Document text
- Subscribe - Contact Us - Rate Card - Place an Ad Archives Revels Classifieds Real Estate Menu Guide Wedding Weather Subscribe Contact Us October 25, 2005 The irony in Iraq From the RIGHT side Mike Green The American public loves round numbers, pretty colors, and simple explanations. It is the fundamental approach upon which every campaign is built. It is how things are sold to us, from products to political issues. Our leaders are well aware that Americans have a short attention span and virtually no memory, as though we were collectively testifying in front of congress. So the numbers have to be small, the colors cute, and the rationale for invading foreign countries whittled down to a 60-second sound bite. In the War in Iraq, the round number is 2,000. This represents only American lives, because as everyone knows we are unconcerned with the number of dead Iraqis, despite our pretense of “liberating” the Iraqi people. In stark contrast to our current keen sense regarding the welfare of Muslims in Iraq, the U.S. government must have been oblivious to the oppressive status of the Iraqi people when it befriended Saddam Hussein in 1980, helped him invade Iran from 1980 to 1988, and provided him with chemical weapons of mass destruction while extending billions of dollars in credit to him as late as 1990. And despite the lengthy list of charges against Saddam from the Kurds of Northern Iraq, the Iranians next door, and even Iraqis (both Sunnis and Shiites) within Iraq itself, our leaders seemingly had no idea that Saddam was a treacherous tyrant when they reaffirmed the desire of the U.S. to strengthen the bond of friendship with him just one week prior to his invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Ahhh, the irony. When Saddam was torturing Iranians, Kurds, and Iraqis in the Abu Ghraib prison (among many other locations from 1980 to 1990), launching chemical attacks on civilian populations using U.S. military hardware and technology, and attempting to conquer Iran, all was well, as far as our leaders were concerned. And ironically, all seemed well when Saddam told George H. Bush’s ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, that he intended to invade Kuwait. She responded by informing Hussein that we had “ no opinion ” on Arab-Arab conflicts. Our intention was to discuss furthering a friendship and lowering the price of oil (which was $25 a barrel at that time). Ironically, we were outraged a week later after Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Perhaps invading his neighbor only counts as a crime when Saddam does it without the support of the U.S.? I’m sure most Americans have no recollection of our support of the invasion of Iran, the end of which was just two years prior to Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. The problem could be that the numbers were too big. More than 1,000,000 (that’s one million) Muslims died in the Iraq-Iran war that involved participation from all of the world’s major powers (I call it WWIII). Millions more were injured and displaced. In contrast, the U.S. sustained 58,000 casualties in the entire Vietnam War. We have yet to forget the tragedies involved in that conflict. I surmise the effects of an 8-year war that ended only 17 years ago and involved most of the world powers concentrated on two Muslim countries with literally millions of families impacted, might have some lingering effects as well. The actual amount of military hardware, technology and credit the U.S. gave to Saddam totaled somewhere in the billions. Ironically, many of the same leaders who hate Saddam today were seemingly in love with him while he was committing atrocities — and approved of extending billions of dollars in credit (a bill the American taxpayer was eventually saddled with paying). Unfortunately, any total amount of money beginning with a “b” is far beyond the imagination or concern of the general public. Most Americans stop counting whenever a number exceeds whatever the lottery is paying out. We also stop paying attention when the issue becomes too complex. That’s what happened in the Iran-Contra hearings, when it was revealed that the U.S. was supplying Iran with military weapons to finance yet another war somewhere south of us. The American public got caught up in the fire aimed at Oliver North, while president Reagan couldn’t recall much of anything. But the families of Muslims dying in the Middle East remembered quite well that the U.S. was supporting a vicious Saddam. They were soon treated to news that the U.S. was also supporting Iran. America was then blamed for escalating and prolonging a war between Muslim nations with the intent of weakening both. If I may wipe away the cobwebs from the mind of the American public and attempt to jostle the memory, there was no “war on terror” when we controlled Iran, nor were there Iraqi “terrorists” when we were supporting Saddam. And when we were pitting both nations against one another, we seemingly had no problems worrying about Muslims taking over the world. But at a rate of more than 2,000 deaths a week over a span of eight years, there may have developed a bit of agitation in the Muslim world over the involvement of the U.S. in the Middle East. And oh yeah, there’s that lingering problem of Saddam raping, torturing, and murdering people ad nauseam with the tacit support of America. Islam didn’t take that too well. During the war between Iraq and Iran, undoubtedly many Muslim families still had vivid images of the Shah of Iran’s tyrannical rule as a puppet of the U.S. for 26 years (1953 – 1979) after the C.I.A. undermined Iran’s democratically elected government and installed a dictator (through a covert operation known as Project Ajax). Human rights organizations listed Iran as one of the worst offenders during the two-and-a-half decades the U.S. and Great Britain were enjoying control over Iranian oil, its economy and military through the auspicious rule of the Shah. Just when Iran thought it had regained control over its country (1979), it was invaded by Iraq (1980), supported by … guess who? Yep, here comes the good ‘ol United States … again. So much for that “freedom and democracy” rhetoric we hear bandied about today. But we do love irony. At the same time the U.S. was promising freedom of the press, equal rights for women and a host of other civil rights to Iranians through a puppet leader, it was engaged in its own civil rights battle with Americans who were denied those same rights here at home. After the Iranian Revolution of 1979 (they were revolting against U.S. rule), we witnessed the backlash from devout Muslims in television images of crowds burning the U.S. flag. We were told they were crazed lunatic militants who hated America for no good reason. We believed it. After all, it’s a simple explanation that fits perfectly into an easy-to-remember sound bite for TV and radio. And besides, we’re quite attached to the red, white and blue. Today those pretty colors are usually flying half-mast or draped over coffins. The simple explanation from our leaders is summed up in two words, yet again, “freedom and democracy.” Both are signified in what has become known as “free elections.” Ironically, these so-called free elections are designed and presided over by a foreign power that declares democracy as the only direction deemed legitimate for those who dare risk life and limb to place a thumbprint on a piece of paper … in a Muslim nation. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and Egypt elections have been held. The veracity of those elections is meaningless to most. Who knows who those folks are on the ballot, how they got on the ballot, and what they stand for? And does anyone really believe that 99 percent of the entire country of Iraq voted for its new constitution? I would venture to say that we couldn’t garner such a high number if we polled Americans today in order to see how many of us support the constitution we currently have. The symbolic gesture of holding elections in foreign nations allows our leaders to emerge from caverns of conspiratorial consultations to proclaim victory of some sort to those who listen half-heartedly — the hapless hopeful who know that even our own electoral process is skewed and rigged in favor of the two groups in power. What does it all mean? In short, it means most Americans are done listening and have gone back to paying close attention to the World Series, the NFL and other “more important matters.” It means that once again our leaders have trusted in the public’s failing memory of why we gave them 2,000+ of our bravest young people. It means they know us better than we know ourselves. For the first time in history, say our leaders, the Iraqi people are free to choose their own democratic form of government. But are they truly free to choose any form of government they desire? What if they want a form of government that models Saudi Arabia, the very seat of Islam and home to the religion’s holiest places? Given that the great majority of Iraqis are Muslims, both Shias and Sunnis (with Shias having greater power and being the more fundamentalist followers) wouldn’t they be prone to creating a constitution that mirrors Saudi Arabia’s constitution, the Quran? Since the Shias in Iran are closely related to the Shias in Iraq, why would the Iraqi Shias see government and culture any different than Iranian Shias, whom our leaders claim are our enemies? Well, if they are given freedom, Iraqis will choose democracy, so we are told. And if they do not, then we will not leave because the region cannot have peace without democracy, so we are told. Of course, we do not intend to leave Iraq without establishing peace, which means “control” in political speech. It is the true reason why we occupied Iraq militarily in 1991 and never left. Freedom and democracy are excuses used as a last desperate gasp by a secular government that desires to establish reign over a devoutly religious people, in like manner to the secular governance here in America over a largely Christian populace. The so-called “principles of democracy and freedom” has become the established propaganda that has lured millions of Americans to support the sacrifice of our military troops upon an altar of political ignorance. This nation has been at war with Islam in one form or another for decades. And the continuing mantra emanating from Muslim lands has remained … “get out.” We went there first in 1953 . They came here to deliver a message in 2001. Unfortunately, Americans have virtually no memory, which has allowed our leaders to escalate the established aggressive policy in the Middle East, created by president Jimmy Carter in 1980 (Carter Doctrine). Carter succinctly stated that the U.S. will go to war over what we consider to be “vital interests” in the Middle East. We have forgotten that our very first foray into the Middle East under a covert operation initiated by the C.I.A. was to undermine Iran and take over its oil. A couple of generations later few folks have knowledge of why the U.S. is involved in the Middle East. So our leaders capitalize upon our ignorance by passing preposterous propaganda. Are we to truly believe that our government is under attack by those who wish to expand Islam to take over the entire globe, when the number one ally we have in the Middle East is Saudi Arabia, the very seat of Islam? The truth lies beneath a foundation of ignorance. That truth points to a very aggressive U.S. government that initiated an assault upon a Muslim country in 1953, installing a brutal dictator to control the masses and that nation’s massive oil reserves. After losing control of that country in 1979, the U.S. government moved next door to another oil-rich Muslim country and yet another brutal dictator, using him to attack the Muslim nation once controlled by the U.S. government. After it was discovered that the U.S. was supporting both sides against each other, the two Muslim nations made peace (1988). Two years later, after several attempts at resolving a dispute (over oil) with Kuwait, Iraq invaded that small family-owned nation. The U.S. used the invasion of Kuwait as an opportunity to capitalize upon the world’s aversion to aggression. Bush then ordered the mobilization of thousands of U.S. troops into Saudi Arabia, the home of Mecca and Medina … the holiest places in Islam. In opposition to its assurances to the Saudi government that the U.S. would not use the headquarters of Islam to establish aggression against another Muslim country, the U.S. and Great Britain used the defense of Kuwait as a means of setting up military control over the northern and southern areas of Iraq in 1991. This nearly touched off a civil war in Saudi Arabia . The U.S. eventually removed most all of its military from Saudi soil, but remained completely in control of Iraq and routinely flew attack missions in what was known as the “no fly zone.” That was a large area off limits to Iraqis in their own country. Meanwhile, Saudis were up in arms about the U.S. using the most holy lands of Islam to attack another Muslim nation. Of course, our resume shows we had a number of years of experience doing exactly that. However, the Saudi backlash was a tad louder than the Iranian backlash (1979 Iranian Hostage Crisis). In 1995, the U.S. air base in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was bombed. In 1996, the U.S. air base in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia was bombed. In 1998, two U.S. embassies (Tanzania and Kenya) were bombed (linked to Saudi origins). In 2000, the USS Cole was bombed (in Yemen linked to Saudi origins). In 2001, the political, military and economic headquarters of the United States was hit. Two of the three simultaneous attacks succeeded. Most of the hijackers of the planes used in the attacks were Saudi Arabian citizens. Since 1991, the U.S. government has received verbal warnings to leave the Middle East. Those verbal warnings turned into written formal edicts known as fatwas. And those warnings turned into deadly attacks. With each attack, our government has been acutely aware of the growing risk to American citizens. Yet, we refuse to leave the Middle East. Instead, we have done the opposite. We are determined to occupy and control at least one nation, Iraq. Iraq sits between Iran and Saudi Arabia. We are playing a dangerous game of tic-tac-toe. By occupying the middle square we have demonstrated to the Islamic world that we are in it for the long haul. And by “democratizing” Iraq, as we hope to do, we plan to set up shop right in between fundamentalist Iran on one side and fundamentalist Saudi Arabia on the other. For Islam, it is a battle for survival. It is a war it believes it must win to retain its religious culture. And The Muslim Brotherhood, a coalition of dozens of Muslim organizations worldwide, has put out a call for a jihad in Iraq to expel the “infidel.” A similar successful jihad was conducted in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989 to expel the Soviet Union. During that jihad, Osama bin Laden responded by leaving a life of luxury and wealth in Saudi Arabia to fight on the front lines. He made a name for himself then — a reputation that the U.S. has been unable to stain in the cultures of the Middle East. Ironically, the C.I.A. was assisting the mujihadeen (holy warriors) and Osama through the government of Pakistan. In 1991, Osama led the cry against the U.S. in Saudi Arabia. Some will say, “so what?” What does it matter how we got there or the reasons involved? We are there now and must stay the course. Okay. Certainly we are all entitled to our opinions. My conclusion is that this war is nowhere near finished. And unless we change the minds of our leaders or change the leaders themselves by cleaning house and replacing them with trustworthy individuals, the war we watch on television will be in our own backyard. And the tragedy we witnessed as a result of a natural disaster in New Orleans will seem like a Sunday picnic compared to the brutal realities of war. We should leave the Middle East. Our government and our military have no business there. With the exception of two years, the United States government has been involved in controlling Iran or Iraq through force for 52 years. When will we leave? Our constitution calls for the use of our military to defend this nation. But where does it allow for the aggressive use of covert operations and aggressive use of overt military operations to conquer other nations and force them to comply with what we proclaim to be the quintessential way of life? And where does it call for an all-out battle over “vital interests” (oil) in foreign lands? I believe it is the duty of every American to be informed about the truth regarding the decisions made by our leaders to send our troops into harm’s way. The brave men and women of the military depend upon you and me to ensure that when they go to kill and potentially be killed, they are sacrificing their lives for a reason that does not evolve with the window of opportunity. They have no choice but to follow orders. But we decide who gives them those orders. Today, the Commander-in-Chief is unable to stand fast upon the original rationale for sending troops into battle. He claims that we must now stay the course and create a democracy in Iraq. He believes that a “free” Iraq will make the world a safer place. Unfortunately, his father did not believe that when he was sending representatives to bow at the palace of Saddam. We know the pretext. The ends do not justify the means. Our leaders do not have the authority to lie to us in order that we might be willing to sacrifice our sons and daughters to advance their secret agendas. And whatever the outcome, no man or woman calling themselves a leader has the right to coerce innocent Americans into leaving loved ones at home to spend months and years in unknown places fighting for unknown causes. In the coming election, it is likely the war in Iraq will be the preeminent issue of debate. Without hesitation or equivocation I plan to withhold my support from any candidate that does not firmly resolve to withdraw U.S. troops from the Middle East immediately. Ironically, that may mean I may have to hold my nose and do something I thought I would never do in my lifetime … vote for a Democrat. Mike Green is an award-winning columnist and author of the soon-to-be-released book, " The WHOLE truth about the U.S. War on Terror: answers to every question you never knew to ask ." ( www.thetruthaboutterror.com ) From the RIGHT Side is a web-only column published by the Daily Tidings. To respond to this column send email to [email protected]. Only those responses containing the writer's name, city and phone number (for verification purposes only) will appear on our site. Letters to the Editor and Guest Forums should be e-mailed in text-only format to [email protected]. Please include your address and a daytime phone number where you can be reached for confirmation. Submissions cannot have run in any other publication. Letters are limited to 250 words, Guest Forums are limited to 600 words, and may be edited for length, content and clarity DailyTidings.com Home Page Archives | Revels | Classifieds | Real Estate Guide | Weather | Subscribe | Contact Us Copyright 2005 Ashland Daily Tidings and Ottaway Newspapers All Rights Reserved Deep Muscle Stimulator Free Music Downloads Slippers Ceramic Piggy Banks Online Casinos FREE Entertainment Guide Women's & Men's Slippers Accelerate Weightloss Products best online casino teleconferencing High-End Gaming Computers Diamonds Vegas Travel Guide Search Engine Optimization Sportsbook Discounted Website Hostings Student Loans Hotel & Airline Reservations African Safari Myspace Layouts Helzberg Diamonds Online Casinos Community Student Loans Bonus Casino ink cartridges Mortgage Calculator Security Systems Mailing Lists Canadian Pharmacy Casino Gambling Sites Backpacks Click Here .:Advertisements:. Site Search: RESOURCES - Mail Tribune News - ODOT Road Cams