Media Infidel » Iraq

Rachel Maddow reviews lead up to the Iraq War

mediainfidel — Wed, 01 Sep 2010 15:04:06 +0000

Rachel Maddow has a great re-cap of the faulty and deceitful tactics used by the Bush administration that led to the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Using video evidence Maddow shows the shifting justifications for war — an aggressive war that was clearly criminal. Yet Obama and the Democrats want us to look forward, not back. This is all in the past, they say. What we have here is an affirmation that our political elites are and will never be held responsible for their crimes. Completely depressing if you ask me.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Technorati Tags: George W. Bush, Iraq war, propaganda, Rachel Maddow

Six years ago today

mediainfidel — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 12:39:25 +0000

So it’s been six years since the US Senate voted to authorize the president to invade Iraq. It’s worth reviewing that time right now. It was then that Congress – with many Democrats joining the Republican push – relinquished much of their power and played an essential role in establishing an imperial presidency. As we well know any dissent was ignored or attacked as anti-American and unpatriotic. Those were fearful times indeed.

Bill Moyers recently covered what was happening at the time. Watch his video essay on the subject:

Technorati Tags: Bill Moyers, Democrats, Iraq, Iraq war authorization, Journal, war

Chomsky on US rights and responsibilities in Iraq

mediainfidel — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 01:16:10 +0000

I only just came across this video from the website Big Think. It’s a few months old but remains relevant. Answering the question, “What is the best way forward in Iraq,” Chomsky rightly asserts that occupying forces never have rights, only responsibilities. He starts by pointing out how the Western intellectual and political class never discussed what might be the best option for the Soviet Union following its invasion of Afghanistan, or the best option for Saddam Hussein following his occupation of Kuwait. “But when the West invades another country,” Chomsky states, “all the values shift. The only question that arises is ‘What’s best for the aggressors?’”

Technorati Tags: Iraq, Noam Chomsky, oil war, propaganda

Colbert on what Bush Really Needs

mediainfidel — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 17:09:03 +0000

Technorati Tags: George W. Bush, Iraq, The Colbert Report

Success, Lipstick and the Surge in Iraq

mediainfidel — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:07:53 +0000

While the mainstream media devote hours of analysis to lipstick-gate, they continue to accept without question the Bush and McCain claim that the surge in Iraq has been a success. One doesn’t have to look far to find example after example of this being put forward as a self-apparent truism. The logic behind the reporting is little more than, “Look, the violence is down, therefore the surge has worked.” Forget the over-arching goal of the surge was to bring about political reconciliation between the conflicting groups in Iraq. In reality, the political situation is worse than ever. As Brian Katulis of the Center for American Progress writes:

The greatest myth promoted by Bush in his speech [at the National Defense University] was found in this line: “Political reconciliation is moving forward, and the Iraqi government has passed several major pieces of legislation.” By overstating the meagre steps taken by Iraq’s leaders in barely passing a few relatively insignificant laws in their parliament, Bush’s statement ranks right up there with his 2003 “mission accomplished” speech and vice-president Dick Cheney’s assertion that the insurgency was in its “last throes” in 2005.

Katulis continues:

The surge has frozen into place the accelerated fragmentation that Iraq underwent in 2006 and 2007 and has created disincentives to bridge central divisions between Iraqi factions. Moreover, rather than advancing Iraq’s political transition and facilitating power-sharing deals among Iraq’s factions, the surge has produced an oil revenue-fuelled, Shia-dominated national government with close ties to Iran. This national government shows few signs of seeking to compromise and share meaningful power with other frustrated political factions.

So much for political reconciliation. Rather than furthering steps toward some form of power sharing, the surge has solidified the divisions unleashed by the invasion and occupation of Iraq. But McCain, Bush, and the media will inevitably make the case that at least the surge has reduced violence. This is the core of the “surge worked” hypothesis, yet it rests on a basic logical fallacy. Just because Y came after X, it doesn’t follow that X caused Y. Professor Juan Cole recently pointed this out with regards to media commentary on the surge.

The reality is far more complex than this simplistic narrative. An important factor to declining levels of violence was the so-called Sunni Awakening movement in Anbar province in which the US allied with, armed, and paid Sunni insurgents to fight Al-Qaeda. But this began before the surge, and there is no reason to believe this strategy required an increased troop level. Cole agrees:

In al-Anbar Province, among the more violent in Iraq in earlier years, the bribing of former Sunni guerrillas to join US-sponsored Awakening Councils had a big calming effect. This technique could have been used much earlier than 2006, indeed, could have been deployed from 2003, and might have forestalled large numbers of deaths. Condi Rice forbade US military officers from dealing in this way with the Sunnis for fear of alienating US Shiite allies such as Ahmad Chalabi. The technique was independent of the troop escalation. Indeed, it depended on there not being much of a troop escalation in that province. Had large numbers of US soldiers been committed to simply fight the Sunnis or engage in search and destroy missions, they would have stirred up and reinforced the guerrilla movement.

An additional reason for the reduced violence in Iraq has been the unilateral cease-fire of the Mahdi Army ordered by Moqtada al-Sadr. Gen. Patraeus even admits this fact, stating that the “Sadr trend stands for service to the people,” and that he hopes Sadr’s organization will become “constructive partners in the way ahead.” While Patraeus would like to see the cease-fire as a result of the surge, the reality is again more complicated. Cole sees the successful ethnic cleansing of Baghdad – in which it has become a mostly Shiite city with almost no mixed communities and others separated by walls – as an important reason for the Mahdi Army’s cessation of hostilities because this was one of their major aims. As well, their pro-Iranian Shiite rivals, which include the Iraqi state, were becoming much more powerful militarily in relation to Moqtada al-Sadr’s organization.

Ethnic cleansing in Iraq points to a darker aspect of the surge, in which what so many call “success” is the result of brutality and violence. Robert Parry also makes this point:

With the total Iraqi death toll estimated in the hundreds of thousands and many more Iraqis horribly maimed, the society has been deeply traumatized. As tyrants have learned throughout history, at some point violent repression does work.

But this dark side of the “successful surge” is excluded from the U.S. political debate. As during the pre-invasion period, the Washington press corps acts more like Bush’s propagandists than anything close to skeptical journalists.

Instead media commentators waste our time with meaningless questions and speculation about what Barack Obama actually meant when making a comment about lipstick on a pig. Well all I can say, at least there are alternatives to the he-said-she-said style of reporting that passes for journalism and analysis. The following video is a commentary by Aijaz Ahmad from TheRealNews.com. It was originally broadcast following Bush’s State of the Union address in early 2008. Ahmad covers some of the issues I mention above and provides compelling reasons to question much of the conventional wisdom.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Technorati Tags: Election 2008, George W. Bush, Iraq, Iraq surge, media, propaganda

Revisiting the Caves of Tora Bora

mediainfidel — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 10:36:02 +0000

Some of you might remember way back in late 2001 the widespread reports of Al-Qaeda’s vast and sophisticated cave complex in Afghanistan. We were led to believe bin Laden used his family’s construction enterprise to build a high-tech underground compound with “its own ventilation system and its own power, created by a hydro-electric generator. Its walls and floors are smooth and finished, and it extends about 315m beneath a solid mountain.” The article, written by Richard Lloyd Parry writing with the Independent (London) at the time, goes on to claim:

It is so well defended and concealed that – short of poison gas or a tactical nuclear weapon – it is completely immune to outside attack. And it is filled with heavily armed followers of Osama bin Laden, with a suicidal commitment to their cause, and with nothing left to lose.

Scary stuff indeed. Sounds like the lair of an evil genius from an Ian Fleming novel. The cave story was quickly picked up by other news outlets, though certain details changed – was the complex built by the bin Laden family or the US government in the 80s for the mujahideen fight against the Soviets? Journalist Edward Jay Epstein details how the story spread and finally reached its pinnacle in the US when the late Tim Russert unquestioningly accepted it as fact during an interview with Donald Rumsfeld on Meet the Press.

The following clip is from Adam Curtis’ excellent three-part documentary The Power of Nightmares, originally broadcast on the BBC in 2004. I highly recommend this film to anyone who hasn’t seen it. It’s (legally) available online for download or streaming at Archive.org. The clip begins with part of the interview with Rumsfeld on Meet the Press. Note how the former Secretary of Defense states matter-of-factly that there are many such complexes in the Afghan mountains, going beyond claims made in the original reports.

Curtis exposes how this was little more than blatant propaganda used to incite fear, to make the mostly British and American public think Al-Qaeda was indeed a grave threat that needed eradicating. This wasn’t some rag-tag bunch of terrorists with little support, these were advanced extremists that could only be handled with high tech weapons and massive military force. And it worked. This is at least in part how – with other similar stories – the US government justified increased military spending on advanced weaponry following 911, even though the perpetrators used box cutters and a little flight training to achieve the attack. The message and purpose was clear: we should simply cower in fear while allowing our leaders to protect us against such a tremendous threat, all the while expanding the military industrial complex.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, media, oil war, politics of fear

Iraq, Oil and the Denial of the Obvious

mediainfidel — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 13:02:00 +0000

Raad Alkadiri, an oil and gas industry advisor for PFC Energy, writing in the Washington Post, scoffs at the idea that the US invasion and occupation of Iraq had anything to do with oil. Despite his acknowledgment that “a number of international oil companies are on the brink of signing contracts with Iraq,” Mr. Alkadiri argues, “If the Iraq invasion was about oil, let the record show that that mission has been botched even worse than the war’s toughest critics claim the military expedition has been.”

He goes on to assert that since Iraqi production declined as an immediate result of the war, the entire affair therefore had little to do with energy resources. The obvious and immediate fallacy in this argument is that it assumes that greater access to oil, and hence increased production, is the primary goal of the industry rather than control over it. Increasing the global oil supply would result in lower prices and therefore lower profits. Tightly dictating production and keeping most of the profits out of Iraqi hands provides a much more advantageous result for the Western companies negotiating the terms of contract.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast has reported on this aspect of the Iraq strategy extensively over the last few years. After reviewing the British and American strategy since 1925 to limit Iraqi oil production, Palast writes in his 2006 book Armed Madhouse:

The decision to expand production has, for now, been kept out of Iraqi’s hands by the latest method of suppressing Iraq’s oil flow – the 2003 invasion and resistance to invasion. And it has been darn effective. Iraq’s output in 2003, 2004 and 2005 was less than produced under the restrictive Oil-for-Food Program. Whether by design or happenstance, this decline in output has resulted in tripling the profits of the five U.S. oil majors to $89 billion for a single year, 2005, compared to pre-invasion 2002. That suggests an interesting arithmetic equation. Big Oil’s profits are up $89 billion a year in the same period the oil industry boosted contributions to Mr. Bush’s reelection campaign to roughly $40 million.

And remember, these points were made back in the good old days when oil was at a minuscule price of about $60 per barrel rather than today’s $140. So contrary to Mr. Alkadiri’s point, decreased production is anything but proof the war never was about oil and in fact shows it most likely was.

As an advisor to the energy industries on issues of Iraq, it is not surprising Mr. Alkadiri also paints negotiations between oil and gas companies and the Iraqi government as a fair process initiated by a sovereign government, claiming Iraqi oil “ministry officials reached out directly to nine companies” (including the five majors of Exxon Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and Chevron) that are now poised to claim the prize. But should we assume a nation occupied by a foreign power can truly act independently in these types of negotiations? A recent New York Times report contradicts this assessment by revealing:

A group of American advisers led by a small State Department team played an integral part in drawing up contracts between the Iraqi government and five major Western oil companies to develop some of the largest fields in Iraq, American officials say.

Of course the administration denies these claims and prefers to argue Iraqis are free to establish any agreements they see as being in their own best interest. Yet if that were the case, it is an interesting coincidence these new no-bid contracts reverse agreements established under Saddam Hussein which opened development of reserves to, among others, Chinese, Russian and Indian firms. It just so happens this is completely in line with US strategic and military interests.

I won’t rehash it here but we now know the Bush administration and the oil industry was interested in dividing Iraq’s oil wealth before 9/11. Documents dated March 2001 from Cheney’s infamous Energy Task Force released as a result of a successful lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information Act include a detailed map of Iraq’s oilfields, pipelines and oil related capacities. There are also charts and a list of international oil companies titled “Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” As is well known, the Task Force was a who’s who of industry insiders. SourceWatch has a comprehensive overview of the group, including its participants and what is known of documents and reports it produced.

So it seems odd to hear members of the political elite still arguing with a straight face that oil had nothing to do with the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In his wit and insight, Noam Chomsky as usual states it most plainly:

Doctrinal managers would like us to believe that the US and UK would have “liberated” Iraq even if its major exports were lettuce and pickles and the major energy resources of the world were in the South Pacific. It takes really impressive discipline “not to see” the obvious.

Technorati Tags: Energy Task Force, George W. Bush, Iraq, media, oil industry, Oil Law, oil war

More on the media and Iraq

mediainfidel — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 07:02:00 +0000

Following up on my last post regarding the mainstream media’s spin on Iraq and troop withdrawal, I came across this article from the Financial Times. While it does not mention time horizons it purports to describe how Iraqis are “divided” over the idea of a US military withdrawal from their country. Writing from Baghdad – likely not far from the Green Zone if even outside – the author claims “[m]ost Iraqis appear wary of setting any specific timetables for the withdrawal of US troops,” fearing doing so would destabilize the country and lead to civil war.

Yet the article offers but one quote from an Iraqi that is clearly against withdrawal. Of the remaining four quotes, only two are concerned with the issue of a troop pullout, one wants a drawdown in the number of US personnel, the other argues for a gradual withdrawal, no timetables mentioned. The remaining two Iraqis quoted are statements of support for Barack Obama, who has stated his intention of setting a timetable (what form that will actually take if he becomes president we have to wait and see).

This kind of anecdotal evidence abounds in media reports, while actual polling data is rarely mentioned. One such poll taken in early 2006 when the security situation was far more dire than today showed that 67% of Iraqis felt a six month withdrawal from that time would increase security, 70% wanted a timeline of either six months or two years, and 80% approved the Iraqi government calling for such a timeline.

A more recent poll [PDF] shows opinions have changed little since, demonstrating that as of March 2008 61% of Iraqis felt the US presence was making the security situation there worse and 69% claimed a complete withdrawal would either improve security or not change things at all. The numbers supporting the occupation are even worse, yet we are constantly led to believe through media reports such as this one in the Financial Times that Iraqis are torn between wanting to keep American troops in their country and having them leave.

If more news outlets would report the clear position of the people of Iraq – ironically from polling data often commissioned by the very news agencies that rarely use it – rather than confusing things with anectodal evidence, maybe taking a position demanding a full and timely withdrawal wouldn’t seem such a radical idea.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, media

The Time Horizon, Now Playing in Most Major Media Outlets

mediainfidel — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 05:30:00 +0000

The corporate media is now abuzz with talk of the Bush administration’s agreement to a “general time horizon” for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. This is a “dramatic shift” from the previous strategy according to the AP’s Terence Hunt. Yet Hunt attributes this supposed reversal to the White House attempting “to salvage negotiations for a long-term agreement covering U.S. military operations there.” So this agreement to withdrawal troops at some nebulous time in the future is predicated on negotiating a long-term (read permanent) military presence in Iraq. Orwell would be proud indeed.

So what exactly is a “time horizon” you might ask? It can’t be a deadline or timetable because Bush has repeatedly opposed such things when it comes to Iraq. Apparently, according to White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe, “The agreement will look at goal dates for transition of responsibilities and missions. The focus is on the Iraqi assumption of missions, not on what troop levels will be.” Therefore when we reach the time horizon we will simply reevaluate the situation of whether the uncivilized Iraqis can run things to our liking, no guarantees of reductions necessary.

According to Wikipedia a time horizon is a term used in economics describing “a fixed point of time in the future at which point certain processes will be evaluated or assumed to end.” Well as Johndroe makes clear we can’t assume that the US military presence or even current troop levels will end when we reach the time horizon. No, that would obviously be a fiction. Or even better, a science fiction because doesn’t it all sound like some bad sci-fi novel or film? Just think about it: The Time Horizon, where language itself breaks the laws of physics, forming out of nothing from the mouths of PR saavy politicians and repeated unquestioningly by their media robots to have any meaning intended. Wow! That would be scary.

Technorati Tags: Iraq, media