The Hard Way In, The Easy Way Out
Having spent the last week here in Las Vegas talking with numerous Americans about the war in Iraq and their government, the overwhelming answer that I am often confronted with is that they’re either too tired of the subject or simply don’t have the time to follow what’s occurring overseas or even in their own halls of power.
Don’t get me wrong, 99.9% of those I have spoken to here are against the war and dislike the Bush administration intensely, but they grow dismissive when the issue of alternative courses of action is brought up. For many of them, they concede that there is no solution to the war in Iraq, yet routinely claim that were the United States to abandon the country that it would fall into the hands of al-Qaeda.
As I have written tirelessly of late, a reality that has been echoed by various preeminent academics and authors, al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia would most likely be the first group to be expunged from the national landscape were the United States to withdraw. The presence of foreign fighters in the country would not be as tolerated by the majority of the Sunni insurgency, and certainly not by the Shia, as the administration suggests. Thus, this idea that al-Qaeda is an ominous presence in Iraq that has the ability to actually seize formal control of the country is nothing more than propaganda. And by the conversations that I have had, that propaganda seems to be working.
It should not be dismissed that Iraq certainly has become a noted destination for foreign fighters, primarily from the likes of Saudi Arabia and Syria, but having said that, their influence is not as nationally significant as has been made out by the White House and Pentagon disinformation machines. True, the attacks undertaken by them commonly produce the grimmest results, often killing scores of Iraqi civilians, but therein lies the schism between their murderous objectives and those of the groups that comprise the majority of the insurgency itself, whose main priority has always been the deterrence of the occupation. Of course, the sectarian violence that has gripped the nation can also not be overlooked, and that the objectives of some have quite obviously become two dimensional – anti-occupational combined with actions against other Iraqi religious groups. There is also the matter of extremist groups operating within various government ministries to contend with as well, which, over the last several years, has only aided in worsening the situation.
That said, it is of massive importance at present to monitor what is being said of Iran, whom various individuals within the administration, primarily those aligned with the Cheney cabal, have been focusing on with greater zeal of late.
As Gareth Porter points out in an article at Antiwar.com today, claims being made by the United States with regards to Iranian support for the Taliban are vastly over simplified and in no way actually address the sort of complexities that might ‘confuse’ the average American – the exact same tactic used to paint al-Qaeda in Iraq as the foremost enemy…
“In a development that underlines the tensions between the anti-Iran agenda of the George W. Bush administration and the preoccupation of its military command in Afghanistan with militant Sunni activism, a State Department official publicly accused Iran for the first time of arming the Taliban forces last week, but the US commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan rejected that charge for the second time in less than two weeks.
Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns declared in Paris Jun. 12 that Iran was “transferring arms to the Taliban in Afghanistan,” putting it in the context of a larger alleged Iranian role of funding “extremists” in the Palestinian territories, Lebanon and Iraq. The following day he asserted that there was “irrefutable evidence” of such Iranian arms supply to the Taliban.
The use of the phrase “irrefutable evidence” suggested that the Burns statement was scripted by the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. The same phrase had been used by Cheney himself on Sep. 20, 2002, in referring to the administration’s accusation that Saddam Hussein had a program to enrich uranium as the basis for a nuclear weapon.
But the NATO commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Dan McNeill, pointed to other possible explanations, particularly the link between drug smuggling and weapons smuggling between Iran and Afghanistan.
Gen. McNeill repeated in an interview with US News and World Report last week a previous statement to Reuters that he did not agree with the charge. McNeill minimized the scope of the arms coming from Iran, saying: “What we’ve found so far hasn’t been militarily significant on the battlefield.”
He speculated that the arms could have come from black market dealers, drug traffickers, or al-Qaeda backers and could have been sold by low-level Iranian military personnel.
McNeill’s remarks underlined the US command’s knowledge of the link between the heroin trade and trafficking in arms between southeastern Iran and southern Afghanistan. The main entry point for opium and heroin smuggling between Afghanistan and Iran runs through the Iranian province of Sistan-Baluchistan to the capital of Zahedan. The two convoys of arms which were intercepted by NATO forces last spring had evidently come through that Iranian province.
According to a report by Robert Tait of the Guardian Feb. 17, Sistan-Baluchistan province has also been the setting for frequent violent incidents involving militant Sunni groups and drug traffickers. Tait reported that more than 3,000 Iranian security personnel had been killed in armed clashes with drug traffickers since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
McNeill further appeared to suggest in the interview with US News that not all the arms coming from the Iranian side of the border were necessarily Iranian-made. Munitions in one convoy, he said, “were without a whole lot of doubt in my mind Iranian made,” implying that the origins of the arms was not clear in other cases.
McNeill’s rejection of Burns’ accusation reflected the views of Afghanistan’s Defense Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, who told Associated Press on Jun. 14 that it was “difficult” to link the arms traffic to the Iranian government. Wardak said the arms “might be from al-Qaeda, from the drug mafia or from other sources.”
The clash between key civilian officials and the command in Afghanistan over the explanation for the arms entering Afghanistan from Iran followed a series of news stories in late May and early June quoting an anonymous administration official as claiming proof of a change in Iranian policy to one of military support for the Taliban. These anonymous statements of certainty about such a policy shift, for which no intelligence has ever been claimed, pointed to Cheney’s office as the orchestrater of the campaign.
Given the very small scale of the arms in question, Cheney’s interest in the issue appears to have much less to do with Afghanistan than his aim of ensuring that President Bush goes along with the neoconservative desire to attack Iran before the end of his term.”
Linkage is crucial when it comes to the wholly ambiguous tenets of the War On Terror. When the United States invaded Iraq, one of the lies employed was that the regime of Saddam Hussein was linked to the 9/11 attacks, which, rather unbelievably, many Americans still believe to be true. It is, of course, not true at all, but the lie provided linkage to an event that the American people could easily identify with and thus created a basis of popular support for military action. As the occupation of Iraq dragged on, new ways to detract from the initial lies told the public were thus employed. Rather than the insurgency representing an anti-occupational movement, it was painted as being a predominantly al-Qaeda based movement, again providing linkage that the American people could easily identify with. This same tactic is currently being employed against Iran, who is being accused of aiding the Taliban, once again providing linkage that many Americans can easily swallow. The fine print, of course, is of little consequence.
As Adolf Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf (though it should be noted that the context of the quote was to do with his belief of such practices by the Jewish people) - “…people will doubt the truth of a small lie, but never a big one.” No matter the context in which Hitler initially meant it, it holds true to this day, especially in the hyper-media age in which we live. The simplicity of inaccurate information on a large scale is entirely more believable and reasonable to the largely selfish and distracted intellectual capacities of most. Complexities require examination, examination requires time, and who wants to spend their time trying to come to terms with something that is not entirely black and white when voices in government are offering you just that – black and white.
The unfortunate truth about placing ones faith in the ‘black and white’ is that it inevitably leads to the production of bodies, all of which, in their deathly reposes, are tinged with gray – a shade that we should all take more time to examine.
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Thursday, June 21st, 2007 at 3:08 pm. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 21st, 2007 at 3:22 pm
1. How exactly does intelligence determine if the insurgent taking up arms against the occupying forces is a member of ‘al-Qaeda’ or just an Iraqi taking it upon himself to fight what he sees as people who have turned his country into the modern day city of Bedrock?
2. How can any intelligence the U.S. produces be taken as factual after the lot of it used as justification to invade Iraq turned out to be false?
June 21st, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Dan, the intelligence used to invade Iraq wasn’t false. It was nonexistent.
They’re blaming the CIA’s intelligence because it’s physically impossible for anyone in the Bush administration to come out and say they fucked up, that they wanted to go to war anyway, and just needed a convenient excuse. The excuse they needed was manufactured in the form of intelligence reports, but I’m betting there was in fact no actual intelligence work done, as there was never any evidence shown to the public, just assurances from the regime that evidence was there, and it was “substantial.”
So, it’s an endless circle, and instead of taking the hit and doing the right thing, the regime is going to ride this pony until its teeth are ground into the Baghdad pavement. All the while hooking the blame off on whatever pawn is handiest at the moment.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I think the war has taken a huge toll on the American public in general, which I think is exactly what the Bush Adm. wanted. They want people to not care, to give that sort of “I’m too tired of the topic” response to it; The Bush Machine and all it’s gears.
I love coming to this site because of the consistent discussion, how this can’t just be pushed aside in favor of Paris Hilton updates in the US news because people are “too tired” to discuss it and want something else. If one is too tired to further discuss such immoral issues and ways to improve them, they shouldn’t be talking about them to begin with…right?
Also, it’s almost become back page news in the US, as you can see by what the American press seems to cover on a daily basis. Somehow, scores of dying innocents seems to take a back seat to the newest rage. It’s unbelievably tragic, yet completely unsurprising at the same time.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:29 pm
When I was in Vegas a few years back, I found most people had faith in their presidents choices alone and beyond that didn’t know anything. My drunken rants probably didn’t help sway their opinion either…..
….as well as my “propaganda dance” on the old strip when the ceiling show happened with the eagle flying down the two block roof.
June 21st, 2007 at 4:46 pm
as a side….you must really be warm down there, Matt….thats the 2nd straight bare chested pic.
June 21st, 2007 at 5:18 pm
before or after the soon to be dismissed Haditha frameup!
June 21st, 2007 at 7:09 pm
Lemme see.
I was opposed the war before it started. I think we should get out yesterday.
I think Bush should be fired.
Gitmo should be closed immediately and all those detainees should have access to their lawyers and the red cross or any other such organization. Trials should begin and if aquitted the detainees should be released, and the courts should be prepared to entertain civil lawsuits.
It’s just repetition. What’s more to say?
June 21st, 2007 at 7:12 pm
what’s with the trucker hat?
June 21st, 2007 at 7:15 pm
i honestly hope that one day the truth comes out about 9/11 and the events that followed. but for now people will just have to live there scripted lies and swallow hard
June 21st, 2007 at 8:01 pm
Here are a number of questions on my mind and it’d be great to hear from informed individuals on them. If the U.S. pulls out, what role should we (I speak as an American) play with respect to the government in Iraq? Having been the central agent for a great amount of pain in Iraq, do we have a responsibility to the Iraqi people and in what ways? What is the U.S.’ responsibility in the region as a whole?
For me, these are hard questions that I’m not sure I have the answers to. My wishes are for an end to bloodshed and displacement in Iraq, the success of a true Iraqi democracy, true national sovereignty, and the collective self-determination of the people of Iraq. What’s plausible and what’s mere fancy?
June 21st, 2007 at 8:03 pm
whoisqaz: If you are referring to a conspiracy theory, I would have to respond by saying that while conspiracy theories shouldn’t be dismissed outright, in this particular instance it is wishful thinking. A different sort of black and white, if you will. It’s easy to believe that 9/11 and the entire debacle of the war IN Iraq (notice how it’s been turned into the war ON Iraq) was part of some diabolical scheme. But the harsh reality is that the Bush Administration played the entire nation because the majority of Americans were too complacent to do anything about it.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:12 pm
Jchow, I agree with you in a lukewarm sort of way. I find that humans possess a compelling urge that in face of a factual narrative that they construct one to explain events causally. In that respect, it seems that a lot of conspiracy theories have popped up about 9.11 and its events. I can sort of understand though, a lot of people look at the official story and think it’s a bunch of poppycock.
Certain elements of it I raise a skeptical eye to. One, I find it difficult to believe that the two planes caused the towers to fall. A couple of classes in statics and physics make that one difficult to swallow. I also find it difficult to believe that it was another aircraft that hit the Pentagon. The evidence does not seem to fit. That being said, I don’t have a narrative I subscribe to that explains these events to me. When I tell people that I don’t believe the story, they often ask me if I believe in some conspiracy theory. I tell them no, I just know what it probably wasn’t. In the same sort of way Hume looked at the exterior world and applied reasoning, I believe we should to. It doesn’t make much sense to replace one implausible story with one equally implausible.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:28 pm
phouse: The invasion of Iraq was baseless and shouldn’t have even entered the picture. That said, the current free-for-all in Iraq is something that was long-overdue, prevented only by Saddam Hussein’s oppressive regime. So to answer your question: the USA should not play ANY role in Iraq unless specifically requested by the Iraqi government. Like Governor Ron Paul said, Americans wouldn’t like it if China came in and started moving their armies freely about the country according to their own agenda. The USA needs to respect the existing powers in the region, and recognize that their original goal - the war on terror - can only be won through mutual understanding and cooperation amongst everyone involved. We’ve already seen the kind of results that brute force produces.
June 21st, 2007 at 8:34 pm
[quote comment="16675"]In the same sort of way Hume looked at the exterior world and applied reasoning, I believe we should to. It doesn’t make much sense to replace one implausible story with one equally implausible.[/quote]
Very true, but what I was getting at is that it doesn’t matter how much of the official story is plausible or implausible. The Bush Administration rushed into the war in Iraq without the support of the UN, and the majority of Americans were content to accept Bush’s heavy-handed rhetoric and factually empty reassurances of “evidence”, rather than take a stand and say “hold on, we need to examine this properly.”
June 21st, 2007 at 8:47 pm
I should add that I don’t think this complacency is unique to the USA. The entire Western world and even parts of Europe are plagued with it…. but then we’re talking about humanism and that’s another discussion for another one of Matt’s posts :)
June 22nd, 2007 at 7:25 am
First off, I agree with Jchow that the US should have no role in the Iraqi government save what the people desire. When I was listening to the debates last week one thing struck me more than any other. When discussing Iran and Iraq and other middle eastern countries, both Republicans and Democrats were guilty of(what I think) the same grave error. All of them, when discussing those countries had statements that included “We cannot allow”, “X country cannot have” and so on. Their messages and tones were condescending. I have mentioned before how in their worldview these countries are as children, that must be controlled and chastized for any act that the USA does not approve of. This is essentially why the US should have no role in any middle eastern government. No people want to be treated as children who are too stupid to govern themselves. The towering resentment that already exists in the region because of this prevailing “we know whats best for you attitude” cannot be dealt with as long as the US is exercising control of governments in the area, especially not Iraq.
As for Iran. I know people who are in the anti-Iran camp. When I hear the rhetoric being recited from their mouths, I almost want to despair. Have we learned NOTHING from the past several years?
June 22nd, 2007 at 8:23 am
Quoting phouse:
“One, I find it difficult to believe that the two planes caused the towers to fall. A couple of classes in statics and physics make that one difficult to swallow.”
If you apply enough pressure with the heat of the burning jet fuel, you can cause steel to weaken in a lower temperature fire than is usually required. Having 30 floors above the impact point sitting on a fire will allow the steel to weaken enough to cause a collapse. The steel didn’t have to melt…it only had to weaken enough to allow the weight of the floors above to collapse and cause the building to pancake downward.
I have weakened and even melted metals in campfires that were not in the presence of any fuel other than wood, simply by applying pressure to the metal. Conspiracy theories don’t help us in any way and makes us look weak.
As far as American leaving Iraq, a lot of Americans are probably afraid that if they leave, they will be in another Vietnam…what they fail to realize is that they are already in another Vietnam and this problem will not be easily solved. The U.S. government needs to remove itself from the Middle East in order for any kind of peace and stability to begin. This is not going to happen as long as there is OIL sitting there.
June 22nd, 2007 at 10:02 am
Matt, Vegas looks to be treating you well.
phouse: “For me, these are hard questions that I’m not sure I have the answers to. My wishes are for an end to bloodshed and displacement in Iraq, the success of a true Iraqi democracy, true national sovereignty, and the collective self-determination of the people of Iraq. What’s plausible and what’s mere fancy?”
They’re hard questions that Cheney&Co. never even considered…your wishes, though well intentioned, don’t reflect the reality of what is called “Iraq”, what Matt and Jon Stewart more accurately call “Mess-O’-Potamia”. My call: “mere fancy”.
There is no “true” Iraqi anything, other than what Saddam held together by force. Just as we (the U.S.) are trying to force national sovereignty and democracy–western concepts–on ethnically/religiously divided tribes.
The Sunni, Shia, and Kurd peoples who make up what is called “Iraq” are all backed by different nations. There will be bloodshed whether the U.S. stays or leaves, if we leave, Iran will surely overrun the region; so how will Syria and other nations react? The U.S. invaded and destroyed the infrastructure on its own, but we can’t bring about any kind of resolution and rebuilding without those neighboring Muslim nations. Whether that involves some kind of unification or a mutally agreed upon partitioning…..??? Who can say.
We’ve been invading/occupying Muslim lands since 1095; they’re angry, paranoid, even suicidal (literally!), and they want U.S. military presence AND western culture out of their sphere.
Bottom line= forgo oil and Israel. Are we willing to do that?