Nothing says prosperity to the people of a nation occupied, that have had intermittent power in some major areas since the 2003 invasion, suffered the decimation of much of the national medical infrastructure, civic infrastructure, and numerous other problems, than the arrival of big oil to make their futures seem brighter…

“Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations.

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.”

The United States and the UK have today warned Iran that if they do not comply with UN resolutions regarding its nuclear program then tougher economic sanctions will be implemented, including oil and gas sanctions. The Bush Administration has also employed rhetoric suggesting that tougher measures are also a consideration and that ‘all options are on the table’.

In completely related news, oil hit a record high today, reaching almost $140 dollars a barrel before falling off at the end of the day to $134.57. Some experts have speculated that at some point during the summer, prices could climb as high as $200.00. Iran, of course, is the fourth largest producer of crude oil in the world, and while economic sanctions against its oil exports might hurt the Iranian populace, their affects will most certainly be felt globally, driving oil prices higher. With that, of course, comes the adverse affect that it will have on other commodities, as oil is required to produce them, causing their prices to increase. Ultimately, that will only push the United States closer to a recession, no matter how adamantly the government and the Fed claim otherwise.

It’s a dangerous game, especially given the fact that the Iranians know they have a card up their sleeve – that China, a permanent member of the UNSC, is one of Iran’s larger oil importers, and that in 2004 Iran and China’s Sinopec Group signed an agreement that it would purchase 250 million tons of liquefied natural gas over thirty years from the Iranians to develop the Yadavaran field. Given the precedent set by China with regards to Sudan and its oil exports from that country, it is a stretch to think that the Chinese would lend their weight to a unanimous UNSC resolution that, in any significant way, would seriously damage the Iranian oil sector.

Like it or not, the Iranians have room to maneuver. As The Telegraph reported today, the Iranians are not completely rejecting out of hand the recent overtures of the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana. While many in the country have called the package a waste of time; others have claimed that its merits should be debated as a method with which to keep channels of negotiation open. But one message that does remain very steadfast is that the Iranians consider their right to develop nuclear power an internal matter and not one that should be decided by foreign powers, especially the United States given its military occupation of Iraq, threats of military action, and support of Israel. Of course, the flip side is that the Iranians are well known supporters of Hezbollah, and that (in the post 9/11 climate) the West fears that the Iranians might gift such a group a nuclear device or simply use one themselves to directly strike Israel. That, of course, is territory that I have covered exhaustively in previous entries, so use the search feature if you’re at all interested in my thoughts on the matter.

It’s no secret that former President Jimmy Carter has his detractors. His more recent attempts to confront the problems plaguing Israeli - Palestinian relations have drawn scorn from many quarters, with many labeling him anti-Israeli. And now, during remarks made at the recent Hay-on-Wye festival, he has done what no American President has ever dared to do – openly state that Israel possesses nuclear weapons.

Despite the fact that within the international intelligence community it is widely known that Israel possesses a nuclear arsenal that ranges somewhere between 100 to 300 weapons, no major Western power has ever broke faith with Israel’s official policy of claiming that they do not possess one.

The Whistleblower

The existence of Israel’s nuclear program was made public in 1986 by The Sunday Times who ran an exclusive story based on information provided them by Mordechai Vanunu, once a nuclear technician at Israel’s Negev Nuclear Research Center. Numerous leading nuclear weapons experts, including former nuclear weapons designers Theodore Taylor (US) and Frank Barnaby (UK), substantiated the information provided by Vanunu to The Times prior to the piece being published.

Vanunu had left Israel in 1985, disenfranchised with his work and personally tormented by the realization of what it was producing. He traveled to South East Asia for a time before briefly relocating in Australia where he met journalist Peter Hounam of The Times. In the fall of 1986, Vanunu left Australia for the UK, where he relayed his story to Hounam and also provided personal photographs he had taken while working at the site.

In late September of 1986, the Israeli Mossad employed a female agent posing as an American tourist to lure Vanunu out of the UK rather than directly involving the British government in his detention. Vanunu traveled with Cheryl Bentov, who was known to Vanunu as Cindy, to Rome, where he was seized by Mossad agents, drugged, and smuggled out of Italy on a freighter. Once in Israel he was tried in secret for treason and then spent a decade in solitary confinement. In all, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. Vanunu was not executed because, according to former Mossad director Shabtai Shavit , “Jews do not do that to other Jews.”

After Vanunu’s release he did what any man of conscience would do – he spoke out again, reiterating his position on Israel’s secret program. Despite the fact that Vanunu’s knowledge of the program was by that time technically inconsequential, he was placed under house arrest. Following that, his movements would be restricted and he was closely watched.

On the 15th of this month…

“The Norwegian Lawyer’s Petition called on the Norwegian government to urgently implement a three-point action plan within the framework of international and Norwegian law, to grant Vanunu asylum and permission to work and stay in Norway.”

Vanunu had applied for asylum in Norway in 2004 following his release. It was later learned that while approval for his initial application for asylum was sought by then Prime Minister Kåre Willoch, it was ultimately rejected to protect Norwegian – Israeli relations.

There are those that consider Vanunu a traitor, just as there are those that considered Daniel Ellsberg a traitor. I believe that what Vanunu did was vital for Israeli democracy in that he revealed something not just to the world, but to the people of Israel itself that had been kept from them by their elected officials. Because no matter the reasons, disclosure is one of the most crucial elements in any true democracy.

That said; it would seem that ‘true’ democracy isn’t something that any of us are all that familiar with.

Flat Out Hypocrisy

According to the government of Israel, the State of Israel does not possess nuclear weapons, nor has it ever possessed them. That is, no matter how you slice it, a flat out lie. Were the same scrutiny applied to Israel as is being applied to Iran, the IAEA would quickly discover that the government of Israel has been lying for decades. And even if the UN were allowed to inspect Israeli facilities and found evidence of a nuclear weapons program, the truth is that not a damn thing would be done about it.

Now, ask yourself a question. How is it that one nation can get away with lying about the possession of a significant nuclear weapons program for decades while others are attacked relentlessly before proof even exists that they have one? Why is it that the UN’s watchdog can be set upon, for example, Iran or Syria, and not be equally persuaded to scrutinize Israel? Where exactly does that sort of hypocritical power and protectionism come from?

Before even entering into the corrupt and wholly one sided protectionist stance that the Western world provides Israel, let’s state the obvious excuses used by those that ignore blatant contradictions.

First, because of a mistranslation that was then used to produce sensational headlines the world over, the government of Iran has claimed that it wants to ‘wipe Israel off the face of the map’. Of course, given their position on the existence of the Israeli state, the Iranians are easy targets. Mind you, that’s not to say that if some reasonable Israeli – Palestinian agreement could be reached that Iran wouldn’t ultimately back it, just that they’re viewed by most of the Western world as lacking what we refer to as ‘a sense of morality’. As far as we’re concerned they’re terrorist sympathizers and if they ever did get the bomb, would use it without hesitation or any consideration of the inevitable and utterly devastating consequences (I have written extensively about this subject, so use the search engine if you’d like to research past entries). Of course, throughout history, most of the world’s foremost powers have supported terrorist organizations, not to mention used militant groups and financial organizations to overthrow governments – such as the democratically elected government of Iran in the 50’s. But that’s of little consequence as it applies to the world post 9/11. The presentation of all things black and white to the public at large is a time honoured tradition, such as the removal of Mosaddeq in 1953 (Operation Ajax). He dared to attempt to nationalize the Iranian oil industry and for that he was painted a Communist by the West and removed from power. The Shah was then reinstated and British Petroleum’s stranglehold over Iran’s oil conveniently continued.

The support of military proxies, whether large or small, is nothing new. Israel represents such a proxy with regards to Western interests in the region, its nuclear arsenal included. It is a nation whose transgressions are widely overlooked while the transgressions of others are not, a hypocrisy that continues unabated precisely because of foreign interests and the protections that they are able to provide.

On September 11th one of the most repeated questions was - “why do they hate us?” The answer to that question, while technically complex, can also be viewed in a rather simplistic light. What have we done in the Middle East in a spirit of equality that has ever provided counter balance? The reality is – nothing. We have exploited natural resources, supported despotic regimes when they have suited out purposes, such as that of Saddam Hussein, and watched from the sidelines while such support has led to the degradation and suffering of societies. We then have the gall to claim that we champion freedom and represent beacons of global liberty and conscience. To think that those watching on the other side of the fence aren’t aware of our hypocrisy is more than ignorant. And, if we’re to cut the shit and be honest with ourselves, the people of New York and Washington paid for it seven years ago. And since then, troops involved in the subsequent wars promoted and produced in the wake of 9/11, along with countless civilians, have been made to suffer the fruits of that ignorance as well.

Why do they hate us? It is, in truth, more a question of why we believe we have the right to play God with others? And that’s not merely limited to Western powers, but others as well. The answer to that question is as old as the ages – arrogance bolstered by economic power and military might. That is the foundation on which every major empire in human history has sat, and the very same that always, without exception, has cracked and ultimately crumbled under the weight of its own excesses and senses of invulnerability and superiority.

Jimmy

So President Carter did the unthinkable – he spoke the truth. In doing so he will be labeled numerous things I imagine. This is, of course, the same President who was in power during the 444 days of the Iranian hostage crisis, and who, despite that experience, is currently urging the US to start talking to the Iranians rather than continuing their current policy of isolationism.

I’ll not deny that I believe Carter to be one of the better Presidents in US history. Despite those things that plagued his one term in office, he remains a man of considerable worth to the cause of repairing the damage done by the Bush Administration with regards to global perceptions of the United States. I am also one of those ‘nut jobs’ that believes the claims of former Reagan White House staff member Barbara Honegger, not to mention those of former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, that the October Surprise was not fantasy.

If the Israelis can still claim, with a straight face, that they don’t have a nuclear weapons program (and get away with it) then I see no reason to start discounting something as plausible as the October Surprise, despite the conclusions of investigations to the contrary.

In the documentary 11th Hour, former CIA Director James Woolsey, of all people, makes a very important point with regards to the correlation between consumerism and industrial opportunism and the ability to affect change in a very short period of time given what are traditionally viewed as ‘exceptional circumstances’.

Woolsey’s point of reference was the transformation of the US auto industry into an industrial mechanism with which to produce aircraft, tanks, and a variety of other military necessities during the early stages of America’s involvement in the Second World War. That transformation took, believe it or not, merely six months. Put into context, if the disastrous environmental reality that we are currently facing was seriously addressed by government, the implementation of alternative energy use, that being non-carbon based energy (fossil fuels), could be introduced in a very timely fashion. It would also create jobs, which would replace those lost in the transformation. The only loser in that transformation would be the corporate oil sector, which possesses such enormous influence that, in truth, they are largely responsible for the inability, or unwillingness, of government to act. Ultimately, greed has become the foremost factor in the inability to seriously implement alternative energy sources that would significantly impact the amount of damage that fossil fuels do on a daily basis.

Of course, many economists will argue tooth and nail that such a transformation would be disadvantageous. But that supposes that the economy is of greater significance than the environment. The only problem with such logic is that economies can grow; as can populations and the waste they produce. The environment, on the other hand, cannot expand to match it. It is a limited and immovable thing, and therefore unalterable with regards to meeting the demands of economic growth.

In the last half of the twentieth century the world’s population has grown faster than at any other point in human history. In fact, during that period it has increased so much that that increase alone constitutes a figure greater than the population of the planet at any time prior to the industrial revolution. During that increase, the primary source of energy used by the population of the planet has been carbon based – which includes everything from food production to transportation to the production of electricity.

For the majority of human history our species relied on available sunlight for energy. But since the discovery of fossil fuels, we have become wholly dependent on an energy source that is not only unsustainable, but also catastrophically damaging with regards to its impact on the environment. Thus, we now find ourselves in an era in which we are forced to make a very important choice – to either disregard the realities of that dependency and its ramifications or to address our dependence on fossil fuels and work to eliminate it.

In the end, and despite our intelligence, our species may very well constitute nothing more than a global parasite, one that, having been given the chance to grow and consume the benefits of its host may very well find itself the author of its own destruction because of it. Given that, it should also not be overlooked that despite the damage caused, our host will outlast us, no matter how superior we believe ourselves to be. It has, in the billions of years of its existence, seen life forms come and go, and to think that we are somehow immune to that natural eventuality is, perhaps, the primary reason that we refuse to alter our perspective.

Of course, there are those that faithfully believe that a higher power created the world and that what we do to it doesn’t matter because is it, in the end, part of a greater divine plan. There is little that can be said to such individuals regarding this subject, only that if a divine plan does exists, our eventual demise is a part of it, and that the endurance and eventual reconstitution of the natural world is as well. Unless, that is, God’s plan is to also destroy the natural world in the process.

Over at Tom Dispatch, Tom Engelhardt runs through 12 Answers To Questions No One Is Bothering To Ask About Iraq…

“1. Yes, the war has morphed into the U.S. military’s worst Iraq nightmare:

Few now remember, but before George W. Bush launched the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, top administration and Pentagon officials had a single overriding nightmare — not chemical, but urban, warfare. Saddam Hussein, they feared, would lure American forces into “Fortress Baghdad,” as Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld labeled it. There, they would find themselves fighting block by block, especially in the warren of streets that make up the Iraqi capital’s poorest districts.

When American forces actually entered Baghdad in early April 2003, however, even Saddam’s vaunted Republican Guard units had put away their weapons and gone home. It took five years but, as of now, American troops are indeed fighting in the warren of streets in Sadr City, the Shiite slum of two and a half million in eastern Baghdad largely controlled by Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia. The U.S. military, in fact, recently experienced its worst week of 2008 in terms of casualties, mainly in and around Baghdad. So, mission accomplished — the worst fear of 2003 has now been realized.

2. No, there was never an exit strategy from Iraq because the Bush administration never intended to leave — and still doesn’t:

Critics of the war have regularly gone after the Bush administration for its lack of planning, including its lack of an “exit strategy.” In this, they miss the point. The Bush administration arrived in Iraq with four mega-bases on the drawing boards. These were meant to undergird a future American garrisoning of that country and were to house at least 30,000 American troops, as well as U.S. air power, for the indefinite future. The term used for such places wasn’t “permanent base,” but the more charming and euphemistic “enduring camp.” (In fact, as we learned recently, the Bush administration refuses to define any American base on foreign soil anywhere on the planet, including ones in Japan for over 60 years, as permanent.) Those four monster bases in Iraq (and many others) were soon being built at the cost of multibillions and are, even today, being significantly upgraded. In October 2007, for instance, National Public Radio’s defense correspondent Guy Raz visited Balad Air Base, north of Baghdad, which houses about 40,000 American troops, contractors, and Defense Department civilian employees, and described it as “one giant construction project, with new roads, sidewalks, and structures going up across this 16-square-mile fortress in the center of Iraq, all with an eye toward the next few decades.”

These mega-bases, like “Camp Cupcake” (al-Asad Air Base), nicknamed for its amenities, are small town-sized with massive facilities, including PXs, fast-food outlets, and the latest in communications. They have largely been ignored by the American media and so have played no part in the debate about Iraq in this country, but they are the most striking on-the-ground evidence of the plans of an administration that simply never expected to leave. To this day, despite the endless talk about drawdowns and withdrawals, that hasn’t changed. In fact, the latest news about secret negotiations for a future Status of Forces Agreement on the American presence in that country indicates that U.S. officials are calling for “an open-ended military presence” and “no limits on numbers of U.S. forces, the weapons they are able to deploy, their legal status or powers over Iraqi citizens, going far beyond long-term U.S. security agreements with other countries.”

3. Yes, the United States is still occupying Iraq (just not particularly effectively):

In June 2004, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), then ruling the country, officially turned over “sovereignty” to an Iraqi government largely housed in the American-controlled Green Zone in Baghdad and the occupation officially ended. However, the day before the head of the CPA, L. Paul Bremer III, slipped out of the country without fanfare, he signed, among other degrees, Order 17, which became (and, remarkably enough, remains) the law of the land. It is still a document worth reading as it essentially granted to all occupying forces and allied private companies what, in the era of colonialism, used to be called “extraterritoriality” — the freedom not to be in any way subject to Iraqi law or jurisdiction, ever. And so the occupation ended without ever actually ending. With 160,000 troops still in Iraq, not to speak of an unknown number of hired guns and private security contractors, the U.S. continues to occupy the country, whatever the legalities might be (including a UN mandate and the claim that we are part of a “coalition”). The only catch is this: As of now, the U.S. is simply the most technologically sophisticated and potentially destructive of Iraq’s proliferating militias — and outside the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, it is capable of controlling only the ground that its troops actually occupy at any moment.

4. Yes, the war was about oil:

Oil was hardly mentioned in the mainstream media or by the administration before the invasion was launched. The President, when he spoke of Iraq’s vast petroleum reserves at all, piously referred to them as the sacred “patrimony of the people of Iraq.” But an administration of former energy execs — with a National Security Advisor who once sat on the board of Chevron and had a double-hulled oil tanker, the Condoleezza Rice, named after her (until she took office), and a Vice President who was especially aware of the globe’s potentially limited energy supplies — certainly had oil reserves and energy flows on the brain. They knew, in Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz’s apt phrase, that Iraq was afloat on “a sea of oil” and that it sat strategically in the midst of the oil heartlands of the planet.

It wasn’t a mistake that, in 2001, Vice President Dick Cheney’s semi-secret Energy Task Force set itself the “task” of opening up the energy sectors of various Middle Eastern countries to “foreign investment”; or that it scrutinized “a detailed map of Iraq’s oil fields, together with the (non-American) oil companies scheduled to develop them”; or that, according to the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, the National Security Council directed its staff “to cooperate fully with the Energy Task Force as it considered the ‘melding’ of two seemingly unrelated areas of policy: ‘the review of operational policies towards rogue states,’ such as Iraq, and ‘actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields’”; or that the only American troops ordered to guard buildings in Iraq, after Baghdad fell, were sent to the Oil Ministry (and the Interior Ministry, which housed Saddam Hussein’s dreaded secret police); or that the first “reconstruction” contract was issued to Cheney’s former firm, Halliburton, for “emergency repairs” to those patrimonial oil fields. Once in charge in Baghdad, as sociologist Michael Schwartz has made clear, the administration immediately began guiding recalcitrant Iraqis toward denationalizing and opening up their oil industry, as well as bringing in the big boys.

Though rampant insecurity has kept the Western oil giants on the sidelines, the American-shaped “Iraqi” oil law quickly became a “benchmark” of “progress” in Washington and remains a constant source of prodding and advice from American officials in Baghdad. Former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan put the oil matter simply and straightforwardly in his memoir in 2007: “I am saddened,” he wrote, “that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” In other words, in a variation on the old Bill Clinton campaign mantra: It’s the oil, stupid. Greenspan was, unsurprisingly, roundly assaulted for the obvious naiveté of his statement, from which, when it proved inconvenient, he quickly retreated. But if this administration hadn’t had oil on the brain in 2002-2003, given the importance of Iraq’s reserves, Congress should have impeached the President and Vice President for that.

5. No, our new embassy in Baghdad is not an “embassy”:

When, for more than three-quarters of a billion dollars, you construct a complex — regularly described as “Vatican-sized” — of at least 20 “blast-resistant” buildings on 104 acres of prime Baghdadi real estate, with “fortified working space” and a staff of at least 1,000 (plus several thousand guards, cooks, and general factotums), when you deeply embunker it, equip it with its own electricity and water systems, its own anti-missile defense system, its own PX, and its own indoor and outdoor basketball courts, volleyball court, and indoor Olympic-size swimming pool, among other things, you haven’t built an “embassy” at all. What you’ve constructed in the heart of the heart of another country is more than a citadel, even if it falls short of a city-state. It is, at a minimum, a monument to Bush administration dreams of domination in Iraq and in what its adherents once liked to call “the Greater Middle East.”

Just about ready to open, after the normal construction mishaps in Iraq, it will constitute the living definition of diplomatic overkill. It will, according to a Senate estimate, now cost Americans $1.2 billion a year just to be “represented” in Iraq. The “embassy” is, in fact, the largest headquarters on the planet for the running of an occupation. Functionally, it is also another well-fortified enduring camp with the amenities of home. Tell that to the Shiite militiamen now mortaring the Green Zone as if it were… enemy-occupied territory.

6. No, the Iraqi government is not a government:

The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has next to no presence in Iraq beyond the Green Zone; it delivers next to no services; it has next to no ability to spend its own oil money, reconstruct the country, or do much of anything else, and it most certainly does not hold a monopoly on the instruments of violence. It has no control over the provinces of northern Iraq which operate as a near-independent Kurdish state. Non-Kurdish Iraqi troops are not even allowed on its territory. Maliki’s government cannot control the largely Sunni provinces of the country, where its officials are regularly termed “the Iranians” (a reference to the heavily Shiite government’s closeness to neighboring Iran) and are considered the equivalent of representatives of a foreign occupying power; and it does not control the Shiite south, where power is fragmented among the militias of ISCI (the Badr Organization), Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army, and the armed adherents of the Fadila Party, a Sadrist offshoot, among others.

In Afghanistan, President Hamid Karzai has been derisively nicknamed “the mayor of Kabul” for his government’s lack of control over much territory outside the national capital. It would be a step forward for Maliki if he were nicknamed “the mayor of Baghdad.” Right now, his troops, heavily backed by American forces, are fighting for some modest control over Shiite cities (or parts of cities) from Basra to Baghdad.

7. No, the surge is not over:

Two weeks ago, amid much hoopla, General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker spent two days before Congress discussing the President’s surge strategy in Iraq and whether it has been a “success.” But that surge — the ground one in which an extra 30,000-plus American troops were siphoned into Baghdad and, to a lesser extent, adjoining provinces — was by then already so over. In fact, all but about 10,000 of those troops will be home by the end of July, not because the President has had any urge for a drawdown, but, as Fred Kaplan of Slate wrote recently, “because of simple math. The five extra combat brigades, which were deployed to Iraq with the surge, each have 15-month tours of duty; the 15 months will be up in July… and the U.S. Army and Marines have no combat brigades ready to replace them.”

On the other hand, in all those days of yak, neither the general with so much more “martial bling” on his chest than any victorious World War II commander, nor the white-haired ambassador uttered a word about the surge that is ongoing — the air surge that began in mid-2007 and has yet to end. Explain it as you will, but, with rare exceptions, American reporters in Iraq generally don’t look up or more of them would have noticed that the extra air units surged into that country and the region in the last year are now being brought to bear over Iraq’s cities. Today, as fighting goes on in Sadr City, American helicopters and Hellfire-missile armed Predator drones reportedly circle overhead almost constantly and air strikes of various kinds on city neighborhoods are on the rise. Yet the air surge in Iraq remains unacknowledged here and so is not a subject for discussion, debate, or consideration when it comes to our future in Iraq.

8. No, the Iraqi army will never “stand up”:

It can’t. It’s not a national army. It’s not that Iraqis can’t fight — or fight bravely. Ask the Sunni insurgents. Ask the Mahdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr. It’s not that Iraqis are incapable of functioning in a national army. In the bitter Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, Iraqi Shiite as well as Sunni conscripts, led by a largely Sunni officer corps, fought Iranian troops fiercely in battle after pitched battle. But from Fallujah in 2004 to today, Iraqi army (and police) units, wheeled into battle (often at the behest of the Americans), have regularly broken and run, or abandoned their posts, or gone over to the other side, or, at the very least, fought poorly. In the recent offensive launched by the Maliki government in Basra, military and police units up against a single resistant militia, the Mahdi Army, deserted in sizeable numbers, while other units, when not backed by the Americans, gave poor showings. At least 1,300 troops and police (including 37 senior police officers) were recently “fired” by Maliki for dereliction of duty, while two top commanders were removed as well.

Though American training began in 2004 and, by 2005, the President was regularly talking about us “standing down” as soon as the Iraqi Army “stood up,” as Charles Hanley of the Associated Press points out, “Year by year, the goal of deploying a capable, free-standing Iraqi army has seemed to always slip further into the future.” He adds, “In the latest shift, the Pentagon’s new quarterly status report quietly drops any prediction of when local units will take over security responsibility for Iraq. Last year’s reports had forecast a transition in 2008.” According to Hanley, the chief American trainer of Iraqi forces, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, now estimates that the military will not be able to guard the country’s borders effectively until 2018.

No wonder. The “Iraqi military” is not in any real sense a national military at all. Its troops generally lack heavy weaponry, and it has neither a real air force nor a real navy. Its command structures are integrated into the command structure of the U.S. military, while the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Navy are the real Iraqi air force and navy. It is reliant on the U.S. military for much of its logistics and resupply, even after an investment of $22 billion by the American taxpayer. It represents a non-government, is riddled with recruits from Shiite militias (especially the Badr brigades), and is riven about who its enemy is (or enemies are) and why. It cannot be a “national” army because it has, in essence, nothing to stand up for.

You can count on one thing, as long as we are “training” and “advising” the Iraqi military, however many years down the line, you will read comments like this one from an American platoon sergeant, after an Iraqi front-line unit abandoned its positions in the ongoing battle for control of parts of Sadr City: “It bugs the hell out of me. We don’t see any progress being made at all. We hear these guys in firefights. We know if we are not up there helping these guys out we are making very little progress.”

9. No, the U.S. military does not stand between Iraq and fragmentation:

The U.S. invasion and the Bush administration’s initial occupation policies decisively smashed Iraq’s fragile “national” sense of self. Since then, the Bush administration, a motor for chaos and fragmentation, has destroyed the national (if dictatorial) government, allowed the capital and much of the country (as well as its true patrimony of ancient historical objects and sites) to be looted, disbanded the Iraqi military, and deconstructed the national economy. Ever since, whatever the administration rhetoric, the U.S. has only presided over the further fragmentation of the country. Its military, in fact, employs a specific policy of urban fragmentation in which it regularly builds enormous concrete walls around neighborhoods, supposedly for “security” and “reconstruction,” that actually cut them off from their social and economic surroundings. And, of course, Iraq has in these years been fragmented in other staggering ways with an estimated four-plus million Iraqis driven into exile abroad or turned into internal refugees.

According to Pepe Escobar of the Asia Times, there are now at least 28 different militias in the country. The longer the U.S. remains even somewhat in control, the greater the possibility of further fragmentation. Initially, the fragmentation was sectarian — into Kurdish, Sunni, and Shia regions, but each of those regions has its own potentially hostile parts and so its points of future conflict and further fragmentation. If the U.S. military spent the early years of its occupation fighting a Sunni insurgency in the name of a largely Shiite (and Kurdish) government, it is now fighting a Shiite militia, while paying and arming former Sunni insurgents, relabeled “Sons of Iraq.” Iran is also clearly sending arms into a country that is, in any case, awash in weaponry. Without a real national government, Iraq has descended into a welter of militia-controlled neighborhoods, city states, and provincial or regional semi-governments. Despite all the talk of American-supported “reconciliation,” Juan Cole described the present situation well at his Informed Comment blog: “Maybe the US in Iraq is not the little boy with his finger in the dike. Maybe we are workers with jackhammers instructed to make the hole in the dike much more huge.”

10. No, the U.S. military does not stand between Iraq and civil war:

As with fragmentation, the U.S. military’s presence has, in fact, been a motor for civil war in that country. The invasion and subsequent chaos, as well as punitive acts against the Sunni minority, allowed Sunni extremists, some of whom took the name “al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia,” to establish themselves as a force in the country for the first time. Later, U.S. military operations in both Sunni and Shiite areas regularly repressed local militias — almost the only forces capable of bringing some semblance of security to urban neighborhoods — opening the way for the most extreme members of the other community (Sunni suicide or car bombers and Shiite death squads) to attack. It’s worth remembering that it was in the surge months of 2007, when all those extra American troops hit Baghdad neighborhoods, that many of the city’s mixed or Sunni neighborhoods were most definitively “cleansed” by death squads, producing a 75-80% Shiite capital. Iraq is now embroiled in what Juan Cole has termed “three civil wars,” two of which (in the south and the north) are largely beyond the reach of limited American ground forces and all of which could become far worse. The still low-level struggle between Kurds and Arabs (with the Turks hovering nearby) for the oil-rich city of Kirkuk in the north may be the true explosion point to come. The U.S. military sits precariously atop this mess, at best putting off to the future aspects of the present civil-war landscape, but more likely intensifying it.

11. No, al-Qaeda will not control Iraq if we leave (and neither will Iran):

The latest figures tell the story. Of 658 suicide bombings globally in 2007 (more than double those of any year in the last quarter century), 542, according to the Washington Post’s Robin Wright, took place in occupied Iraq or Afghanistan, mainly Iraq. In other words, the American occupation of that land has been a motor for acts of terrorism (as occupations will be). There was no al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia before the invasion and Iraq was no Afghanistan. The occupation under whatever name will continue to create “terrorists,” no matter how many times the administration claims that “al-Qaeda” is on the run. With the departure of U.S. troops, it’s clear that homegrown Sunni extremists (and the small number of foreign jihadis who work with them), already a minority of a minority, will more than meet their match in facing the Sunni mainstream. The Sunni Awakening Movement came into existence, in part, to deal with such self-destructive extremism (and its fantasies of a Taliban-style society) before the Americans even noticed that it was happening. When the Americans leave, “al-Qaeda” (and whatever other groups the Bush administration subsumes under that catch-all title) will undoubtedly lose much of their raison d’être or simply be crushed.

As for Iran, the moment the Bush administration finally agreed to a popular democratic vote in occupied Iraq, it ensured one thing — that the Shiite majority would take control, which in practice meant religio-political parties that, throughout the Saddam Hussein years, had generally been close to, or in exile in, Iran. Everything the Bush administration has done since has only ensured the growth of Iranian influence among Shiite groups. This is surely meant by the Iranians as, in part, a threat/trump card, should the Bush administration launch an attack on that country. After all, crucial U.S. resupply lines from Kuwait run through areas near Iran and would assumedly be relatively easy to disrupt.

Without the U.S. military in Iraq, there can be no question that the Iranians would have real influence over the Shiite (and probably Kurdish) parts of the country. But that influence would have its distinct limits. If Iran overplayed its hand even in a rump Shiite Iraq, it would soon enough find itself facing some version of the situation that now confronts the Americans. As Robert Dreyfuss wrote in the Nation recently, “[D]espite Iran’s enormous influence in Iraq, most Iraqis — even most Iraqi Shiites — are not pro-Iran. On the contrary, underneath the ruling alliance in Baghdad, there is a fierce undercurrent of Arab nationalism in Iraq that opposes both the U.S. occupation and Iran’s support for religious parties in Iraq.” The al-Qaedan and Iranian “threats” are, at one and the same time, bogeymen used by the Bush administration to scare Americans who might favor withdrawal and, paradoxically, realities that a continued military presence only encourages.

12. Yes, some Americans were right about Iraq from the beginning (and not the pundits either):

One of the strangest aspects of the recent fifth anniversary (as of every other anniversary) of the invasion of Iraq was the newspaper print space reserved for those Bush administration officials and other war supporters who were dead wrong in 2002-2003 on an endless host of Iraq-related topics. Many of them were given ample opportunity to offer their views on past failures, the “success” of the surge, future withdrawals or drawdowns, and the responsibilities of a future U.S. president in Iraq.

Noticeably missing were representatives of the group of Americans who happened to have been right from the get-go. In our country, of course, it often doesn’t pay to be right. (It’s seen as a sign of weakness or plain dumb luck.) I’m speaking, in this case, of the millions of people who poured into the streets to demonstrate against the coming invasion with an efflorescence of placards that said things too simpleminded (as endless pundits assured American news readers at the time) to take seriously — like “No Blood for Oil,” “Don’t Trade Lives for Oil,” or “”How did USA’s oil get under Iraq’s sand?” At the time, it seemed clear to most reporters, commentators, and op-ed writers that these sign-carriers represented a crew of well-meaning know-nothings and the fact that their collective fears proved all too prescient still can’t save them from that conclusion. So, in their very rightness, they were largely forgotten.

Now, as has been true for some time, a majority of Americans, another obvious bunch of know-nothings, are deluded enough to favor bringing all U.S. troops out of Iraq at a reasonable pace and relatively soon. (More than 60% of them also believe “that the conflict is not integral to the success of U.S. anti-terrorism efforts.”) If, on the other hand, a poll were taken of pundits and the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia (not to speak of the officials of the Bush administration), the number of them who would want a total withdrawal from Iraq (or even see that as a reasonable goal) would undoubtedly descend near the vanishing point. When it comes to American imperial interests, most of them know better, just as so many of them did before the war began. Even advisors to candidates who theoretically want out of Iraq are hinting that a full-scale withdrawal is hardly the proper way to go.

So let me ask you a question (and you answer it): Given all of the above, given the record thus far, who is likely to be right?”

For those of you that are unaware, the Province of Alberta is the world’s largest exporter of oil to the United States. Since the invasion of Iraq, instability in the Middle East has made the arduous and expensive process of exploiting Alberta’s oil sands lucrative. Since then, it has become one of the most magnetic oil reserves in the world, with both foreign and domestic corporate interests operating in the Province paying unbelievably low taxes for the privilege of raping the Canadian wilderness. In return, numerous Albertans have gained from the boom while some haven’t, and the rest of the country really hasn’t – but that’s not really an issue of import next to the damage that process itself is doing.

According to Environmental Defense, the excavation of the oil sands is, itself, producing enormous amount of greenhouse gasses. The process is also poisoning local water supplies. Of course, and not surprising in the least, output is projected to grow to a level that, by 2015, will see 3 million barrels of oil produced a day.

Money, as we’re all aware, is far more important than the environment. It is also, in some cases, worth running the risk of creating public health problems as well. But as long as the bank is fat, it’s easy enough to dismiss such concerns as long as those benefiting continue to benefit – and that most certainly includes both the Albertan and federal governments.

While futile, the question must be asked – how much damage must be caused before the Province, and Ottawa, realize what it is they’ve done? Besides the global affects of the greenhouse gasses produced, what of the affects on the environment itself? On the ecosystem and ground water? How much of the northern Albertan landscape has to be turned into something that more resembles the surface of the moon than the earth before we wake up to the fact that it wasn’t worth it in the end?

You know, it’s interesting how easy it is to forget that this planet has finite resources, and that the longer we abuse it the more assured our own demise as a species becomes. Of course, there are those that will argue until their dying breath that that isn’t the case, that we couldn’t possibly consume so much of this planet’s resources as to actually cause our own extinction. Then again, the last two times the world went to war we exclaimed after each - never again - and look how that’s turned out.

Any species that has already created a means with which to destroy itself several times over certainly can’t be taken at its word with regards to the exploitation of its own environment. Destroying is, in truth, the only thing that we actually excel at. Even our creations cause destruction. Truthfully, the seeds of some of our most brilliant advancements have come from our never-ending love affair with exacting the art of killing one another in a more timely and efficient manner.

Nowhere in the natural world does that phenomenon exist, and that fact is something that we should take to heart. That is, if we haven’t wiped out every living example on this planet before we finally do. Because every hour of every day, three species, be they plant or animal, are rendered extinct. That’s 500 species a week. Given the law of averages, we can’t avoid the inevitable forever.

I would write something critiquing the President’s State Of The Union address last night, but it was filled with the same sort of nonsense that the last seven have been, so.

One exception was, of course, his focus on the economy, which is in the toilet for numerous reasons, amongst them the enormity of six consecutively increased defense budgets, only parts of which are actually represented by the figures made public.

I’ll be honest, I never thought to live to see the day when our dollar would once again be stronger than the greenback, but here we are. Interestingly, the last time that it was the United States was also engaged in a foreign conflict.

According to a recently published piece at Salon.com, two former CIA officers have come forward and backed claims recently made by the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe that President Bush knowingly ‘squelched top-secret intelligence’ regarding Iraq’s possession of WMD’s. An excerpt…

“On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam’s inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

On April 23, 2006, CBS’s “60 Minutes” interviewed Tyler Drumheller, the former CIA chief of clandestine operations for Europe, who disclosed that the agency had received documentary intelligence from Naji Sabri, Saddam’s foreign minister, that Saddam did not have WMD. “We continued to validate him the whole way through,” said Drumheller. “The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming, and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

Now two former senior CIA officers have confirmed Drumheller’s account to me and provided the background to the story of how the information that might have stopped the invasion of Iraq was twisted in order to justify it. They described what Tenet said to Bush about the lack of WMD, and how Bush responded, and noted that Tenet never shared Sabri’s intelligence with then Secretary of State Colin Powell. According to the former officers, the intelligence was also never shared with the senior military planning the invasion, which required U.S. soldiers to receive medical shots against the ill effects of WMD and to wear protective uniforms in the desert.

Instead, said the former officials, the information was distorted in a report written to fit the preconception that Saddam did have WMD programs. That false and restructured report was passed to Richard Dearlove, chief of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6), who briefed Prime Minister Tony Blair on it as validation of the cause for war.”

Years after the fact, there simply is no arguing that the politicization of intelligence occurred, nor that the Bush administration was determined to invade Iraq no matter the lack of solid intelligence. In fact, they relied on entirely baseless sources, such as the now discredited ’Curveball’, for some of their information simply because it supported their position.

This outrage, which I have always believed to be a matter of impeachment, has always been vastly overlooked. The books were cooked, and the information that has come to light since, that proves it, has fallen on entirely deaf ears.

How much video footage exists in which the President, Vice President, and others unequivocally state that the regime of Saddam Hussein possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction? And since that time, how many of them have been seriously confronted about the blatant lies employed that led to an invasion and occupation that has since claimed the lives of some 4,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

And do note that I did just employ the term seriously confronted.

As Gordon Prather points out, sometimes the trusty fox doesn’t raid the chicken coup…

“Days after Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei made his most recent “confidential” report to the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the Cheney Cabal sycophantic editorialists at the Washington Post charged ElBaradei with being a “Rogue Regulator,” behaving as if he was “free to ignore” the Board, using his IAEA Secretariat to “thwart” the will of leading members of the IAEA “above all, the United States.”

Well, obviously these rogue editorialists haven’t read or don’t comprehend (a) the IAEA Statute or (b) Chapter VII of the UN Charter or (c) the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons or (d) the Iranian Safeguards Agreement or (e) any of the recent IAEA Board of Governors resolutions dealing with Iran or (f) the recent Security Council resolutions dealing with Iran or (g) any of ElBaradei’s recent reports to the IAEA Board.

The IAEA – whose General Conference currently comprises 144 member-states – has as its primary mission the facilitation throughout the world of the use of atomic energy for peaceful purposes.

The IAEA Board of Governors has the authority to carry out the functions IAEA in accordance with the IAEA Statue, subject to its responsibilities to the General Conference.

The IAEA may conclude one or more legally binding Safeguards Agreement with a nation-state, wherein IAEA “inspectors” are authorized access “at all times to all places and data and to any person … as necessary to account for source and special fissionable materials” subject to the Safeguards Agreement, for the exclusive purpose of determining “whether there is compliance with the undertaking against use in furtherance of any military purpose.”

On May 15, 1974, Iran entered into such an agreement with the IAEA – to remain in force as long as Iran remained a party to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons – wherein all Iranian “source or special fissionable materials” and activities involving them were to be made subject to IAEA Safeguards “with a view to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from peaceful purposes.”

ElBaradei’s most recent report has once again verified to the Board, to the IAEA General Conference, to all NPT-signatories and to the Security Council “the non-diversion of the declared nuclear materials” by Iran.

That’s wonderful! Even though the United States egregiously fails to honor its legally binding commitments made pursuant to the NPT and IAEA Statue, as best ElBaradei can determine, Iran continues to honor its commitments.

So why are Cheney Cabal media sycophants so upset?

Well, on February 4, 2006, under extreme pressure by the United States, the IAEA Board of Governors adopted an outrageous resolution in which it concluded that for “confidence” to be built “in the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program” it was “deemed necessary” for Iran to, inter alia;

“implement transparency measures, as requested by the Director General, including in GOV/2005/67, which extend beyond the formal requirements of the Safeguards Agreement and Additional Protocol, and include such access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development as the Agency may request in support of its ongoing investigations.”

Did you get that? The IAEA Board deems it necessary for ElBaradei to satisfy himself of the exclusively peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear program, past and present. And the UN Security Council subsequently agreed, applying sanctions on Iran until such time as ElBaradei so satisfies himself.

So, if Iran doesn’t (a) suspend indefinitely its uranium-enrichment activities, (b) ratify the Additional Protocol to its Safeguards Agreement, or (c) cancel the construction of a heavy-water moderated reactor at Arak, as far as the IAEA Board and Security Council resolutions are concerned, it doesn’t matter so long as ElBaradei so satisfies himself!

Far from being a “Rogue Regulator,” behaving as if he was free to ignore the IAEA Board and the Security Council, ElBaradei has just done what he was told to do, concluding an agreement with the Iranians which he believes – if implemented – will satisfy him whether or not Iran intends to build nuclear weapons.”

I believe that’s what they refer to as a man without a country.

Via AFP…

“An independent US government auditor on Friday cast doubt on US military statistics expected to show a huge dip in sectarian violence in Iraq under the current troop surge strategy.

Comptroller General David Walker said there was a “significant difference” of approach between the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which he heads, and Pentagon evaluations of violence in Iraq.

“The primary difference between us and the military is whether or not violence has been reduced with regard to sectarian violence,” Walker told the Senate Armed Services committee.

A GAO report published this week on 18 benchmarks for progress for the Iraqi government set down in law by Congress, found that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s administration had failed to reach targets for cutting violence.

“It is unclear whether sectarian violence in Iraq has decreased — a key security benchmark,” the report said, pointing to the difficulty in judging whether a killing was sectarian or criminal in nature.

In long-awaited testimony on Monday to Congress on the progress of the surge, Walker said war commander General David Petraeus will cite a large decrease in sectarian violence.

“I think you need to ask him how he defines sectarian violence,” Walker told senators.

“The other thing you have to look at is if it’s sustainable.”

Some reports say Petraeus will argue that sectarian violence in Iraq has fallen by up to 75 percent under the surge.

“We could not get comfortable with (the military’s) methodology for determining what’s sectarian versus nonsectarian violence,” Walker told senators.

“You know, it’s extremely difficult to know who did it, what their intent was.”

Walker was unable to go into further details, as the rest of the GAO’s conclusions in the report on sectarian violence have been declared secret by the Pentagon, and urged senators to read the classified version of the study.”

Oh to be a fly on the wall at a Senate Arms Services Committee meeting.

They’ve all returned to Parliament. The Accordance Front, a Shia bloc loyal to Moqtada al-Sadr, and the eleven members of the National Dialogue Front, a Sunni-Arab bloc led by Saleh al-Mutlaq.

The reason? Oil – and the imminent debate concerning it. Stay tuned.

Benchmarks, troop increases, paying off hostile militias, losing track of 190,000 weapons, 1,800 Iraqi civilian deaths in August, over 4 million Iraqis displaced (within the country and aborad), hundreds of thousands dead since 2003, a massively under-reported air war, members of the House making statements that Iraqi markets are comparable to their Hoosier counterparts, and PR campaigns launched to justify reports that have yet to be made while downplaying reports that have been that are critical of the administration.

Welcome to the rollercoaster ride that is Iraq.

They’re peddling the same shit, just in different coloured bags. The benchmarks set were not attained, therefore the strategy must be re-examined. In fact, forget that those benchmarks were even set in the first place. Or, if you’re so inclined, blame the Iraqis. No matter which, the time has come to re-examine how best to make matters seem better in a situation that refuses to improve.

The surge? Just give it time. And when time’s up, say that more time is required. Better yet, allow members of Congress to visit Iraq and walk through the streets of Baghdad while surrounded by an overwhelming military presence so that they can get a first hand look at how successful it potentially could be. Then put them on national television and allow them to make asinine statements about buying five rugs for five dollars during their visit, as if that’s some indication of stability.

Stability? That’s something that the people of Iraq haven’t enjoyed since March of 2003. You know what’s horrendous about that statement? That they actually had more of it when a tyrant was at the helm.

The Iraqi people aren’t really the concern though. Were they, then those occupying the country would have seen to ensuring that those aspects of their lives that have suffered since the invasion were addressed – such as reliable electricity, sanitation, and a laundry list of other things. Were they the priority then 4 million of them wouldn’t have been compelled to flee the country thus far. But of course, they didn’t necessarily think that far ahead. In fact, they didn’t really ponder the possibility of a viable insurgency rising against them, nor that the occupation of the country, and the instability that it would cause, would lead to violent clashes between groups that have significant histories of mistrust. Besides rounding up a group of people to cheer at the toppling of a statue in an otherwise empty city square for the sake of American television audiences, I’m not sure they actually put much thought at all into what would actually happen once they could promote the affair domestically as ‘a win’.

Stability? Stability is indeed an issue. Not so much for those private contracting companies that have made billions off of the conflict’s continuation, but because it is required to placate the rapid dogs that have been salivating in the wings waiting to sink their teeth into their long promised meal…

“The question is simple on the third and final day of a major Iraqi energy conference where hundreds of hungry oil men and women broke bread with Iraq’s industry chiefs, politicians and technocrats: When will Baghdad set the ground rules for the international oil community’s long-awaited venture into the largest oil prize on Earth?”

When indeed.

As you can see, we’ve become bored again and changed the design of the website. The impetus for the change was the confusion I felt existed with regards to the community menu, which is now located at the top of the page in an all inclusive, easy to locate box. That said, I just mock these things up in photoshop. Dale’s the one who actually turns my stick figure drawings into reality, so the entire credit rests with him to be honest. For years I have been strangely obsessed with the design of The Guardian’s Newsblog, so I suppose this is the closest that I’m going to get.

That said - something interesting from Basra. According to eye-witness accounts, the British air force has attacked an oil facility near the city (WMP Movie).

As many of you are aware, the US Embassy being constructed in Iraq is the largest of its kind in the world. What many of you might not know is how it’s been built. From the Asia Times…

“In the past few years there have been numerous stories about unscrupulous contractors hiring people from low-wage Asian countries such as the Philippines, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal and Pakistan for work in Iraq and then exploiting them with low pay, unsafe conditions, seized passports, cramped housing, and poor food, medical care and safety gear. But generally these were stories about people hired by private contractors working for other private corporations

But new accusations are changing that. Disturbing reports have surfaced about the nearly 900 laborers being used to build the new multimillion-dollar US Embassy in Baghdad and the conditions under which they work.

The accusations are rather ironic for the administration of US President George W Bush, as the they charge that workers are being treated as virtual slave laborers, a human-rights issue the administration has previously claimed it is dedicated to combating.”

You know, that’s about as realistic as me claiming that I’m ‘dedicated’ to safely sending Zebra’s to the moon to live in giant eco-domes. The solution, of course, is that those who have worked on the Embassy should, because of this, have their wages adjusted and be back-paid for their work at a fair rate. They should also be compensated for the conditions that they have been made to endure.

Will that happen? Of course not. Nor will the Kuwaiti company, the First Kuwaiti General Trading and Contracting Co that was contracted to build the Embassy, realistically be held accountable. Further quoting the Asian Times article…

“In fact, many observers wonder how FKTC got the $592-million contract in the first place. It was awarded to it by the US State Department in the summer of 2005. Many of its competitors, such as Framaco, Parsons, Fluor and the Sandi Group, which have established track records for building secure embassies or large-scale construction projects, were viewed as possessing far stronger experience. Many contractors believe that a high-level decision was made to favor a Kuwait-based firm in appreciation for that country’s support of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Investigations by the State Department’s inspector general and his counterpart in the US military in Iraq found no evidence of wrongdoing. However, the State Department inspector general, Howard Krongard, did acknowledge that recruiters in foreign countries may have misled potential workers about the pay and living conditions and said he had told the US Justice Department about the situation. The Justice Department has also launched a preliminary inquiry into these allegations, just to see if they warrant any further investigation.

But during testimony before the House of Representatives Oversight Committee last Thursday, Rory Mayberry, a former subcontract employee of the FKTC, said he believes that at least 52 Philippine nationals had been kidnapped to work on the embassy project…

“Mr Chairman, when the airplane took off and the captain announced that we were heading to Baghdad, all you-know-what broke out on the airplane. The men started shouting; it wasn’t until the security guy working for First Kuwaiti waved an MP5 [submachine-gun] in the air that the men settled down. They realized that they had no other choice but to go to Baghdad …

I’ve read the State Department inspector general’s report on the construction of the embassy. Mr Chairman, it’s not worth the paper it’s printed on. This is a cover-up and I’m glad that I’ve had the opportunity to set the record straight.

Let me spell it out clearly. I believe these men were kidnapped by First Kuwaiti to work on the US Embassy. They had no passports because they were confiscated at the Kuwait airport. When the airplane touched down at Baghdad airport, they were loaded into buses and taken away. Later, I found that they were being smuggled into the Green Zone. They had no IDs, no passports, nothing. They were being smuggled in past US security forces. I had a trailer all to myself in the Green Zone. But they were packed 25 to 30 in a trailer, and every day they went out to work on the construction of the embassy without the proper safety equipment.”

Personally, given the invasion and illegal occupation of Iraq, not to mention the lies that helped sell it to the American people, it only seems fitting that the US Embassy in Baghdad should been built on the backs of those kidnapped and forced to work in such conditions. Every American that steps foot it in should be ashamed, and Americans themselves should write Congress to demand answers as to why this was allowed to happen. Because the truth is, you don’t hire someone to construct something of that magnitude on your behalf and not know what is transpiring. Someone, somewhere, knew. They knew and said nothing. Thus is the reality of no-bid, politically motivated contracts.

This is, of course, not the first time that this subject has come to light. One wonders if, this time, it will melt away as quickly as it did the first.