Some not so shocking news from the London Times this morning…

“On the day she was assassinated, Benazir Bhutto was due to meet two senior American politicians to show them a confidential report alleging that Pakistan’s intelligence service was using US money to rig parliamentary elections, officials in her party said yesterday.

The report was compiled by the former Prime Minister’s own contacts within the security services and alleged that the Inter-Services Intelligence agency was running the election operation from a safe house in the capital, Islamabad, they said. The operation’s aim was to undermine Ms Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and to ensure victory for the Pakistan Muslim League (Q) party, which supports President Musharraf, in the elections scheduled for January 8.

Patrick Kennedy, a Democratic congressman for Rhode Island, and Arlen Specter, a Republican member of the Senate sub-committe on foreign operations, have confirmed that they were planning to have dinner with Ms Bhutto on Thursday evening but were not available for comment yesterday.

Sarfraz Ali Lashari, a senior PPP official who works in its election monitoring cell, told The Times that he had helped to compile a 200-page report on the Government’s efforts to rig the poll, which Ms Bhutto planned to give to the Americans and to the press the day she was killed.”

This comes as absolutely no surprise. The question now is, if the PPP has the report in its possession, will it still release it, or is it now only valuable in the context of laying blame at the ISI and Musharraf’s door? If the report is accurate, and legitimate, then it should be released, but the objective of it should not, nor should it ever have been, to gift to foreign interests that were backing Ms. Bhutto. The people of Pakistan should be the report’s foremost recipients, being that its contents would have far greater implications on their lives than on those of foreign statesmen.

With such information coming to light, each layer of the onion that was the game that Ms. Bhutto was playing with regards to foreign interventionism becomes more apparent. And while the allegations that the report professes are extremely serious, the fact that Ms. Bhutto was relying on foreign interests with regards to the actions of the country’s military establishment should be seen for what it was – not a defense of true Pakistani democracy, but self centered efforts to placate such interests to secure power. And in saying that, it should not be overlooked that those who aid in the ascension of a political figure gain political capital themselves that they can later cash in to further their own objectives.

Again, that reality speaks to the betrayal of the people of Pakistan and those that risked their lives in supporting Ms. Bhutto.

There is absolutely no arguing the fact that the ISI has extreme political influence and functions as a ghost government in many ways, just as there is no denying the fact that theirs is a game that is also steeped in complexities, deceits, and self preservation. But this situation ultimately places the people of Pakistan, rather ironically, on the outside looking in. Between a government that is little more than a representation of the military establishment and a supposed democratic saviour that was, in many ways, a foreign proxy, the people of Pakistan are left courting falsehoods, insecurities, and fear – not the real possibility of true democratic salvation.

Interventionism can be a nasty business. In the case of Benazir Bhutto, whose return to Pakistani politics was dramatic, polarizing, and suspiciously timed, it ultimately took her life. True, Bhutto played the role of democratic savior and stood to make a significant impact in the upcoming elections, but despite the tragedy of her death, the root of why she returned to Pakistan should not be overlooked.

Benazir Bhutto was an instrument of US interventionism that was playing just a risky a game as President Musharraf has been. The different, of course, is that Musharraf possesses the support of the Armed Forces and Inter Service Intelligence, which, with regards to the reality of the Pakistani political landscape, is immensely significant. There is no question that Bhutto’s distrust of Pakistan’s military establishment was palpable, and given the expedience of her reintroduction to political life, and the entrenchment of the military establishment, one has to seriously wonder what would have occurred had she been successful in unseating the current government given that fact. There is little doubt that the military establishment was well aware of the motives behind Bhutto’s return and, given that, were certainly faced with difficult decisions of their own – even including the possibility of terminating Bhutto to usurp the objectives of those behind her return.

Bhutto’s assassination has plunged Pakistan into a state of chaos, resulting in a decision today by the government to crack down on unrest throughout the country. According to the BBC, 38 people have died in the violence that has erupted since Bhutto’s assassination last Thursday. But beneath such scenes, the wheels of interventionism continue to turn on this side of the globe, with even the New York Times suggesting that the Bush administration should intervene in Pakistan to “fortify Pakistan’s badly battered democratic institutions.” Without Bhutto, US hopes for timely change have been temporarily dashed, but that does not mean that they are out of options. Having alienated Musharraf, they may very well now turn to Nawaz Sharif, who, like any politician in a volatile state, may very likely be open to forming strong ties with foreign interests that are in a position to significantly support his government should he succeed. Then again, given Ms. Bhutto’s fate, he might not.

Ultimately, there should be no confusion regarding the loose employment of the term ‘democracy’ and the reality of what is transpiring in Pakistan. Since 9/11, the use of that term has been bandied about by the United States with regards to those locations that if feels are of significance to its foreign policy objectives. Where the United States is able to enjoy the cooperation of autocratic regimes to facilitate their policy objectives in specific regions they do. In fact, Saudi Arabia is a prime example of that reality.

Pakistan’s significance is obviously multifaceted. Not only are wilder regions of it home to a variety of militant groups, but it has also been used as a staging ground for Taliban operations since their deposition in 2001, not to mention the fact that the Pashtun belt remains home to millions of refugees, many of which have been used to bolster the Taliban’s numbers.

Then there is the reality that within the military establishment itself there are elements that support those that the United States would see confronted. In fact, the assassination of Bhutto could very well have been undertaken by that very element using militants as proxies. The speed with which the ISI was able to produce evidence that Bhutto’s assassination was undertaken by an al-Qaeda affiliated group is both suspect and, in truth, genius. While it certainly appeared to be far too expediently convenient, it shouldn’t be lost on anyone that that convenience plays perfectly into the hands of the very powers that championed Bhutto. Offering up al-Qaeda, in any way, shape, or form, was sure to set off a media firestorm in the Western world, introducing confusion into an already confused situation. Compounding that confusion is also the growing scandal regarding the government’s assertion of how Bhutto died. While her supporters claim that she was shot, a government spokesman has said that she died as a result of her head being slammed against the vehicle she was in as a result of the bomb blast. Adding another layer to the confusion, the militant that the Interior Ministry has claimed was responsible for masterminding the attack has denied any involvement.

If all of that sounds like a contradictory mess then one has to ultimately ask if it’s the product of genuine confusion or manufactured confusion? In situations such as these, genuine confusion certainly does occur, but is usually tempered by the eventuality of informational course corrections. On the other hand, if, in situations such as this, confusion is being manufactured, you’re going to see a continuance in contradictory information being released. The reason for this is to so utterly submerge the event in confusion that answers seem almost impossible to obtain and the public, faced with such overwhelming confusion, will find themselves so mired in it that they will eventually find their focus and scorn diverted.

Diversion, of course, is key to the success of any killing undertaken by the military establishment of any country.

Upon her return to Pakistan, Ms. Bhutto exclaimed that she was not afraid of those that sought to stop her democratic vision from becoming a reality. On the day that she returned to Pakistan, her motorcade was attacked, an incident that took the lives of over 130 people. Since that time, her public appearances placed more lives in danger, including her own it should be rightly said, and numerous attempts on her life were also made. Of course, it takes courage to continue in the face of such dangers, but ultimately the reason for doing so has to be seen for what it is. While her death will most certainly make her a martyr of the country’s democratic movement, it should never be forgotten that hers was not a singular campaign aimed solely at delivering true democracy to the people of Pakistan. That, in the end, it came with conditions that were to the benefit of foreign interests, just as much as to the satisfaction of her own ego given the corruption that plagued her past. Ultimately, perhaps it was her ego that allowed her to overlook the inherit dangers of becoming the democratic proxy of foreign interests. And though it might seem a harsh thing to say, that decision may very well have been what killed her.

As for US interventionism, Pakistan’s nuclear capability requires that future attempts at political subversion be undertaken in a similar fashion. An outright confrontation with Pakistan is not something the United States is at all in the position to consider. There are also other factors to consider as well, such as - in 2006 the United States “signed arms transfer agreements with Pakistan in excess of $3.5 billion, ranking Pakistan first among all arms clients of the United States during that calendar year.” Obviously relations with Musharraf’s government have changed over the last year, but ultimately, customers are customers.

With regards to perceived culpability in Bhutto’s assassination…

According to the Pakistani ISI, a telephone call was intercepted from Baitullah Mehsud, a tribal leader in Southern Waziristan, during which he congratulated another militant on Bhutto’s assassination. Given that conversation, the Pakistani Interior Ministry has concluded that Mehsud ordered the attack on Ms. Bhutto.

Added to this, a telephone confession was also reportedly made by Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid to Adnkronos International…

“A spokesperson for the al-Qaeda terrorist network has claimed responsibility for the death on Thursday of former Pakistani prime minister Benazir Bhutto.

“We terminated the most precious American asset which vowed to defeat [the] mujahadeen,” Al-Qaeda’s commander and main spokesperson Mustafa Abu Al-Yazid told Adnkronos International (AKI) in a phone call from an unknown location, speaking in faltering English. Al-Yazid is the main al-Qaeda commander in Afghanistan.”

At this stage I’m not going to rule out the possibility that information is conveniently finding its way into the ISI’s lap, nor that of various news agencies. While it is only speculation, al-Qaeda assassinating Ms. Bhutto provides the Musharraf regime with not only breathing room, but also a chance to seemingly avenge Bhutto’s death, which would certainly work in its favour with regards to international perceptions.

Since her assassination, rioting and unrest throughout Pakistan has resulted in some 31 deaths according to the BBC. Likewise, Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent has commented that despite the information being provided by the Pakistani Interior Ministry, it is too early to “establish the truth of what happened”, an assertion with which I agree.

In the email correspondence that I have had with Shaan Akbar, authour of The Insider Brief, he had this to say…

“Jihadists were definitely involved, they may have been AQ affiliates, that’s anyone’s guess. I think this was sort of a joint-operation between jihadists (who were largely a proxy) and a section of the establishment. When I say establishment, I specifically mean the PML-Q party leadership, led by the Chaudhry cousins, and the Intelligence Bureau, led by Brig. (retd.) Ejaz Shah.

We saw a weird intersection/allignment of their interests: Bhutto presented a threat to both of them. For the Chaudhries, who were brought to power by Ejaz Shah, Bhutto was the single biggest political threat. Her party was bound to be a major winner in parliamentary elections and the likely center of any coalition government. The jihadists knew that Bhutto’s return to power meant that there would be concrete action against them. So the result was this marriage of convenience between the two. And of course, Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus is no stranger to using jihadists as a policy tool.”

Benazir Bhutto succumbed to injuries sustained from a gunshot wound to the neck and an explosion after being rushed to hospital today in Ralwapindi where she was attending a political rally. While it is only speculation at this time, the Chaudhries of Gujrat are suspected of being behind the attack, though no official claims of responsibility have been made. It was the second such attack against her in recent months.

Last Thursday, four people were killed at an election rally that was to be attended by former Prime Minsiter Nawaz Sharif, one of Bhutto’s political rivals, in the same city. Following Bhutto’s assassination, Sharif accused the government of a ‘serious lapse in security’, though his claims were countered by a statement by Salman Tassir, a long time friend of Ms. Bhutto, who claimed that similar attacks had been directed at General Musharraf.

15 others also died in the attack.

For more information and analysis I recommend visiting The Insider Brief.

For those of you interested, the interview I did yesterday with Ken Rockburn on CPAC’s ‘Talk Politics’ will air October 28th at 7PM Eastern/4 PM Pacific.

That said; the death toll in yesterday’s attack on Benazir Bhutto’s motorcade has climbed to 136. A further 387 people were also wounded. President Musharraf has condemned the attack and pledged that an independent investigation into the incident will be conducted.

The list of those that could have been responsible for yesterday’s attack is by no means short. And, though I am sure I’ll get some guff for saying it, in my opinion it could very well include foreign intelligence agencies. While it’s more than likely that Pakistani militants carried out the attack, it can’t be overlooked that such an action, given the tensions within the country, is something that definitely exists in the international coup d’état playbook. In short, you now have a significant portion of the Pakistani population that is sympathetic towards Mrs. Bhutto, which most certainly ups her political position, and that is an after affect of this incident that can’t be overlooked.

Now that I’ve said that, it should also not be overlooked that the attack might very well have been the brainchild of elements within the ISI as well. The promise of a transparent, independent investigation in Pakistan is akin to handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500, so the chances if it coming back on them is very slight, if not completely improbable.

Lastly, and of course the most probable cause, is that it was the independent action of one of several militant groups that had pledged attacks were Bhutto to return to Pakistan.

The bottom line is this – at this point, none of them can be discounted as a possibility.

An few interesting passages from coverage of the aftermath from the BBC…

“In her first public statement since the blast, she told a news conference that before the bombing, shots had been fired at her vehicle to stop it. It was unclear whether the driver had been disabled by this gunfire, she said.

Ms Bhutto also called for an inquiry into why the street lights along her route had been switched off, saying security guards would have spotted suicide bombers if the street lights had been on.”

[…]

“The BBC’s Damian Grammaticas in Karachi says Ms Bhutto is clearly attempting to portray herself as a brave fighter for democracy.

But he adds that there are bound to be questions about why, if she had been warned of a suicide bomb attack, she authorised such a slow public procession from the airport attended by hundreds of thousands of supporters.

Earlier, in an interview published on the website of Paris-Match magazine, she accused former officials in the government of late military ruler Mohammed Zia ul-Haq of masterminding the attack against her.

“I know exactly who wants to kill me. It is dignitaries of the former regime of General Zia who are today behind the extremism and the fanaticism,” she said.

For those of you at all interested about Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq, Pakistan’s former military ruler, here are a few points of interest…

Zia trained in the United States from 1962 to 1964 at the United States Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

His government hung Bhutto’s father.

In a 1984 referendum, the implementation of Sharia Law was tabled, along with an option to accept or deny Zia as President. 95% of the population voted in favour, though massive irregularities in the process were apparent.

His government aided the Afghan Mujahideen against the Soviets and was thusly hailed by the West for its role in ‘championing freedom’.

The ISI was instrumental in Zia’s rise to, and seizure of, power.

Time. It seems funny to think that the time the surge was supposed to provide Iraqi politicians to make inroads with regards to healing national political divisions is mostly likely now going to allow them more room to politically exploit the time given them rather than focus on efforts of political reconciliation. As Robert Reid of the Associated Press recently pointed out…

“Washington threw more personnel and firepower into Iraq to give the Iraqi leadership more room to settle disputes and adopt U.S.-backed reforms.

But the signals this week of just modest troop withdrawals ahead — perhaps back to pre-surge levels of about 130,000 — mean the Shiite-led government feels little pressure to accelerate work toward true political reconciliation.

Instead, they are focusing their energy on shoring up their positions: outflanking political challengers, leaning on more-radical Shiite factions to behave and flirting with Sunni sheiks to build personal alliances.

Iraq’s national security adviser was asked Wednesday to explain why the government has been so slow to enact power-sharing agreements that Washington deems necessary for lasting peace. He had nothing new to offer.

“Of course we want to do it, but they are so complicated,” Mouwaffak al-Rubaie said.

In Iraq’s political reality today, Shiites who account for 60 percent of the population hold the country’s political power and have no intention of yielding it to Sunnis.

Neither side has given up on violence to achieve its goals.

“Many Sunnis continue to see their political pre-eminence as a birthright. And most Shiites believe that their numerical superiority and the oppression they suffered under Saddam Hussein give them the right to dominate the new Iraq,” one war critic, Republican Sen. Richard Lugar of Indiana, noted this week.”

Such tensions and mistrust represent the historic reality of Iraq, one that has been in place since the three provinces that now constitute modern Iraq were thrust together by the British following the First World War. Prior to that, they were three separate provinces ruled by the Ottomans for centuries. But it was not until the country was created, and given over to a Sunni King of Saudi birth, that the sense of entitlement that the nation’s Sunni minority now feels first began.

As many of you are aware, the United States has, since the spring of this year, been engaged in funding and arming some Sunni militant groups to help them combat Salafi Jihadi groups in Anbar Province. Of course, the initiative involves risks, one of the most dangerous being that Sunni militias may use their new found power to transform themselves into legitimized vigilante groups and single out those elements within local law enforcement and the Iraqi army itself as legitimate targets given that they hold absolutely no regard for the Shia controlled government. Further, that at some point, a critical mass of hypocrisy will be reached where both sides, the government and Sunni militias, will realize that the US is not going to predominantly back one side against the other. While the administration may believe that it’s making inroads with regards to defusing tensions, it might be getting more than it bargained for. Ultimately, it might have inadvertently placed itself in a position of having to choose which group to support with regards to the formation of the next government. That itself is a ticking time bomb.

One of the President’s leading Sunni allies with regards to this new initiative, Abdul-Sattar Abu Risha, was slain yesterday, along with two of his bodyguards, when his car was destroyed by either a roadside bomb or explosives placed in the car itself. From today’s Independent…

“The assassination comes at a particularly embarrassing juncture for President Bush, who was scheduled to address the American people on television last night to sell the claim made by General Petraeus that the military “surge” was proving successful in Iraq and citing the improved security situation in Anbar to prove it.

Abu Risha, 37, usually stayed inside a heavily fortified compound containing several houses where he lived with his extended family. A US tank guards the entrance to the compound, which is opposite the largest US base in Ramadi.

He spent yesterday morning meeting tribal sheikhs to discuss the future of Anbar. He also received long lines of petitioners as he drank small glasses of sweet tea and chain-smoked. He carried a pistol stuck in a holster strapped to his waist and dressed in dark flowing robes.

Surprisingly, he is said to have recently reduced the number of his bodyguards because of improved security situation in Anbar, although he ought to have known that as leader of the anti al-Qai’da Anbar Salvation Council he was bound to be a target for assassins.

Iraqi police in Ramadi suspect that the bomb that killed the sheikh was planted by one of the petitioners who came to see him. “The sheikh’s car was totally destroyed by the explosion. Abu Risha was killed,” said a Ramadi police officer, Ahmed Mahmoud al-Alwani. Giving a different account of the assassination, the Interior Ministry spokesman said that a roadside bomb killed Abu Risha. Soon afterwards a second car bomb blew up.”

Another point of extreme importance from the same article that should not be overlooked…

“Abu Risha’s death underlines the degree to which the White House and General Petraeus have cherry-picked evidence to prove that it is possible to turn the tide in Iraq. They have, for instance, given the impression that some Sunni tribal leaders turning against al-Qa’ida in Anbar and parts of Diyala and Baghdad is a turning point in the war.

In reality al-Qa’ida is only a small part of the insurgency, with its fighters numbering only 1,300 as against 103,000 in the other insurgent organisations according to one specialist on the insurgency. Al-Qa’ida has largely concentrated on horrific and cruel bomb attacks on Shia civilians and policemen and has targeted the US military only as secondary target.

The mass of the insurgents belong to groups that are nationalist and Islamic militants who have primarily fought the US occupation. They were never likely to sit back while the US declared victory in their main bastion in Anbar province.”

Politicking in such circumstances, especially as a third party that is occupying the country amidst a civil war, is never a sound idea. Then again, what has been a sound idea regarding Iraq over these last four and a half years?

While the USS Chafee is shelling the Somali coast, reports of more civilian deaths at the hands of NATO forces in Afghanistan are surfacing, and US Marine Major General Richard Huck has testified that all his superiors, including Gen. George W. Casey Jr. knew about the massacre in Haditha within hours of it happening - General Sir Michael Rose, the UK’s former Army Commander, has called for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq, stating that he believes that there is no way the war can be won…

“There is no way we are going to win the war and (we should) withdraw and accept defeat because we are going to lose on a more important level if we don’t,” he said.

Though the coalition could not simply “cut and run,” Rose said announcing a withdrawal date would help to dampen down the violence between Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions.

“Give them a date and it is amazing how people and political parties will stop fighting each other and start working towards a peaceful transfer of power,” he said.

Rose was speaking at the annual Hay Festival of Literature and the Arts in Hay-on-Wye, on the Welsh border with England.

The retired general who has written a book on the American War of Independence, made comparisons with the 1775-1783 conflict between Britain and the Thirteen Colonies.

He said: “How was it a small and extremely determined body of insurgents, thieves and deserters could inflict such a strategic and potentially disastrous defeat on the most powerful nation in the world?

“The answer will be familiar to anybody who is looking at what is happening in Iraq today.”

Yesterday saw the deaths of 114 Iraqis, 3 GI’s, with some 87 Iraqis wounded besides. As it was for US forces, last month was also extremely costly for Iraqis (more so than their occupiers, of course). Texas’ Star-Telegram has more.

G8 Protest Turns Violent, Again

Leave it to a handful of extremists to tarnish the largely peaceful protest being held at the anti-globalization summit in Rostock, Germany. Because as we’re all aware, lighting cars on fire and peeling up paving stones to hurl at the police is a sure fire way to get things accomplished.

“This is a time of shame and sorrow. It is not a day for politics. I have saved this one opportunity to speak briefly to you about this mindless menace of violence in America which again stains our land and every one of our lives.

It is not the concern of any one race. The victims of the violence are black and white, rich and poor, young and old, famous and unknown. They are, most important of all, human beings whom other human beings loved and needed. No one – no matter where he lives or what he does – can be certain who will suffer from some senseless act of bloodshed. And yet it goes on and on.

Why? What has violence ever accomplished? What has it ever created? No martyr’s cause has ever been stilled by his assassin’s bullet.

No wrongs have ever been righted by riots and civil disorders. A sniper is only a coward, not a hero; and an uncontrolled, uncontrollable mob is only the voice of madness, not the voice of the people.

Whenever any American’s life is taken by another American unnecessarily – whether it is done in the name of the law or in the defiance of law, by one man or a gang, in cold blood or in passion, in an attack of violence or in response to violence – whenever we tear at the fabric of life which another man has painfully and clumsily woven for himself and his children, the whole nation is degraded.

“Among free men,�? said Abraham Lincoln, “there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and those who take such appeal are sure to lose their cause and pay the costs.�?

Yet we seemingly tolerate a rising level of violence that ignores our common humanity and our claims to civilization alike. We calmly accept newspaper reports of civilian slaughter in far off lands. We glorify killing on movie and television screens and call it entertainment. We make it easy for men of all shades of sanity to acquire weapons and ammunition they desire.

Too often we honor swagger and bluster and the wielders of force; too often we excuse those who are willing to build their own lives on the shattered dreams of others. Some Americans who preach nonviolence abroad fail to practice it here at home. Some who accuse others of inciting riots have by their own conduct invited them.

Some looks for scapegoats, others look for conspiracies, but this much is clear; violence breeds violence, repression brings retaliation, and only a cleaning of our whole society can remove this sickness from our soul.

For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay. This is the violence that afflicts the poor, that poisons relations between men because their skin has different colors. This is a slow destruction of a child by hunger, and schools without books and homes without heat in the winter.

This is the breaking of a man’s spirit by denying him the chance to stand as a father and as a man among other men. And this too afflicts us all. I have not come here to propose a set of specific remedies nor is there a single set. For a broad and adequate outline we known what must be done. “When you teach a man to hate and fear his brother, when you teach that he is a lesser man because of his color or his beliefs or the policies he pursues, when you teach that those who differ from you threaten your freedom or your job or your family, then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens but as enemies – to be met not with cooperation but with conquest, to be subjugated and mastered.

We learn, at the last, to look at our bothers as aliens, men with whom we share a city, but not a community, men bound to us in common dwelling, but not in common effort. We learn to share only a common fear – only a common desire to retreat from each other – only a common impulse to meet disagreement with force. For all this there are no final answers.

Yet we know what we must do. It is to achieve true justice among our fellow citizens. The question is now what programs we should seek to enact. The question is whether we can find in our own midst and in our own hearts that leadership of human purpose that will recognize the terrible truths of our existence.

We must admit the vanity of our false distinctions among men and learn to find our own advancement in the search for the advancement of all. We must admit in ourselves that our own children’s future cannot be built on the misfortunes of others. We must recognize that this short life can neither be ennobled or enriched by hatred or revenge.

Our lives on this planet are too short and the work to be done too great to let this spirit flourish any longer in our land. Of course we cannot vanish it with a program, nor with a resolution.

But we can perhaps remember – even if only for a time – that those who live with us are our brothers, that they share with us the same short movement of life, that they seek – as we do – nothing but the chance to live out their lives in purpose and happiness, winning what satisfaction and fulfillment they can.

Surely this bond of common faith, this bond of common goal, can begin to teach us something. Surely we can learn, at least, to look at those around us as fellow men and surely we can begin to work a little harder to bind up the wounds among us and to become in our hearts brothers and countrymen once again.”

- Senator Robert Francis Kennedy, April 5, 1968, Cleveland, Ohio.

I was emailed this morning by a first year college student in Atlanta that asked me a very straightforward question. I should preface all of this by saying they admitted to coming from a very conservative family that supports US efforts in Iraq and the Bush administration.

Their question was very simple - ‘where do I begin if I want to understand the relationship between Iraq and America?’

This, of course, is a very complex question, even though it appears to be very straight forward. The answer to such a question would require an immense response, as there is a great deal of information that one has to consider when examining the relationship between not only the United States and Iraq, but Iraq and the West. Therefore, I will do my best to point things in the right direction, and if it at all interests anyone, please take some time to do some independent research of your own.

One: Indefensibility And The Disregard Of Historical Realities Regarding The Support Of Iraqi Human Rights Abuses

Prior to the invasion itself, and during the first year of the occupation, this blog was a flurry of activity. Some, who have since disappeared – often claiming that their points of view were being silenced primarily as an excuse to avoid having to confront the fact that their positions were becoming less defensible, leaving them with little choice than to rely on antagonistic discourse for the sake of convolution– tended to completely disregard past US involvement with the regime of Saddam Hussein. Many who supported the war pointed to the main points promoted by the Bush administration and also lent heavily on UN resolutions created and used by Security Council heavy weights – primarily the United States and the UK, the former of which uses the discontinuation of funding as a threat when it requires UN obedience – as the primary justifications for the invasion and occupation. (*)

What escaped popular discourse at the time (and still does) was US complicity with regards to the regime of Saddam Hussein and the human rights abuses committed while Iraq was a US benefactor. During the run up to the war, and during its early phases, members of the current administration often pointed to, for example, Halabja as an example of the genocidal tendencies of the Hussein regime. The invasion, beyond the rhetoric of needing to preempt Iraq’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, which turned out to be a fallacy, was promoted as the freeing of an oppressed people that had suffered under a cruel dictatorship. But what was not discussed, or ever referenced, was that during the years that Hussein’s regime was responsible for crimes against humanity, the support of the United States was considerable. Even after the incident at Halabja, US support for the Hussein regime was not curtailed by the Reagan administration. That same year, because of the Halabja incident, the United States Senate voted unanimously to pass The Prevention Of Genocide Act which called for the termination of Iraqi oil imports to the US and assistance to Iraq. The legislation was ultimately prevented from taking effect by the Reagan administration who called it premature based on faulty intelligence that the attacks had been carried out by Iran. Despite such barbarity, the relationship between the US and Iraq was not terminated and support for Hussein’s regime continued. In fact, up until 1989, the US Center For Disease Control both sold and sent anthrax, botulism, brucella melitensis, and West Nile virus to Iraq.

The United States was not alone complicit either [1]…

- The British government funded the construction of a chlorine factory, the purpose of which was to manufacture mustard gas. Matrix Churchill also received government funding to supply parts for what later became known as Project Babylon.

- ‘An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium and its government also provided heat exchangers, tanks, condensers, and columns for the Iraqi chemical weapons infrastructure - 16% of the international sales.’

- ‘Singapore gave 4,515 tons of precursors for VX, sarin, tabun, and mustard gasses to Iraq.’

- ‘The Dutch gave 4,261 tons of precursors for sarin, tabun, mustard, and tear gasses to Iraq.’

- Egypt gave 2,400 tons of tabun and sarin precursors to Iraq and 28,500 tons of weapons designed for carrying chemical munitions.’

- ‘India gave 2,343 tons of precursors to VX, tabun, Sarin, and mustard gasses.’

- ‘Luxembourg gave Iraq 650 tons of mustard gas precursors.’

- ‘Spain gave Iraq 57,500 munitions designed for carrying chemical weapons. In addition, they provided reactors, condensers, columns and tanks for Iraq’s chemical warfare program, 4.4% of the international sales.’

- ‘China provided 45,000 munitions designed for chemical warfare.’

- ‘Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982.’

- ‘Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.’

As an aside, though not surprising to those that study such intricacies, it was later discovered that the US was selling weapons to both sides during the war while limiting logistical support to just Iraq – such as passing along satellite intelligence that allowed the Iraqis to watch and counter Iranian movements and to aid them in targeting chemical weapon strikes against the Iranians. The latter being the province of the CIA.

Two: Involvement In Iraqi Affairs Before The Hussein Regime

One of the better references to this particular subject, though there are many, is Tariq Ali’s book Bush In Babylon. In it, Ali talks about the decimation of the Iraqi Communist Party after the Ba’athist seizure of power and the aid of the United States in helping the Ba’athists identify Iraqi Communist Party members who were then rounded up and terminated.

But more important was the US backed assassination attempt of General Abdul Karim Qassim in 1959, in which Hussein was a key figure…

“In the mid-1980s, Miles Copeland, a veteran CIA operative, told UPI the CIA had enjoyed “close ties” with Qasim’s ruling Baath Party, just as it had close connections with the intelligence service of Egyptian leader Gamel Abd Nassar. In a recent public statement, Roger Morris, a former National Security Council staffer in the 1970s, confirmed this claim, saying that the CIA had chosen the authoritarian and anti-communist Baath Party “as its instrument.”

According to another former senior State Department official, Saddam, while only in his early 20s, became a part of a U.S. plot to get rid of Qasim. According to this source, Saddam was installed in an apartment in Baghdad on al-Rashid Street directly opposite Qasim’s office in Iraq’s Ministry of Defense, to observe Qasim’s movements.
Adel Darwish, Middle East expert and author of “Unholy Babylon,” said the move was done “with full knowledge of the CIA,” and that Saddam’s CIA handler was an Iraqi dentist working for CIA and Egyptian intelligence. U.S. officials separately confirmed Darwish’s account.

Darwish said that Saddam’s paymaster was Capt. Abdel Maquid Farid, the assistant military attaché at the Egyptian Embassy who paid for the apartment from his own personal account. Three former senior U.S. officials have confirmed that this is accurate.�?

While the attempt on Qassim failed, he would eventually be removed from power in a coup in 1963 orchestrated by Iraqi military officials with ties to the Ba’athist party, though they would later be purged from government by President Abdul Salam Arif, who was himself removed in a bloodless coup in 1968 led by Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr, who would assume the roll of President. From 1964 to 1967 Hussein was imprisoned, though he would escape in 1967 and then play a role in the coup, ultimately becoming Ahmad Hassan al-Bakr’s deputy. By 1969, Saddam Hussein had become one of the most influential figures within the Iraqi Ba’athist party, and by 1979, the year he took power, the controlling figure of the Iraqi military – the loyalty of which was paramount in his ascension.

Three: The Abandonment Of Historical Reality

So why, given America’s history with Iraq, was it so simple to divert people’s attention away from the fact that the West has helped men like Hussein more than they have hindered them? The answer to that question is steeped in a variety of things, the least of which is the overwhelming educational apathy of the general public and their indissoluble belief in the incorruptibility of their own system of government. Add the national trauma of 9/11 into the equation and it’s almost like programming robots to do nothing other than look straight ahead.

The devaluation of historical context in this entire affair has been undeniable, as well as pointing to a vastly dangerous trend in our society. For the sake of protecting an overwhelming sense of our own infallibility, we have sacrificed those bits of history that prove otherwise. That being the case, no wrong is now ever too wrong to be forgotten.

For more on this subject, please refer to The George Washington University National Security Archives Saddam Hussein Source Book as a starting point.

* Despite the resolutions regarding Iraq, the legalities of the invasion itself contravened the 53rd Article of the United Nations Charter.

Last night I made the unfortunate mistake of responding to a blog entry about my thoughts on Augusto Pinochet’s death by a Canadian Conservative blogger. Somehow, by some bizarre turn of events, I have since been labeled pro-Communist, anti-democratic, and a historical revisionist (among other things). Perhaps, because of some momentary lapse in reason, I decided to fire back, and most likely should have sat down for more than ten minutes to do so. That said, in the future when I am emailed links to such detritus I will do my best to remember the lessons learned over the numerous years that I have publicly written online, and that entertaining those seeking attention under the guise of supposed intelligent discourse is perhaps the worst of ideas.

I have, of course, since been branded a coward for removing my response, which I did for no other reason than giving someone like that the attention that they so desperately desire leads to nothing more than my inbox being flooded with moronic attacks and, more importantly, results in being a massive waste of my time. Thus, I will not link to said website again, even in referencing it.

When it comes to blogging, especially when dealing with well established blogs, it’s always in the best interest of those attacking the position of another to actually delve into the beliefs of those they are attempting to discredit. For example, I can’t remember how many times I have claimed the Constitution of the United States to be the most revolutionary document written since the Magna Carta, and yet am routinely cast as anti-American by those that claim my understanding of US foreign and covert policy history one dimensional. These same individuals rarely comment on a variety of subsequently important issues to do with the American landscape, such as the partisanship that has all but crippled the effectiveness of the American intelligence community, not to mention produced the biggest American mess since Vietnam. By the twisted logic of some, I suppose a great many Americans are, in fact, anti-American, among them some of the most respected thinkers on the planet today.

But instead of pointless, personal innuendo, and the reality that anything written in response could simply be an absolute fabrication, such as trips to dreaded Communist enclaves by Right-Wing capitalists who, while there, bothered to actually stop to supposedly interview those that, in their own country, they’d probably step over or refuse to give spare change to, I’d prefer to start right back where all of this began – with the death of Augusto Pinochet. The truth of the matter is, basic human rights, which I am devoutly committed to, are not something that can be hijacked by partisanship. They are entrusted to our humanity, no matter our politics. Because in the name of human rights countless innocents have perished because those that have claimed to be championing them have simply used them as context for the promotion of agendas that, in the end, have nothing to do with equality or human rights whatsoever.

Democratic Hydras

What is democracy in practice? Is it a political model that can be championed by a people seeking change who then implement it and use its base ideals to create a new democratic dynamic that is unique to a specific political environment? Because there is nothing to infer that with a democratic state comes, for example, the need to open ones doors to proven exploitative economic practices, oft masked by happy terms such as ‘globalization’, or anything that established Western democracies would infer as quintessential to the existence of democracy itself.

That being the case, in Chile in 1970, Salvador Allende became the first democratically elected Marxist in history, all be it by a narrow margin. That narrow margin is often sighted by his detractors as evidence of week support for his platforms, many of which were actually shared by one of his Presidential rivals, Radomiro Tomic. What is rarely discussed is the role played by the CIA in the election and the effect that it had on the electorate, and that Allende’s win in 1970 was viewed as a massive setback for US business interests in Chile. It should also not be overlooked that the CIA was actively involved in ensuring Allande’s defeat in the 1964 Chilean Presidential election as well.

First, the CIA spent some $1 million dollars in anti-Allande propaganda scare campaigns and aided his opposition, much as modern proxies, such as USAID and the National Endowment For Democracy, have done in recent years in Venezuela. The favoured US candidate was the conservative Jorge Alessandri, whom the CIA funded through companies such as International Telephone and Telegraph. Allande was, of course, painted as a pro-Soviet Communist, a tactic that had proven successful in CIA operations since PBSUCCESS, which removed Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala, and Operation Ajax, which was responsible for removing Mossadegh in Iran, both of whom were democratically elected in the 50’s and dared to challenge Western business interests in their respective countries.

During his short Presidency, Allande attempted to launch programs similar to those now sweeping numerous Latin American countries with massive approval, such as the repatriation of land, the nationalization, or partial nationalization, of large industry, the institution of socialized healthcare systems, and so forth.

While Allande’s first year as President saw a rise in the GDP and a decrease in unemployment, the economy did not sustain and problems began to plague his initiatives as the federal deficit began to sharply increase. His friendship with Fidel Castro was also seen as suspect by his political opponents.

The Tracks

After Allande’s win, the CIA attempted to influence Chile’s Congress to confirm Jorge Alessandri as President who would then resign, allowing the outgoing President, Eduardo Frei of the Christian Democratic Party, to legally attempt to run for office again. But Track 1 was scrapped when Frei refused to go along with it.

Track 2 was a much harsher plan, one that involved influencing Chilean military officials to help stop Allande from assuming the Presidency in exchange for assurances that the CIA would support them, the point being that a short-lived military junta would hold power long enough to call for new elections in which Allande would presumably be defeated. The assassination of General René Schneider was a part of one failed attempt in 1970 by General Roberto Viaux, whose killing of the Constitutionalist military commander only sparked an increase in support for Allande.

Direct Administration Approval

In 1970, the Nixon administration authorized the spending of $10 million dollars to ensure that either Allande did not assume the Presidency or that he was removed from power.

The Coup That Worked

Ironically, despite three years of ground work, little is actually know as to whether the CIA was directly involved in the military coup that led to Pinochet assuming power. Most assert that they had little to do with the coup itself, though were obviously pleased with the outcome. Of course, despite publicly criticizing Pinochet’s regime, the Nixon administration secretly supported it and maintained contacts within Chile’s secret police, including Manuel Contreras, it’s chief, who was a paid CIA asset until the late 70’s.

Reality, Fantasy, And Equality

How many deaths justify championing the growth of an economy and free markets? Ten? Fifty? A hundred? In this case it was 3,000 known deaths and 30,000 victims of state torture.

While glancing a website recently I read in its comments…

“3,000 people is a small price to pay for economic prosperity.�?

Given the author’s obvious lack of morality, would it not then be acceptable for those who planned the attacks of 9/11 to use the same logic with regards to plunging the United States into domestic and foreign chaos?

Who, exactly, gets to play God?

The fallacy of modern economics is steeped in the now antiquated belief that each person gets paid based on what their hard work and expertise dictates they deserve. Unless, that is, you happen to be working in some sweat shop in Bangladesh where you’re making pennies for what a Canadian wouldn’t show up to do for less than $10 dollars an hour, or you happen to be a Croatian Aeronautical Engineer working for a carpet cleaning company because no one in this country will recognize your degree. It is a tired rouse hoisted upon billions of people on this planet that, through Western indoctrination, believe that there exists a land of milk and honey somewhere out there where everything is going to be okay, and that an exact mirror of our system of government is the key to unlocking that chest. But in the meantime, keep pumping out clothes and sporting goods and electronics so that we might continue to enjoy the exploitative nature of our relationship with you. Democracy, as we see fit, will find you eventually.

The truth? Were India and China to assume the same standard of living that we enjoy, the planet would not be able to support human life. So what is it to be? Do we take a step back, or do those that we daily use for our own gain remain as they are?

If we’re to take a step back, if we are to re-examine our own way of life and come to the realization that more partnerships based on equality are essential for our shared futures, then we enter a realm of thought that many claim socialist.

To quote the blog of the person to whom I responded last night…

“Maybe its because some people (read: doctors) would rather be free to practice medicine somewhere they choose instead of working under the North Korean-style regime that is the Canadian health care system. But you don’t really care about them, do you. You just care about the collective: doctors are just tools of the state for you to deploy, like tractors or cranes, to build your little social project. Individual freedom? Over your dead body!�?

You see, I was under the impression that individual freedoms within the scope of our society weren’t necessarily based on your earning potential but rather the decision one makes to become something that helps benefit the society in which they live. Doctors, ironically, are a prime example of this.

Why does one become a doctor? Is it to get paid and spend weekends at a country club? Or is it to help people? Is that not the essence of the oath that all physicians take? Do we become what we truly feel we must or what we believe will provide us the greatest ease in life?

Economics is a tool of repression when applied to most of the world, not one of emancipation. Those who control the world’s wealth also tend to control its military might, its valued natural resources, and in such places the foul practices that occur are routinely overlooked because of those realities. It doesn’t matter that the US has covertly involved itself in Latin America for decades, supporting the Death Squads in El Salvador to Nicaragua’s Right-Wing paramilitaries. It doesn’t matter that the Russians are in and out of Chechnya, that China is still in Tibet, or that the United States has in excess of 700 military instillations worldwide. It doesn’t matter that Israel has a nuclear arsenal - only that Iran doesn’t.

Hugo Chavez recently won Venezuela’s Presidential elections with a landslide majority. There are those that believe that the elections were rigged and that the judiciary has been bought off - the very same people that back his opposition, which has been funded in the past by US proxies. Like Allande in Chile decades ago, the information spread about those that refuse to conform to the economic desires of the West is never suspect while those who dare address it as propaganda are deemed lunatics.

In this case, Chavez is a totalitarian in the making whose government is routinely guilty of human rights abuses. I will not suggest that Venezuela is not without its problems. Here, for complete transparency, is Amnesty International’s 2006 Report on Venezuela. Here, for sake of comparison is the same Report’s assessment of The United States and Canada. I would pay particular attention to the findings regarding the United States in comparison to those of Venezuela.

But the US is fighting the war on terror, it’s not the same! Comes the hue and cry.

Were you Hugo Chavez, who I am by no means claiming perfect, would you not feel threatened by the fact that US groups had funded your opposition and, given their history of funding armed paramilitaries in Latin America, that your removal might be something under consideration in Langley? After all, selling cheap oil to all five Burroughs of New York isn’t going to get you off.

I’m Tired Now

How many democracies have been bought and paid for by the assassins of pious men? We talk of Pinochet and Chavez and yet how many still defend the actions of the President of the United States? Or are we to chalk the blackened enterprises of his tenure up to the deliverance of freedom as well?

If one is for the plutocratic, then let them not be false. Let them state it openly and without pause instead of hiding behind accusations of bias on my part, as if I am behind some massive internet conspiracy aimed at silencing all those who dare disagree with me. Before civil debate can take place, respectability of intent must first exist, and I’m afraid that immature self-aggrandizing is not an equal substitute.

In the future I’ll do my best to be more careful when clicking links in emails.