Red
Alert for CounterPunchers!
Annual Fundraising Appeal
We interrupt your regular reading
habits to bring you the following important announcement: CounterPunch
needs your financial support!
We're not in the habit of making
idle threats and this isn't one. Either we meet our fundraising
goal of $60,000 over the next three weeks or we'll be forced
to drastically curtail the operation of our website. It's near
the end of our year and the wolves are gathering at the door.
CounterPunch's website is supported
almost entirely by subscribers to the print edition of our newsletter.
We don't clutter the site by selling annoying popup ads. We tried
getting money out of Google, but they gave us the boot. We aren't
on the receiving end of six-figure grants from big foundations.
George Soros doesn't have us on retainer. And we don't sell tickets
on cruiseliners.
The continued existence of
CounterPunch depends solely on the support and dedication of
our readers. And we know there are a lot of you. We get thousands
of emails from you every day. Our website receives nearly 100,000
visits each day-and those numbers grow by the month. Of course,
all these readers chew up a lot of bandwidth and that costs money.
Through the Iraq war, the daily
traumas of the Bush administration, hurricanes, earthquakes and
the disappearance of the Democrats, many of you have found a
refuge at CounterPunch and made us your homepage. You tell us
that you love CounterPunch because the quality of writing you
find here every day and because we never flinch under fire. We
appreciate the support and are prepared for the fierce battles
to come as the Bush administration expands its wars abroad and
at home.
Unlike many other outfits,
we don't hit you up for money every month ... or even every quarter.
We only ask for your support once a year. But we when ask, we
mean it. Please, make a tax-deductible donation
to CounterPunch today or purchase a subscription
and a gift subscription or a crate
of books as holiday presents.
To contribute by phone you
can call Becky or Deva toll free at: 1-800-840-3683
Onward,
Alexander, Jeffrey, Becky and Deva
November
2, 2006
"The American Era in the Middle East
Has Ended"
Baghdad
is Surrounded
By MIKE WHITNEY
Don Rumsfeld is not a good leader. In
fact, he is a very bad leader. Leadership is predicated on three
basic factors: Strong moral character, sound judgment, and the
ability to learn from one's mistakes. None of these apply to
Rumsfeld. As a result, every major decision that has been made
in Iraq has been wrong and has cost the lives of countless Iraqis
and American servicemen. This pattern will undoubtedly continue
as long as Rumsfeld is the Secretary of Defense.
Here's a simple test: Name
one part of the occupation of Iraq which has succeeded?
Security? Reconstruction? De-Ba'athification?
Dismantling the Iraqi military? Protecting Saddam's ammo-dumps?
Stopping the looting? Body armor? Coalition government? Abu Ghraib?
Falluja? Even oil production has been slashed in half.
Every facet of the occupation
has been an unmitigated disaster. Nothing has succeeded. Everything
has failed.
Everything.
Never the less, Rumsfeld assures
us that "these things are complicated" and that we
should just "Back off".
It was Rumsfeld's decision
to replace America's first Iraqi Viceroy, General Jay Garner
after Garner wisely advised that we maintain the Iraqi military,
leave many of the Ba'athists in the government (to maintain civil
society) and convene leaders from the three main groups (Sunni,
Shia and Kurds) to form a coalition government. This didn't square
with Rumsfeld's plans to revolutionize Iraqi society and transform
it into a neoliberal Valhalla; so Garner was unceremoniously
dumped for Kissinger's protégé, Paul Bremer.
Once Bremer was installed,
things started heading downhill fast and have only gotten worse
ever since.
Apart from the immense damage
to Iraqi society, the enormous human suffering, and the massive
loss of life; there is also the astronomical cost of the war
which has been purposely concealed by the Defense Dept. Originally,
the war was supposed to "pay for itself in oil revenues".
(according to neocon Paul Wolfowitz) That, of course, never
happened but, the real costs appeared in this week's Washington
Post in an article by Jim Wolf called "Pentagon Expands
War-funding Push". The article states:
"With the passage of the
fiscal 2006 supplemental spending bill, war-related appropriations
would total about $436.8 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and enhanced
security at military bases, the non-partisan Congressional Research
Service said in a Sept 22 report.this is in addition to the more
than $500 billion sought by President Bush in his baseline fiscal
2007 national defense request."
That's right; we're spending
a whopping $1 trillion a year for a war that we're losing!
Still, don't expect accountability
from the Pentagon where taxpayer dollars are carelessly flung
into the Mesopotamian black-hole with utter abandon. Heads never
role because no one in charge ever accepts responsibility for
their mistakes.
So, "Back off"!
On another matter, an editorial
appeared in Tuesday's New York Times, "The Untracked Guns
of Iraq" which stated:
"More than 500,000 weapons
were turned over to Iraqi Ministries of Defense and Interior
since the American invasion including rocket-propelled grenade
launchers assault rifles, machine guns and sniper rifles"only
12,128 were properly recorded. Some 370,000 of these weapons,
some of which are undoubtedly being used to kill American troops,
were paid for by U.S. taxpayers, under the Orwellian-titled Iraq
Relief and Reconstruction Fund."
In other words, we're handing
over state-of-the-art weaponry to the men who are killing American
troops and, yet, no one is held responsible? How does that work?
Apparently, the buck never stops at the Rumsfeld War Department;
it just gets passed along to until it lands on a swarthy-looking
Middle Eastern fellow or perhaps a garrulous leftist railing
against the war on his blogsite.
A growing number of establishment-elites
are frustrated with Rumsfled's bungling and are ready for a change.
But that doesn't matter because the Sec-Def has the backing of
powerful constituents in the banking, corporate and defense industries
as well as neoconservative aficionados in many of Washington's
preeminent think-tanks. He also has Bush's support, which is
a mere formality since Cheney and Rumsfeld run the government
anyway. The bottom line is, Rumsfeld is "here to stay".
The real problem with Rumsfeld
is that he is incapable of thinking politically, and it's impossible
to win in war unless one has clearly defined political objectives.
After 3 and a half years of
violence and mayhem we still know as little about the Iraqi resistance
as we did in March 2003. This is inexcusable. In addition, there's
been no attempt to engage the representatives of the resistance
in political dialogue. How can we possibly reach a political
solution without dialogue and negotiation?
It is shortsighted in the
extreme to think that violence-alone can produce a victory.
It will not.
In war, violence is not an
end in itself; it is a means to achieving a political goal. The
over-reliance on military force, absent any communication or
negotiation with the enemy, shows a fundamental misunderstanding
of the purpose of warfare.
An article by Dahr Jamail "US
Military adopts Desperate Tactics" (IPS) illustrates this
point:
"Increased violence is
being countered by harsh new measures across the Sunni dominated
al-Anbar province west of Baghdad. Thousands have been killed
here by the Multi-National Forces (MNF) and Iraqi allies, and
the situation is getting worse every day..We have no role to
play because the Americans always prefer violent solutions that
have led from one disaster to another," said on member of
the Fallujah city council.
Here again, we see that "overwhelming
force" without clearly defined political objectives just
generates more violence. It is entirely futile, and yet, the
policy remains unchanged.
Rumsfeld flattened Fallujah
nearly 2 years ago thinking that the destruction of the city
of 300,000 would "send a message" to the Sunnis; convincing
them that it was useless to resist. His action, which was enthusiastically
applauded by right-wing pundits and politicians in America, produced
exactly the opposite response. The resistance is now stronger
than ever, the attacks on American troops have increased dramaticaly,
and al-Anbar province is no longer under U.S. control.
Anyone with even a superficial
understanding of psychology could have predicted the outcome,
but Rumsfeld blundered on with his iron-fisted tactics regardless
of the facts.
Rumsfeld's over-reliance on
force has spread turmoil throughout the Sunni-heartland making
it virtually ungovernable. The sectarian violence is now so bad
that a leaked-Pentagon report prepared by the US Central Command
says the country is in a state of "chaos". This is
the logical corollary of the Rumsfeld approach and it is unlikely
to change.
For American troops in Iraq,
there is a worse scenario than chaos; that is defeat. Patrick
Cockburn's 11-1-06 article "Baghdad is under Siege"
provides the chilling details of an armed Iraqi resistance which
has now cut off supply lines to the capital and threatens to
make America's ongoing occupation impossible. Cockburn says:
"Sunni insurgents have
cut the roads linking the city to the rest of Iraq. The country
is being partitioned as militiamen fight bloody battles for control
of towns and villages north and south of the capital.The country
has taken another lurch towards disintegration. Well armed Sunni
tribes now largely surround Baghdad and are fighting Shia militias
to complete the encirclement. The Sunnis insurgents seem to be
following a plan to control all approaches to Baghdad."
Baghdad is surrounded and the
predicament for American troops is increasingly tenuous. The
battle is being lost on all fronts. So, what is Secretary Rumsfeld's
response to these new and urgent developments?
Rumsfeld held a press conference
in which he blasted his critics for "focusing too much on
the bad news coming out of Iraq" and announced the launching
of a new public relations campaign which will attempt to elicit
greater support for the ongoing occupation. The Pentagon plans
to "develop messages" to respond to the negative news-coverage
and, as Rumsfeld said, "correct the record."
"Correct the record"?
Is the Pentagon planning to "repackage" the war even
while the Resistance is tightening its grip around the capital?
What type of madness is this?
This is not the behavior of serious men. This is just more of
the same "faith-based," public relations hucksterism
which leads nowhere. The worsening situation in Iraq will not
improve by ramping-up the propaganda-machine, appealing to American
chauvinism, or attacking critics of the war. This is real life;
not some skit that's been choreographed to dupe the Washington
press corps. We need leaders who are capable of grasping the
situation in realistic terms and initiating political dialogue
with the warring parties. All the cheerleading and yellow ribbons
in the world will not create a viable solution for the impending
catastrophe.
The American people are way
ahead of Rumsfeld on the issue of Iraq. Nearly 70% now believe
that the war was a "mistake" and a clear majority is
looking for candidates who will support a change in policy. A
poll conducted by the New York Times/CBS News on 11-2-06 shows
that "a substantial majority of Americans expect Democrats
to reduce or end American military involvement in Iraq if they
win control of Congress." That tells us in stark terms that
the public wants to "get out now". The November 7 midterms
will be a referendum on Bush's "war of choice" and
a flat rejection of the conflict which Rumsfeld so desperately
wants to popularize. So far, the Democrats are showing substantial
leads in all the polls.
The media has been a steadfast
ally to the Bush troupe and given them a "free pass"
throughout the conflict. They successfully drew an Iron Curtain
around Iraq and kept the public from knowing about the 650,000
men, women and children were savagely butchered in Bush's Petrol-War.
Despite their best-efforts, however, public opinion has shifted
away from the present policy and the American people are looking
for an end to the fighting.
Rumsfeld's plan for "a
new kind of war" that depends on high-tech, laser-guided
weaponry, massive counterinsurgency operations, and a submissive
"embedded" media has fallen on hard times. The tremors
can already be felt from Baghdad to Washington D.C. As Richard
Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) said
in the November issue of Foreign Affairs, "The American
era in the Middle East, the forth in the region's modern history,
has ended." All that's left is to sweep up the pieces of
a failed policy and head home.
What
You're Missing in Our Subscriber-only CounterPunch Newsletter
A Special Investigation:
China's Mass Murder for Body Parts
CounterPunch
outlines the terrible evidence that thousands of Falun Gong members
have been killed to supply China's body parts trade with the
West. Larry Lack reviews
the evidence and explains why the US government is keeping its
mouth shut. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month But remember, we are
funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch.
Please support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation towards the cost of this online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.
