's palaces. Saddam also uses food rations, medical care, and other state resources to buy the loyalty of his inner circle and security forces.

  • Iraq is facing its worst drought in 50 years. As a result, the government is restricting the planting of rice and told farmers not to plant summer crops without permission from the Ministry of Irrigation. The water levels of the reservoirs supplying Saddam Hussein's region of Tikrit, however, were at normal seasonal levels, while the flow of water to the southern cities was dramatically lower than during the previous two years. Saddam is diverting water to serve his political objectives, at the expense of the general population.

Here’s another US State Department link defending the UN-sanctions on Iraq.  Yes they’re UN sanctions.  But who doesn’t think the US was directing the UN on the Iraq embargo and the 1992 Gulf War?  And why do you think the US State Department put out so many pages supporting the “UN sanctions”?

Iraqi Obstruction of Oil-For-Food

Summary

Thanks to the oil-for-food program, the people of Iraq, especially those in the north, are getting needed foods and medicines.

The program would be even more effective if the Iraqi regime were cooperating. Iraqi obstruction of the oil-for-food program, not United Nations sanctions, is the primary reason the Iraqi people are suffering.

Oil-for-Food Program Helps Iraqis

Posted by at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, January 25, 2009

A New Hope?
















Barack Obama was elected by many because he represented a new hope for his supporters--supporters whose selective hearing allowed them to believe he would be a change from the murderous foreign policies of past US administrations.

President Obama even called the publicized first actions of his administration a "clean break from business as usual," promoting the image of change he brings to the White House.

The "business as usual" murderous past of US foreign policy includes:





























  • The Vietnam war policies of Richard Nixon, who campaigned with a slogan of peace with honor, and Lyndon Johnson, who portrayed his opponent, Barry Goldwater, as a war candidate, resulted in over a million deaths. Nixon expanded the war into Cambodia by conducting a bombing campaign there in 1970.








  • John F. Kennedy's knowledge of plans to assassinate Patrice Lumumba in the DRC and Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and sanctioning the assassination of, in a case of what goes around comes around 20 days later, Ngo Diem in Vietnam. His brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, "personally managed the operation on the assassination of Castro" (pdf).











Only three days after his inauguration, Barack Obama, the new hope, has already murdered three children in Pakistan.

In a decision left unheralded by the mainstream media, just three days into his presidency, Obama approved the firing of missiles into a Pakistani village, sending a message of business as usual to other nations.

According to the January 23, 2009 Times online article:

"Missiles fired from suspected US drones killed at least 15 people inside Pakistan today, the first such strikes since Barack Obama became president and a clear sign that the controversial military policy begun by George W Bush has not changed...

"Pakistan has objected to such attacks, saying they are a violation of its territory that undermines its efforts to tackle militants. Since September, the US is estimated to have carried out about 30 such attacks, killing more than 220 people."

So President Obama is continuing the Bush administration policy. The US is not at war with Pakistan and there is no congressional declaration of war as required by Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.

Then-candidate Obama stated throughout his campaign that he wanted to increase military activity in Afghanistan and pursue military action in Pakistan. He said as much on page one of his plan (pdf). In the same plan you'll also see a Nixonian mention that his administration will "End the War in Iraq Responsibly."

President Obama has also appointed Richard Holbrooke, of "East Timorian (pdf) gun-running, friend of Paul Wolfowitz fame," as special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Where's the change? Do you still believe?

Posted by at No comments:
Labels:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)