| Author | Message | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 8:01 pm Post subject: MYTH & Propaganda, GW and the American Illusion |
| MYTH & Propaganda, GW and the American Illusion
http://www.americaheldhostile.com/ed021603-2.shtml
Myth and Propaganda:
George Bush and the American Illusion
by Louis Farshee February 16, 2003
In the great causes of nations, myth and propaganda are essential political ingredients. Myth tells a nation who they are, what they stand for and attempts to establish good purpose for sending its youth to spill their blood and lose their lives on foreign soil. Propaganda is the means of propelling myth into motion. Remember the Maine…make the world safe for democracy…Remember Pearl Harbor…United We Stand…Support Our Troops, etc. Myth even evokes God as a faithful ally in the acts of murder and theft that war brings. All is 'just' because it is done in His name.
Myth by definition is not intended to be a scientifically sustainable hypothesis but an article of faith. Myth is part of the human condition and it can also be dangerous. It's akin to believing one's own self-serving press releases. In the ongoing orchestrated propaganda scenarios surrounding the Iraqi Question, much has been said about the relative ease with which the US military will crush any and all Iraqi forces. US military personal and the American public have been repeatedly told that US forces are the best trained, best equipped and best fighting units in the world. All the American public has to do is provide billions of dollars, an endless inventory of young men and women and "Support Our Troops."
Before one blindly accepts the illusions of certain national myths and the accompanying propellant of propaganda they might consider that oft-forgotten record of the past, history. For example, in 1957, a section of the Israeli Army General Staff developed a survey and sent it to more than a thousand military experts around the world including senior military officers, historians and war correspondents. The survey asked for an assessment of the best armies, bravest soldiers, best trained, most skillful, most disciplined, etc. who participated in World Wars I and II.
On the list of armies fighting in WWI, the American army rated number five. For WWII, the survey asked for a numerical rating from a low of ten points to a maximum of 100. The American Army, with 55 points, placed seventh on the list. The German Army, rated number one in WWI, topped the WWII survey with 93 of a possible 100 points. Only in the WWII elite units category did American fighting forces score better than number three, the US Marines rated second behind the German Waffen-SS.
In January 1945, as the Battle of the Bulge was winding down, US Army Private Eddie Slovik was executed for desertion. In his biography of Private Slovik, author William Bradford Huie argues convincingly that Slovik was not a coward but a person mentally unable to kill anyone. Slovik's requests for reassignment to duty behind the fighting lines were repeatedly denied. The execution went forward as a deterrent to the rampant problem of desertion plaguing the US Army at the time. Huie recounts that during WWII, "about forty thousand'[inductees] deserted before the enemy'". Slovik was the only American soldier shot for desertion in WWII, in fact, the only American soldier executed for desertion since the Civil War.
To place these historical facts into a meaningful context, one should recall that WWII was the "good war", with defined military objectives launched after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and after Germany's declaration of war against the US. Yet, the American Army received a low rating when compared to the armies of other countries and desertion was a serious problem in the European theatre of operations. If these assessments of US fighting capabilities and problems related to desertion under fire in the "good war" are accurate, then how will American forces roll over Iraq?
Military power is an abstract term that is meaningless until numbers define it (personnel, aircraft, tanks, ships, guns, cannon, etc.). And, if the American fighting man or woman is not the key to a victory that is practically guaranteed in the current propagandizing campaign, then what will be the key to victory? The answer is military hardware and weaponry.
The weapons of mass destruction inventoried in the US arsenal causes the scourges of war, famine, pestilence, and death unleashed by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse to pale in comparison. The US has the world's largest stockpiles of biological weapons and agents, poison gases, nuclear bombs, and now, the weapon du jour, projectiles manufactured from depleted uranium. Yet, US political leaders feed a fear-instilled public a cornucopia of threats emanating from terrorists with everything from atomic bomb-laden suitcases in Macy's basement to deadly biological agents delivered via the Postal Service. Asserting that some religious nut with a cellular telephone is planning an attack on the US or a de-fanged tiger in Baghdad is a danger to civilization is an illusion.
Parts of southern Iraq is a nuclear waste dump due to the millions of rounds of depleted uranium projectiles fired from US weapons during the first Gulf War. Iraqis continue to die from deadly radiation related illnesses, as do young Americans who served in the campaign. Speaking before "the troops" at the Maryport Naval Station in Jacksonville, Florida on February 13, 2003, George Bush stated "the gravest danger was from 'outlaw regimes' seeking chemical, biological and nuclear capability and passing on their know-how to terrorists". If "outlaw regime" is further defined as one that starves civilian populations, underwrites repression, ignores international law and sends its youth into dubious battle, then the US qualifies. Passing on the know-how of terrorism has been the standard syllabus of the US Army's School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia for decades and providing tools in support of state-sponsored terrorism has been part of US foreign policy throughout much of the post-WWII era.
In the past 5,000 years approximately 700 dynasties have come and gone in the Middle East. Some lasted a few weeks some for centuries. The US is dynasty number 701 but its role in Middle East history makes it unique. None of the 700 other dynasties left deadly radioactive waste as evidence of their murder, evidence that will continue to emit death for decades if not centuries to come.
If the reckless cadre of intellectually mediocre elites that occupy the decision-making offices of the Bush Administration were as interested in protecting the American public from terrorism as they pretend to be, their first act would be to stop participating in it. Their next act should be resignation en masse. While departing Washington, DC with their baggage of nefarious agendas they might invite some of the odious excuses for leadership that occupy the halls of Congress to join them. These are the spineless overpaid aristocrats who, in a moment of fear and panic, abdicated their Constitutional authority and the people's Constitutional guarantees to neo-fascists determined to launch an illegal, immoral and insane war.
As for George Bush, if he were the honest man of God he pretends to be and dedicated to liberating the earth from terrorist leadership, his first act would be to submit to the American people his resignation from office. He should seek exile in Southern Iraq, walk among the living dead and dedicate his life to begging forgiveness for the war, famine, pestilence and death he is promoting in the name of his personal god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Louis Farshee is a freelance writer and business man from the Northwestern area of the United States. Contact Louis at: lfarshee@easystreet.com | |  | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Tue Feb 18, 2003 9:27 pm Post subject: Israel's Proxy War? |
| Find this article at:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/mshahidalam1.html
Israel's Proxy War?
by M. Shahid Alam
It has been apparent to all but the purblind ? a defect in understanding assiduously cultivated by America?s mass media ? that the war United States is ready to wage against Iraq has almost nothing to do with its security.
In an age when the people believe that their voices must be heard, the United States must sell its wars the way corporations sell their products. In the past, the people were asked to lay down their lives for visions of glory; now, governments appeal to their self-interest. The first Gulf War had to be fought to protect American jobs. If Saddam Hussain stayed in Kuwait, he would raise the price of oil, and Americans would lose their jobs.
The argument this time is different. It had to be weightier than any fear of losing jobs. This new war seeks regime-change; it involves greater risks. American forces must invade Iraq, defeat the Iraqi army, occupy Baghdad, and stay around, even indefinitely. Americans understand that "regime-change" is serious business. They would not back this war unless Iraq threatened American lives. That explains why the war against Iraq had to supersede the war against terrorism, and why Saddam replaced Osama as the new icon of America?s loathing.
This substitution was quite easily executed. Most Americans take the President at his word when he talks about foreign enemies; this trust comes more easily when a Republican occupies the White House. George Bush told Americans that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, and he had to be stopped before he could transfer them to Al-Qaida. (Why hadn?t he done this already?) For many Americans, it was an open and shut case. Saddam had to be removed.
The flaws in this argument did not matter. If Saddam hadn?t used WMDs during the first Gulf War ? when his army was being pummeled ? why would he use them now? The CIA warned that a war, or the threat of it, would increase the risk of Iraq using WMDs. Others, like Scott Ritter, a former chief weapons inspector for the UN, pointed out that Iraq did not have any WMDs that mattered. More than 90 percent had been destroyed by inspectors; if any escaped, they would be past their shelf life. At least initially, few Americans gave any credence to these doubts, though that has been slowly changing.
Why then is United States straining to go to war against Iraq?
The most popular theory on the left is that this war is about oil. According to one version of this theory, the White House, a captive of oil interests, wants to corner Iraq?s oil for American oil corporations. I do not find this credible. The power brokers in United States would not allow a single industry lobby, even a powerful one, to drag the country into a war which could hurt all of them, and perhaps badly, if the war plans went awry and produced a spike in oil prices. At the least, it is doubtful if oil interests, on their own, can account for the unobstructed rush to a mad war.
There is another oil theory. It argues that the American economy needs cheaper oil; this will save tens of billion dollars. Once Saddam has been removed, and Iraq?s oil supply restored to levels that existed before the first Gulf War, the oil prices will come down substantially. It is hard to reconcile this theory with a US-imposed sanctions regime that has drastically curtailed Iraq?s oil output for the past twelve years. If there were concerns that Saddam might use the oil revenues for a military build-up, that could be addressed by an inspections regime and selective economic sanctions.
There is also a third oil theory, one offered recently.[1] It maintains that this war preempts the Euro threat to the hegemony of the dollar. By pegging oil to the dollar, OPEC has been a key player in the arrangements that have maintained the dollar as the currency of international reserve. In October 2000, Saddam Hussein offered the first challenge to this system by switching Iraq?s dollar reserves to Euro. If OPEC follows Iraq?s lead it could spell trouble for the dollar. This can only be stopped by dismantling the OPEC, and this demands war against Iraq.
An OPEC challenge to the dollar sounds seems na?ve at best. This is hardly the kind of revolutionary action we can expect from an OPEC packed with client states like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and UAE; the oil price hike of 1974 could only occur in the backdrop of the Cold War. A precipitate dethronement of the dollar could produce consequences for United States and the world economy which would make the East Asian financial crisis of 1997 look like a storm in a teacup. Not even the EU would push for such results. On the other hand, there is a small chance that the war itself might validate this theory ? if it convinced OPEC that the war aims to dismantle the oil cartel.
If it isn?t oil, then, is this civilizational war, a war of the Christian West against Islam? This conjecture flies in the face of some obvious facts. First, this is America?s war. It is opposed by two key Western allies, France and Germany; and apart from Britain and Israel, the support of other Western countries lacks depth. More to the point, the overwhelming majority of Westerners outside the United States oppose this war. In United States itself, the anti-war sentiment has grown rapidly, and the most recent polls indicate a majority against the war if it happens without the support of the United Nations.
Is it then America?s war against Islamists? Even that is doubtful. Apart from the right-wing Christian extremists, led by the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, nearly all Christian denominations have come out against the war. Everyone would agree that Al-Qaida constitutes the most serious Islamist threat to United States; they had proved it on September 11, 2001. And yet, we are ready to push this threat aside in order to wage war against one of the most decidedly secular of Arab states, one that spent ten years waging war against ?fundamentalist? Iran? Why not Wahhabi Saudi Arabia which supplied 16 of the 19 hijackers of September 11. Why not Shiite Iran? Their turn too will come, one hears neoconservative voices, to be followed by Syria, Egypt and Pakistan.
Why then is United States ready to wage this war against Iraq, ostensibly against its own best interests? Most sensible people agree that this is a war whose consequences cannot be controlled, or even foreseen. It may destabilize friendly regimes, bringing radical Islamists to power in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. It may disrupt oil supplies, causing a price hike at a time when the global economy already weak and vulnerable to shocks. It may force Saddam to use his chemical and biological weapons ? if he has them ? leading United States to nuke Baghdad or Basra. It may fuel global terrorism for years to come, leading to attacks on American interests globally.
These anomalies quickly melt away if we are willing to entertain a seldom-aired hypothesis. This may not be America?s war at all, much less a war of the West against Islam or Islamists. Instead, could this be Israel?s war against the Arabs fought through a proxy, the only proxy that can take on the Arabs? This will most likely provoke derisive skepticism. Could the world?s only superpower be persuaded to fight Israel?s war? Is it even possible? Could the tail wag this great dog?
Consider first Israel?s motives. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria and Pakistan do not threaten the United States; but they are a threat to Israel?s hegemonic ambitions over the region. This conflict between Israel and her neighbors was written into the Zionist script. A Jewish state could only be inserted into Palestine by resort to a massive ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. After such inauspicious beginnings, Israel could only sustain itself by keeping its neighbors weak, divided, and disoriented. It has since waged wars against Egypt in 1956; against Egypt, Syria and Jordan in 1967; against Iraq in 1981; against Lebanon, since 1982; and against Palestinians continuously since 1948.
Israel?s contradictions have deepened since the mounting of the second Intifada. When the Palestinians rejected the Bantustans offered at Oslo, Israel chose Ariel Sharon, a war criminal, to ratchet its war against Palestinian civilians. Faced with Apaches, F-16s, tanks and artillery, in desperation, the Palestinians turned increasingly to suicide bombings. Sharon?s brutal war was not working, and Israel?s losses began to catch up with Palestinian casualties. In April 2002, Israeli tanks reoccupied the Palestinian towns, destroyed Palestinian civilian infrastructure, increasingly placing Palestinians under curfews, sieges, destroying their workshops, stores, hospitals, orchards and farms. This was the new strategy of slow ethnic cleansing through starvation.
This slow ethnic cleansing is only a stopgap. The most serious threat which Palestinians pose is demographic: their growing population could soon turn the Jews into a minority inside greater Israel. Since the Palestinians won?t live under an Israeli apartheid, the Likud, with growing popular support, is turning to Israel?s second option. If the apartheid plan were to fail, Israel would engage in large-scale ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, more massive than the ones implemented in 1948 and 1967.
But Israel cannot do this alone. This ethnic cleansing can only be implemented in the shadow of a major war against the Arabs, a war to Balkanize the region, a war to bring about regime-change in Iraq, Syria and Iran, a war that only United States can wage. Israel needs United States to wage a proxy war on behalf of Israel.
It should be clear that Israel has the motive; but does it also possess the capability to pull this off? Is it possible for a small power to use a great power ? the only superpower, in this case ? to wage its own wars. Historically, great powers have often waged wars through lesser proxies; but that does not mean that this relationship can never get inverted.
What makes this eminently possible is the way an indirect democracy ? in particular, democracy in United States ? works. The demos elect candidates picked by powerful lobbies, ethnic, industry and labor lobbies; once elected, the officials work for the lobbies. By far the most powerful political lobby in this country works for Israel, led by American Israel Public Action Committee (AIPAC). There is scarcely a member of the Congress whose election campaigns have not been funded by AIPAC; several are funded quite heavily.[2] The power of the pro-Israel lobby in United States, however, does not start or end with AIPAC. The result of this massive power is a Congress packed with Israeli yes-men. No member of the Congress has dared to contradict Israeli interests and remained in office. Just last year, two members of Congress, Earl Hilliard and Cynthia McKenny, were defeated by pro-Israeli money because they had stepped out of line.
Consider some of the achievements of the pro-Israeli lobby over the years. First, an estimate of the cost of Israel to US taxpayers. Since 1985, without debate or demurral, the Congress has sheepishly voted an annual foreign aid package of $3 billion to Israel, nearly two thirds of this in outright grants, and constituting one-third of all US foreign assistance. When estimated in 2001 constant dollars, the total foreign aid to Israel since 1967 adds up to $143 billion.[3] That amounts to a transfer of $28,600 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The official aid is only a small part of the cost of Israel to the US economy. We need to account for loan guarantees and write-offs, bribes paid to Egypt and Jordan in support of our Israeli policy, subsidies to Israel?s military R&D, boost in oil prices (attributed to US support for Israel in the 1967 war), losses due to trade sanctions imposed on Israel?s enemies, etc. When Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in Washington, added up all these costs, he concluded that since 1973 Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion.[4] In per capita terms, this amounts to $320,000 for every Jewish citizen of Israel.
The US record on vetoes cast in UN Security Council constitutes another major achievement of the pro-Israel lobby. The US has cast 73 vetoes out of the 248 cast by all permanent members of the Security Council. On 38 occasions, these vetoes were cast to shield Israel from any criticism directed against its violation of human rights of Palestinians or the territorial rights of its neighbors. On another 25 occasions, US abstained from such a vote.[5] This does not include the votes cast by United States ? along with Israel, Tuvalu and Nauru ? against UN General Assembly resolutions criticizing Israeli violations of human rights or Security Council resolutions. It would be difficult to maintain that the strategic interests of United States always demanded such a consistent voting record on Palestine.
I am aware that the notion of an Israeli proxy war against Iraq will be greeted with skepticism by not a few. I hope to have established that Israel possess in abundance both the motive and capability for such a war. There is some evidence that it has demonstrated this capability in the past also. In the words of Lloyd George, then Prime Minister of Britain, the Zionist leaders promised that if the Allies supported the creation of "a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied Cause. They kept their word."[6] It is doubtful if Zionist influence now is weaker than it was in 1917.
This is not to argue that the pro-Israeli lobby is the only reason for the projected US war against Iraq. At present, there are several forces in United States that are pushing for this war. Prominent among these indigenous forces are the oil corporations, the arms manufacturers, the aerospace industry, and the right-wing Christian evangelists. However, it is doubtful if these indigenous groups, on their own, could have pushed United States so decisively towards the present catastrophic confrontation with the Islamic world. Certainly, the intellectual justifications for this hazardous confrontation have come almost entirely from the pro-Israeli lobby. And their intellectual input may have been vital.
Notes:
[1]http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/07/arpubwc020703.htm
[2]http://www.wrmea.com/html/aipac.htm
[3]http://www.counterpunch.org/rooij1116.html
[4]http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html
[5]http://middleeastinfo.org/print.php?sid=63
[6]Lilienthal, Alfred M., "What price Israel" (Chicago: Henry Regnery, 1953): 20-21.
M. Shahid Alam is Professor of Economics at Northeastern University. His last book, "Poverty from the Wealth of Nations," was published by Palgrave in 2000. | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 6:09 am Post subject: "The Whole World is Against This War." |
| http://www.maxlogan.com/the_nation.htm#The%20Whole%20World%20is%20Against%20This%20War.
"The Whole World is Against This War."
by John Nichols
"The whole world is against this war. Only one person wants it," declared South African teenager Bilqees Gamieldien as she joined a Cape Town antiwar demonstration on a weekend when it did indeed seem that the whole world was dissenting from George W. Bush's push for war with Iraq.
Millions of protesters marched into the streets of cities from Tokyo to Tel Aviv to Toronto and Bush's home state of Texas to deliver a message expressed by the Rev. Jesse Jackson to a crowd of more than one million in London: "It's not too late to stop this war."
Crowd estimates for demonstrations of the kind being seen this weekend are always a source of controversy, especially when nervous politicians -- like British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- try to convince journalists and the public to dismiss the significance of the protests even before they begin. But, faced with a historic show of dissent, even the constantly spinning Blair had to acknowledge that the cost for his unwavering support of the Bush administration on Iraq is turning out to be "unpopular" in his own land.
Britain's Guardian newspaper described the London march as the largest peace demonstration in the country's history. The headline on Sunday morning's Observer newspaper read, "One million. And still they came," and announced that the "massive turnout surpassed the organizers' wildest expectations and Tony Blair's worst fears." Organizers of the British march estimated that as many as 1.5 million were cheering as London Mayor Ken Livingstone told the crowd, "So let everyone recognize what has happened here today: that Britain does not support this war for oil. The British people will not tolerate being used to prop up the most corrupt and racist American administration in over 80 years."
German police said 500,000 marched in Berlin, while organizers put the number considerably higher. In Rome, an estimated one million marched on a day when newspapers reported that polls show 85 percent of Italians do not support a war to disarm Iraq. Organizers put the size of the Madrid crowd at 600,000, while city officials said as many as 1.3 million took to the streets in Barcelona. At least 300,000 people gathered in cities across France.
The protests spread around the globe, to Canada and Mexico, to Austria, Bosnia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, the Netherlands and Russia, and to Bahrain, Bangladesh, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Iraq, South Korea Thailand.
New York's streets were jammed by a crowd that stretched 20 blocks down the city's First Avenue and overflowing onto Second and Third avenues. Estimates of the actual turnout varied wildly, but it seemed reasonable to suggest that at least 300,000 protesters converged for the midtown rally site where Archbishop Desmond Tutu, actors Susan Sarandon and Danny Glover, singers Pete Seeger and Harry Belafonte and US Rep. Dennis Kucinich appeared. "Peace! Peace!" shouted Tutu. "Let America listen to the rest of the world -- and the rest of the world is saying: 'Give the inspectors time.'"
Among those expressing opposition to plans for war was Adele Welty, whose son, Timothy, was a firefighter killed in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. "Timothy was at the World Trade Center on September 11 to save lives," said Welty. "I don't feel that he would sanction innocent lives either in this country or in Iraq being shed in his name."
The larger-than-expected crowds that rallied around the world fed a renewed confidence among peace activists that the message of signs carried at one of the weekend's first rallies -- in Auckland, New Zealand -- might yet turn out to be right: "We can stop this war."
As yachting's America's Cup opened Saturday in that New Zealand city, a plane chartered by Greenpeace circled over the harbor pulling a huge banner with the words: "No War, Peace Now."
"Bugga off bully boy Bush" was the chant on the streets of Auckland as thousands of anti-war demonstrators proudly launched a weekend of protests. "Millions of people around the world are rallying today to say no to war and New Zealand is the first country to send this message," said Greenpeace's Robbie Kelman. "Countries like New Zealand must add their weight to efforts for a peaceful solution to this crisis."
The point of the global protests, according to Kucinich, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus who will travel to Iowa this week to launch a bid for the Democratic presidential race as an explicitly anti-war candidate, was to add grassroots pressure to the diplomatic push to avoid war.
Echoing the view of French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, who successfully thwarted a Bush administration to ramp up support for war at Friday's United Nations Security Council meeting, the protests around the world argued that war is not justified at a point when evidence indicates that U.N. inspectors are making progress toward disarming Iraq.
Dramatic early evidence of global antiwar sentiment came from Australia, where an estimated 200,000 people filled the streets of Melbourne Friday to protest their government's support of US plans to attack Iraq.
"This is a huge statement by the people of Melbourne, and the people of Australia to John Howard: that he's gone the wrong way and should turn around," said Australian Senator Bob Brown, a Green, who last week led a successful effort by senators to censure Australian Prime Minister John Howard for dispatching troops to the Persian Gulf region. "The people of Australia don't see this as our war."
Organized by labor, religious and student groups, the Melbourne protest was so large that commentators were speculating on the prospect that Howard could face serious political turmoil over his decision to back US President George W. Bush's push for war with Iraq. Signs at the demonstration Friday announced that this would be "Howard's End." And Australian Senator Natasha Stott Despoja told the crowd, "It is an amazing scene here with you today in a show of solidarity to send a strong message to Prime Minister Howard and the Australian government that Australians don't want war."
The Australian demonstration was described by reporters on the scene as the largest the country has seen in more than 30 years. And it was just the beginning of an around-the-world show of opposition to moves by the US, Britain and a handful of allies to force the United Nations to effectively endorse an preemptive attack on Iraq.
More than 600 demonstrations are expected to take place in communities around the world on -- from San Francisco to New York to London to Seoul, and from Antarctica to Iceland -- by the end of the weekend mobilization. Demonstrations are expected to take place in at least 60 countries. Most of the demonstrations were peaceful, although there were skirmishes in Athens; in New York, where police attempted to prevent marchers from getting near the United Nations; and in Colorado Springs, where arrests were made after demonstrators blocked a road near an Air Force base.
The New York demonstration was one of more than 200 planned for this weekend in US cities from Augusta, Maine, to Yakima, Washington, and Wausau, Wisconsin. What was supposed to be a relatively modest Los Angeles demonstration grew so large that television reporters there were reporting breathlessly on the "massive" show of opposition to war. Actors Martin Sheen and Mike Farrell and director Rob Reiner joined a march that filled Hollywood Boulevard from curb to curb for four blocks. Police claimed 30,000 turned out, while organizers said the crowd ultimately swelled to almost 100,000.
The swelling crowd sizes at Saturday's rallies in the US led organizers of a Sunday march in San Francisco to predict that it could turn into one of the largest demonstrations that west coast city has ever seen.
While weekend demonstrators in the US and Britain were seeking to change the minds of their leaders, crowds in Germany and France were expressing support for moves by the French and German governments to block Bush administration initiatives at the UN. "Help to prevent new suffering, new destruction and new death," read a sign carried by survivors of the Allied bombing of Dresden at the close of World War II. Saturday's huge protests in Berlin mocked U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's criticisms of European war foes, with signs reading, "Old Europe is Against the War."
No leader could have felt more pressure Saturday than Britain's Blair, whose personal approval ratings have dipped dramatically as he has continued to side with Bush's position on war.
Understanding that a switch by Blair could force Bush to rethink his position, Jesse Jackson flew to London to join rock stars, actors, playwrights, former Algerian President Ahmed Ben Bella and former British parliamentarian Tony Benn, who recently traveled to Iraq to interview Saddam Hussein, for the Hyde Park rally. "Iraq is a challenge that must be put in perspective. It is not the priority that Bush and Blair have made it to be," Jackson said after arriving in London.
Among those marching with Jackson and the others was British author John Mortimer, long one of the most prominent members of Blair's Labour Party. Noting revelations that Blair's government doctored intelligence reports to create a false impression that they revealed clear and present dangers from Iraq, Mortimer said in announcing his decision to join the London demonstration: "We are being persuaded into war by lies and half truths. A secret service document, making it clear there is no evidence of a connection between Saddam and al Qaeda, is disregarded. A 10-year-old article by an undergraduate is presented, and solemnly referred to by Colin Powell as if it were the latest government report, and no effort has been made for our Government to tell the truth about it."
KUCINICH BID: US Representative Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, confirmed Sunday that he will launch an exploratory committee in preparation for a presidential bid. One of the most outspoken foes of war with Iraq in Congress, Kucinich appeared at Saturday's anti-war rally in New York and then traveled to Iowa, the first Democratic caucus state to headline a planned rally in Des Moines. A former mayor of Cleveland, Kucinich says his candidacy will be about more than just opposition to war with Iraq. But the Ohioan added that, unlike several of the other Democratic contenders, he will not hesitate to address questions of war and peace bluntly. "We need to start asking why is war considered to be an instrument of policy," argues Kucinich. "Inspections are an adequate substitute for war, diplomacy is a substitute for war, human relations are a substitute for war, and so I think that there is no case made for war."
maxlogan page 2 top | | | | Guest-cdbc | | Posted: Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:27 pm Post subject: It's Not Just the Oil |
| It's Not Just the Oil
By Stanley Heller (bio below)
Does a boxer fight with one hand tied behind his back? Why is the anti-war movement reluctant to talk about all the reasons for the drive to invade Iraq? Yes, major reasons for the permanent war drive are corporate greed for oil, dreams of political domination, and the lust to test weapons. But there's another one. Extreme right-wing forces from a foreign country and their powerful American backers are pushing the U.S. to invade Iraq and many other countries. I'm, of course, talking about Israel.
On November 12 Zev Chafets wrote an incredibly revealing article in the New Haven Register. In an article headlined,"Disarming Iraq is only a start in Middle East" he explained that the Arab and Iranian cultures were "irrational" and that nothing could be done to "improve the collective mental health of Arab societies". He proposed "giving the Arabs and Iran a stark choice .they can have sovereignty or jihad (in its secular or religious forms), but not both". He says "disarming" but of course he means invading the "Middle East's most hostile and deranged regimes".
Now, who is Zev Chafets? He was originally from Michigan, but went to Israel in 1967 and fought in their army and became director of the government press officer under Prime Minister Menachem Begin. He's now a columnist for the New York Daily News. He's ideas reflect the desires of Likud, the Israeli ruling party, one variant of extreme Israeli right wing opinion. The current party head, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, is delirious for the war. In his mind, with Iraq leveled the Palestinians will give up hope and he then can go on to his other objectives, destroying the governments of Lebanon, Syria and Iran.
How is this influencing the U.S.? It's not blatant. When you go to the Anti-Defamation League site you see nothing calling for war with Iraq. Sharon doesn't have to engage in noisy public appeals. The forces that demand the Iron Fist as the answer to all problems (the Neo-Cons) are at the highest levels of the U.S. government. When I was in Hebrew School I remember the teachers railing at the State Department for being filled with "Arabists" who hated Israel. Nobody rational would say that today. The top officials and advisors to Bush are all rabid Neo-Cons. Some like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser actually worked for Israeli think tanks, writing grand papers for (Likud) Prime Minister Netanyahu on how the U.S. and Israel should take apart and reconstruct the Middle East.
Do we have to talk about Congress? Just a few days ago the House voted near unanimously to congratulate the Israeli government on its wonderful fair election. Here's a government that is in material breach of the Security Council "demand" that it remove its forces from the Palestinian cities and Congress offers it hugs and kisses. Is it any wonder? The Israel Apartheid lobby just knocked off a four term Congresswoman (McKinney) as it has done to Senators and Congressmen so many times in the past. Years ago a wit called Congress "Israeli Occupied Territory". The joke is still right on the mark.
Are we giving aid to anti-Semites by denouncing Likud-Neo-con influence? Not at all. In no way are we advancing the loony nazi charge that "the Jews" run the country. Sure, many neo-cons are Jews. Jews are also the leaders of the U.S. anti-war movement. The biggest Jewish organizations are backing Sharon, but most Jews don't support them. According to a 1995 survey by the American Jewish Committee only 22% of American Jews consider themselves Zionists. Most American Jews don't give a dime to the ADL or any other Israel boosting organization.
A small group of U.S. Jews are fanatical supporters of Israeli Apartheid and they shower it with money. But even though they seem to have the world by a string, it isn't so. When Israeli interests clash with American ruling class interests the tail does not wag the dog. [Ask Jonathan Pollard who's sitting out a life term in Danbury prison] The U.S. ruling class is overwhelmingly Christian and the fundamentalism that inspires it is Pat Robertson's evangelism, not Jewish Orthodoxy.
Our argument is angry but precise. When the Left denounces Sharon we mean Sharon. When we assail an obvious foreign influence we're not alleging some all-powerful secret plot. When we condemn Israeli apartheid we denounce a Jewish superiority state, not the idea that Jews should live in Israel and enjoy every human right.
With that said we owe it to Americans to tell them the whole truth, that part of the war drive is being fueled by a wacko militarist clique from Israel and its interlocking bands of American Jewish and Christian supporters.
We're told not to bring up Israeli influence on the U.S. because it would split our supporters. Well, who would it alienate? It would tick off a certain group of Jews, those Jews who are schizophrenic politically, people who can be liberal or radical on every cause except Israel. They learned democracy in school, but they're still intimidated by their grandmothers.
An example is Rabbi Michael Lerner. While at times he makes sharp criticisms of Sharon when it comes down to a critical moment he's on the wrong side. When Palestinians were making progress explaining the Right to Return he got into the editorial page of the New York Times denouncing the mass return of people to their homes. While he will criticize human rights abuses he does not call for any effective action, i.e. boycotting Israel goods or suspending Israeli foreign aid. Hundreds of Israeli Jewish activists are warning that Sharon might force mass deportation of Palestinians during the Iraq invasion, but Lerner calls it anti-Semitic to make a connection between Israel and the drive for an Iraq invasion. ("Singling out Israel in the context of a war rally about Iraq is racist." -Tikkun website 2/17/03). Lerner's vocabulary is that of a chauvinist. He uses terms like "pro-Israel" or "anti-Israel". He is constantly brandishing charges about "Israel bashing" and "anti-Semitism".
I will say this. It was wrong to ban him from speaking at the San Francisco demo because he criticized ANSWER. We all have a right and duty to make criticisms. I have plenty problems with the politics of ANSWER, and I wrote about it on Counterpunch. [Yet far from being anti-Semitic on January 18 ANSWER bent over backwards and made no connection between the Iraq war and Israeli government.]
We don't need Lerner. We don't need the American Friends of Peace Now who support Sharon's attempt to grab $12 billion more in American tax dollars. Include these types in your coalitions and you will waste hours and hours talking about the politically correct way to describe Israel. We do need Jews who are fully committed to equality and democracy, but they won't be angered by exposures of the Likud-Neo-cons.
Most importantly we need to be honest and tell the whole truth to Americans. They need to know of all the reasons behind the drive to conquer Iraq. Some of us used the following chant in NYC. I recommend it at your next rally. "Bush and Sharon, they say War. We say, No!, We say No!"
----------------
Stanley Heller has been chairperson of the Middle East Crisis Committee (New Haven) since 1982. He is a moderator of al-Awda-Unity, a division of the Right to Return movement intent on encouraging Jewish activism. He can be reached at mail@TheStruggle.org | | | | Guest-43e1 | | Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 1:28 am Post subject: Lerner and his ilk |
| Lerner, and all the other namby-pamby Jewish "doves" who advocate nothing serious, who work only on behalf of themselves, are a drain on the Peace and Justice's Movement to roll back the neo-liberal form of globalization which requires Israel to use the United States to mass-murder millions of Muslims, to destroy national cultures, and install a world where human beings are mere "consumers", and societies are reduced to "markets."
Lerner and his ilk are a fifth column within the peace movement. Their chief concern is to weaken the quest for peace, in order to perform damage control for Israel. They are Jews so frightened of joining the human race, that they think by taking one baby step forward, they're entitled to take two giant steps back.
Lerner and his ilk, too, are schlimiels. They do not make an attractive appearance, nor have winning personas that would work well with others, or appeal to normal, everyday Americans.
Lerner and his ilk are bad news, who give off bad vibes. They should be sent home to sulk, weep, and whine. The fact that they won't call or write is a very good thing. Good riddance to parsitic rubbish. | | | | Guest-c651 | | Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2003 12:02 pm Post subject: 'The Axis of Evil' |
| 'The axis of evil'
By Hasan Abu Nimah in Jordan Times - Wednesday, February 19, 2003
WE LIVE in a world that has never lived without a natural or man-made catastrophe in one or other of its corners. We have come to accept that some of these disasters are simply inevitable. But that is not the case when a superpower decrees that we must have a war for the most unconvincing, fabricated reasons, for an openly imperialistic ideology, for power and greed, and for distraction from other, glaring, failures. These reasons, and nothing more, lie behind the US drive for an attack on Iraq, supported primarily by the United Kingdom and Israel.
The irony is that more and more people in the world, especially in the Middle East, are starting to see these three countries acting together as the true “axis of evil”. Haaretz confirmed that Israel's “military and political leadership yearns for war in Iraq”. (“Enthusiastic Israeli army awaits war in Iraq”, Haaretz, Feb. 17, 2003)
Israel's leadership hopes that the destruction of Iraq will lead to the total subjugation and defeat of Syria, Lebanon and Iran. Israel also hopes to benefit from deep divisions about Iraq among the United States and its European allies. According to the Israeli newspaper: “There is also excitement in the Israeli army's planning department over the stand-off between the US and its NATO allies. A paper distributed to the army's upper echelons even spoke of an opportunity to remove the pro-Palestinian Europeans from the Middle East. A senior source said Saturday that the US will punish the Europeans for their back-stabbing on the road to Baghdad, and will no longer ask them for input regarding Israeli concessions.”
This zeal for war and destruction is supposed to lead to an outcome where a defeated Arab world and a marginalised Europe cannot stand in the way of Israel, backed by an increasingly extremist and isolated United States, imposing any settlement it wants on the Palestinians. At best, what the Palestinians can hope for is direct Israeli rule with all their civil and national rights cancelled. This will be Israel's “generous” alternative to what many in Israel's leadership really want, which is the total ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.
Looking back, this is no more than an attempt to achieve what was tried — but failed — more subtly after the 1991 Gulf War. The main difference is that the first war was widely seen as justified by Iraq's clear transgression of invading and occupying Kuwait. What followed was essentially not different from what is planned this time. The 1991 war created “convenient” circumstances for an Arab-Israeli settlement. The PLO was severely weakened politically and hard hit financially, as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians working in Gulf states were expelled and governments cut off their assistance to the leadership. The PLO was not even accepted as a direct participant in the October 1991 Madrid conference, and the talks which followed in Washington.
With Israel's position thus strengthened, and unlimited American diplomatic support (except for token and temporary US resistance to aid for Israel's colony-building on Palestinian land), Israel did not respond to any of the far-reaching Palestinian compromises offered for peace, including full recognition of Israel in advance and full acceptance of the two-state solution. Rather, Israel took advantage of the weakness and desperation of the PLO and, behind the backs of the Washington negotiators, hatched the secret Oslo agreement which must go down in history as one of the worst deals ever made. This disaster simply laundered, with full PLO approval, all of Israel illegal war gains, at the expense of the Palestinian people. Negotiations were dragged on indefinitely in order to allow Israel the necessary time to achieve de facto annexation of all of the conquered territory.
By imposing, by brute force, a scandalously unjust and humiliating deal on the Palestinians, entirely denying their political and national rights, and by reducing the PLO to nothing more than a South Lebanon army-like police force for the Israeli occupation, Israel laid the grounds for the present Intifada and did not achieve the “peace” of the strong that it hopes for.
The warmongers in Washington and Tel Aviv believe that this time round they can get it right, having failed twelve years ago, by going all the way. Once they impose “total defeat” on the Palestinians and Arabs, they believe a golden age will open for Israel, which will face no obstacles before it. This will not happen.
It is quite possible that an attack on Iraq will destroy that country and produce immense political pressure on Syria, Lebanon and Iran. It is also possible that Israel, while world attention is focused on Iraq, will further intensify its campaign of war crimes against the Palestinians. It is even possible that by raising the level of atrocities even higher, Israel will claim to have imposed some sort of order on the situation, to have “defeated” the Palestinians. None of this will succeed. Israel, instead, will be guaranteed only more unrest, more determined resistance, more bloodshed and more horror.
The planned war against Iraq is an idea of a small group of ultra-pro-Israeli hawks who hatched it in the mid-1990s when they were advising the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Today, this same small group has hijacked American policy at the Pentagon. This group, that gathered around figures like Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle, is not concerned with Iraqi “weapons of mass destruction”, human rights or terrorism. Their concern is the pure pursuit of power. For this group, there is no difference between American interests and the interests of Israel as defined by the most extreme elements. They have an obsession with the Arab and Muslim world that borders on hatred.
While it is easy to trace the growing influence of this group on an American establishment that has always allowed Israel to set the agenda for US policy in the Middle East, the UK's slavish commitment to this group is more puzzling. The British people are clearly concerned about how their prime minister seems to have transformed himself into America's deputy secretary of state in pursuit of an agenda that holds nothing positive for Britain. The UK always calculated that by forging a “special relationship” with the United States, it would gain influence both in America and in Europe. Prime Minister Tony Blair's foolish policies have done the opposite. The Americans simply take British support for granted, while Britain's position in Europe is worse even than it was under Thatcher. And for what? Blair claims that the UK is in danger from global terror. Maybe so, but many of his people answer that his dangerous policies are exposing the country to such terror rather than dealing effectively with any threat.
The voices of the tens of millions who marched for peace all over the world are sending a loud message to the United States, Britain and Israel, the three pillars of this new axis, if not of “evil”, then at least of raw, dangerous power and colonialism. These are voices of truth and reason. They are voices which bridge the gulf of misunderstanding, fear and suspicion between the West and the rest of the world, that figures like Bush, Blair and Sharon are fuelling. Let us hope that the millions who came out will act as an urgently needed check on the forces who relish war and use words like “justice” and “peace” only to mock them. | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 2:46 am Post subject: Syria in the Crosshairs (for Israel) |
| Just saw the following at www.whatreallyhappened.com
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=4861
February 16, 2005
Syria in the Crosshairs
You didn't think they would stop with Iraq, did you?
by Justin Raimondo
I walked into the Arab grocery store just in time to see Michael Young – opinion editor at Beirut's Daily Star newspaper and a contributing editor at Reason magazine – declaring on television that Syria will almost certainly be blamed for the assassination of Rafik al-Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister. The store owner, a Maronite Christian from Lebanon, who usually greets me happily, listened gravely as Young reiterated pretty much what he said to the Los Angeles Times and dozens of other media outlets:
"Certainly, the mood is very clearly that Syria did this. Syria will be blamed for it no matter who did it. They'll be even more isolated internationally than they already are."
Translation: Never mind the facts. Damascus must pay.
That is clearly the view of the U.S. government, which has recalled its ambassador and is implicitly blaming the Syrians – albeit not directly – in spite of a broadcast on al-Jazeera featuring a man identified as Ahmed Tayseer Abu Adas, who took responsibility for the attack on behalf of a previously unknown group, the "Group for Advocacy and Holy War in the Levant." Adas denounced Hariri as a "Saudi agent" and declared that the killing was in retaliation for the "martyrdom" of al-Qaeda operatives in the Saudi kingdom.
The investigation so far has shown that this was most likely a suicide bomber – hardly the method one might expect Syrian intelligence to utilize – and not an explosive placed underneath the road, as the Lebanese opposition claims.
But the facts don't matter here, as Young so helpfully pointed out. The United States government is using this tragedy to ramp up its rhetorical assault against the Syrians, whom it has recently accused of aiding Iraqi insurgents by providing a safe haven and failing to close its border. Reuters cites administration sources as saying that it isn't just more economic and political sanctions that Washington has in store for the Syrians:
"The administration also was debating whether the U.S. military could cross the Syrian border from Iraq in 'hot pursuit' of insurgents, sources familiar with the discussions said."
As I pointed out last year, we're on the Middle East escalator, and the assassination of Hariri has just given Washington a pretext to put the pedal to the metal.
For years a mediator between the various sectarian factions that divide the Lebanese political landscape into religious and ethnic cantons, Hariri was seen as moving away from Syria and implicitly backing a call for the withdrawal of Syrian troops. Yet he did not go up against the Syrians until recently, formerly backing them up, with some reservations, because – unlike the American presence in Iraq – theirs is not an occupation born of conquest.
Syria was invited in by the Lebanese government, in 1976, to keep order in the face of a civil war pitting Maronite Christians against Sunnis and Druze. Adding to the chaos, the Israeli invasion in 1982 was aimed at the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which had established bases in southern Lebanon. Syria, in alliance with various militias, resisted the Israeli invaders, who were eventually forced to withdraw. Yet the civil war dragged on until peace was brokered by the Arab League, in 1989, and enforced by the Syrian presence (legitimized by the Taif agreement, which brought an end to the internal hostilities). Syria has slowly been withdrawing forces, but the U.S. and Israel have been pressuring the Syrians to get out entirely: Israel claims that Syria is aiding the Hizbollah guerrilla movement, which regularly launches assaults on Israeli territory. Syria denies this.
Once again, it's all about Israel.
The escalation of U.S. pressure on Syria is the culmination of a strategy plainly and clearly outlined in a 1996 paper prepared for Tel Aviv's Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm." This collaborative effort by Richard Perle, James Colbert, Charles Fairbanks, Jr., Douglas Feith, Robert Loewenberg, David Wurmser, and Meyrav Wurmser – most of whom are now ensconced in high positions in the Bush administration – outlined for then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a new Israeli strategic vision:
"Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right – as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."
Syria was seen by these Likudniks as the main target of the Israeli advance. However, Israel could not invade Iraq and outflank the Syrians. Only Washington could change the strategic environment for the Israelis – and that is certainly what has happened. The theme of the "Clean Break" scenario is that the road to Damascus runs through Baghdad, and phase one of the Likudnik mission has been accomplished. We are now entering phase two – the Syrian phase – of the "Clean Break" strategy. Get ready for "shock and awe" over Damascus.
The neoconservatives in the administration have long planned to go after Syria: two years ago, Julian Borger of the Guardianreported that plans for an invasion were readied by Rumsfeld, but vetoed by Bush: to our perspicacious neocons, a veto is only a postponement. The propaganda barrage started last year, and it is now reaching its climax with the assassination of Hariri and the subsequent outcry.
Israel's amen corner in the U.S. doesn't need solid evidence that Syria was behind the murder of the beloved Hariri: as Michael Young put it, "the mood" determines guilt in this instance, not the facts. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz pointed the finger at a nameless "pro-Syrian terror organization," adding that they're doing the same thing in Iraq. How Israel knows so much about this he did not say.
Whoever killed Hariri was no amateur: the assassination required knowledge of his movements, technical sophistication, and lots of planning. And in spite of the eagerness of some to convict the Syrians out of hand, the number of suspects – if we count all of Hariri's many enemies – is far more than one. As Tim Cavanaugh points out in Reason:
"To leftists and Islamists, he was too pro-American. To neocons, he was too anti-Israel. The Group for Advocacy and Holy War in the Levant purports to have hated him for his ties to the Saudi monarchy. And the vast population of Lebanon regarded his achievements as vast populations always do: with jealousy, trash-talk, and spite. There was a surreal pattern throughout the nineties, of seeing a ruined capital turn into a functioning city while friends and neighbors tirelessly grumbled about the arriviste Saudi who had ruined their country.
"Which brings us to the question – and I can already assure you it will never be resolved – of who hated Hariri enough to kill him. I am not as confident as my colleague Michael Young that the Syrian occupiers were behind the bombing. Hariri is an odd choice for assassination given how much more vociferous Druze leader Walid Jumblatt has been in his opposition to the Syrian occupation."
I don't purport to know, at this point, who killed Hariri, but what I do know is this: a large number of well-placed people, both in and out of the U.S. government, are pushing very hard to blame the Syrian government, without any evidence – and even disdaining, as in the case of Michael Young and Defense Minister Mofaz, the need to provide any proof. Of course Damascus is responsible, we are told – let "regime change" begin!
Not so fast. This anti-Syrian outcry has about it the same air of orchestration that permeated the run-up to war with Iraq. The Busheviks are employing an identical strategy – pushing fake "intelligence" (often via their favored media organs, such as the London Telegraph) and lying about "weapons of mass destruction," linking Damascus to "terrorism" by dubious means, and latching onto alleged "liberals." What a coincidence that the discovery of a major "reform"-minded leader – dubbed by some as the Syrian Chalabi – has lately been in the news.
Less than a week before the assassination of Hariri, Elisabeth Eaves wrote in Slate:
"So, you're an Arab exile. You've prospered in the United States. You've got lots of influential neocon friends. And now you want to overthrow the evil Ba'athist dictator back home. Here's the catch: Your name, fortunately – or perhaps unfortunately – is not Ahmed Chalabi. What are you supposed to do?
"This is the predicament in which a man named Farid Ghadry finds himself. (Remember that name: He could soon be cashing millions in U.S. government checks.) The regime Ghadry would like to terminate is that of Bashar Assad, dictator of Syria, his country of birth. … But Ghadry finds himself in a peculiar post-Iraq-invasion dilemma: to be Chalabi, or not to be. President Bush singled out Syria's bad behavior in the State of the Union, but no one expects regime change in Damascus anytime soon. Syria's mere nastiness isn't enough these days. Iraq has sapped the appetite for war…"
But wars don't respect national borders, and it's only a matter of time before the Americans' ongoing battle against the Iraqi insurgency spills over into Syria. As I predicted in September 2003, "We are a border incident away from taking the war into Syria, and beyond," and that analysis seems borne out by events.
All the elements of a regional conflagration are now in place, and the assassination of Hariri has set the fuse to burning. How long before the troops move out is anyone's guess, but make no mistake about it: Syria is next on the War Party's agenda.
As I have said from the very beginning, the war in Iraq was and is just a means to the ends of finally securing Israel's "security" – by making it the dominant power in the region. This is now being confirmed as the U.S. takes aim at Syria and moves against Hizbollah. This new ratcheting-up of U.S. threats against Damascus shores up support for Bush's Middle East peace plan – in Israel – and gives domestic support for extending the war beyond Iraq some impetus (at least in Washington).
The occupation of Iraq was just the beginning: before all this is over, we may see America's real war aims in the Middle East come into very clear focus, with U.S. troops back in Beirut – and occupying Damascus. This makes the call for the withdrawal of U.S. troops, and a public timetable for getting out, a vital necessity, and not at all a radical proposal. What's radical is the prospect that those troops may soon be crossing over the border into Syria – that is, if we don't get them out of Iraq first.
–Justin Raimondo
Find this article at:
http://www.antiwar.com/justin | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
