[Mb-civic] Robert Fisk: A Mire of Death, Lies and Atrocities

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=15&ItemID=6952

ZNet | Iraq

A Mire of Death, Lies and Atrocities

The Ghosts of Vietnam

by Robert Fisk; January 03, 2005

Who said this and when?

"The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from 
which
it will be hard to escape with dignity and honour. They have been tricked
into it by a steady withholding of information. The Baghdad communiques
are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far worse than we
have been told, our administration more bloody and inefficient that the
public knows... We are today not far from a disaster."

Answer: TE Lawrence (of Arabia fame) in The Sunday Times in August, 
1920.
And every word of it is true today. We were lied to about weapons of mass
destruction. We were lied to about the links between Saddam Hussein and
September 11, 2001. We were lied to about the insurgents--remember how
they were just "dead-enders" and "remnants"?--and we were lied to about
the improvements in Iraq when the entire country was steadily falling
outside the hands of the occupying powers or of the government of satraps
that they have set up in their place. We are, I suspect, being lied to
about elections next month.

Over the past year, there has been evidence enough that our whole project
in Iraq is hopelessly flawed, that our Western armies--when they are not
torturing prisoners, killing innocents and destroying one of the largest
cities in Iraq--are being vanquished by a ferocious guerrilla army, the
like of which we have not seen before in the Middle East. My own
calculations--probably conservative, because there are many violent acts
that we are never told about–suggest that in the past 12 months, at least
190 suicide bombers have blown themselves up, sometimes at the rate of 
two
a day. How does this happen? Is there a suicide-bomber supermarket, an
off-the-shelf store? What have we done to create this extraordinary
industry? Time was, in Lebanon, when a suicide bombing was a once-a- 
month
event. Or in Palestine/Israel a once-a-week event. Now, in Iraq, it is
daily or twice daily.

And American troops are sending home increasingly terrible stories of the
wanton killing of civilians by US forces in the towns and cities of Iraq.
Here, for example, is the evidence of ex-marine staff sergeant Jimmy
Massey, testifying at a refugee hearing in Canada earlier this month.
Massey told the Canadian board–which had to decide whether to give 
refugee
status to an American deserter from the 82nd Airborne–that he and his
fellow marines shot and killed more than 30 unarmed men, women and
children, including a young Iraqi who got out of his car with his arms up.

"We killed the man," Massey said. "We fired at a cyclic rate of 500
bullets per vehicle." Massey assumed that the dead Iraqis didn't
understand the hand signals to stop. On another occasion, according to
Massey, marines-- in reaction to a stray bullet--opened fire and killed a
group of unarmed protesters and bystanders.

"I was deeply concerned about the civilian casualties," Massey said. "What
they (the marines) were doing was committing murder." The defector from
the 82nd Airborne, Jeremy Hinzman, told the court that "we were told to
consider all Arabs as potential terrorists... to foster an attitude of
hatred that gets your blood boiling".

All this, of course, is part of the "withholding of information". It took
months before the Abu Ghraib torture and abuses were made public--even
though the International Red Cross had already told the American and
British authorities. It took months, for that matter, for the British
Government to respond to the outrageous beatings--and one killing--
carried
out on defenceless Iraqis in Basra, first exposed by The Independent. In
the first seven months of last year, the authorities maintained that they
still "controlled" Iraq, even though--when I drove 70 miles south of
Baghdad in August--I found every checkpoint deserted and the highways
littered with burnt American trucks and police vehicles.

Still we are not told how many civilians were killed in the American
attack on Fallujah. The Americans' claim that they killed more than 1,000
insurgents--only insurgents, mark you, not a single civilian among
them--is preposterous. Still we are not free to enter the city. Nor, given
the fact that the insurgents still appear to be there, is it likely that
anyone can do so. Why are American aircraft still bombing Fallujah, weeks
after the US military claimed to have captured it?

It is difficult, over the past year, to think of anything that has not
gone wrong or grown worse in Iraq. The electrical grid is collapsing
again, the petrol queues are greater than they were in the days following
the illegal invasion in 2003, and security is non-existent in all but the
Kurdish north of the country.

The proposal to put Saddam's minions on trial looks more and more like an
attempt to justify the invasion and distract attention from the horrors to
come. Even the forthcoming elections are beginning to look more and 
more
like a diversion. For if the Sunnis cannot--or will not--vote, what will
this election be worth? Donald Rumsfeld gave us the first hint that things
might not be going quite to plan when he spoke before the American
election about a poll in "parts" of Iraq. What does this mean?

Yet, still the invaders go on telling us that things are getting better,
that Iraq is about to enter the brotherhood of nations. Bush even got
re-elected after telling this lie. The body bags are returning home more
frequently than ever--we are not supposed to ask how many Iraqis are
dying--yet still we are told that the invasion was worthwhile, that Iraqis
are better off, that security will improve or--my favourite, this
one--that they will get worse, the nearer we get to elections.

This is the same old story that Bush and Rumsfeld used to put about last
spring: that things are getting better--which is why the insurgents are
creating so much violence; in other words, the better things are, the
worse things are going to get. When you read this nonsense in Washington
or London, it might make sense. In Baghdad, it is madness. I wouldn't want
to try it out on the young American soldiers who were so arrogantly
informed by Rumsfeld that "you go to war with the army you have".

It would be pleasant to record some happiness somewhere in the Middle
East. Palestinian elections in the New Year? Well, yes, but if the
colourless and undemocratic Mahmoud Abbas is the best the Palestinians
have to look forward to, after the far too colourful Yassir Arafat, then
their chances of achieving statehood are about as dismal as they were when
Arafat resided in his Ramallah bunker.

The Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is not trying to close down
illegal Jewish settlements in Gaza because he wants to be nice to the
Palestinians; and his spokesman's dismissive remarks about the West
Bank--that the Gaza withdrawal will put Palestinian statehood into
"formaldehyde"--does not suggest that the occupied are going to receive
statehood from their occupiers. Which means, one way or another, that the
intifada will restart. At which point, the Israelis will complain that
Abbas cannot "control his own people", and the Israelis and the
Palestinians will return to their hopeless conflict.

It is impossible to reflect on the year in Iraq without realising just how
deeply the Israeli-Palestinian struggle affects the entire Middle East.
Iraqis watch the Palestinian battle with great earnestness. Saddam
Hussein's support for the Palestinians was one with which many Iraqis
could identify--even if they loathed their own dictator. And I doubt very
much if the suicide bomber would have come of age so quickly in Iraq
without the precedent set by the suicide bombers of Palestine and, before
them, of Lebanon.

It is this precedent-setting capacity of events in the Middle East--not
the mythical "foreign fighters" of George Bush's fantasy world--that is
costing America so much blood in Iraq. When Sharon tries to prevent
Palestinian statehood, Iraqis remember that his closest ally is
represented in Iraq by an army which most of them regard as occupiers.
When US forces learn their guerrilla warfare techniques from the
Israelis--when they bomb houses from the air, when they abuse prisoners,
when they even erect razor-wire round recalcitrant villages--is it
surprising that Iraqis treat the Americans as surrogate Israelis?

We shouldn't need the evidence of ex-marine Massey to show us how 
brutal
the occupying armies have become--and how irrelevant Iraq's "interim"
government truly is. In Washington or London, these "ministers" play the
role of international statesmen, but in Baghdad, where they hide behind
the walls of their dangerous little enclave, they have as much status as
rural mayors. Besides, they cannot even negotiate with their enemies.

Which leads us to the one clear fact about the last year of chaos and
anarchy and brutality in Iraq. We still do not know who our enemies are.
Save for the one name, "Zarqawi", the Americans--with all the billions of
dollars they have thrown into intelligence, their CIA mainframe computers
and their huge payments to informers--simply do not know whom they are
fighting. They "recapture" Samarra--three times--and then they lose it
again. They "recapture" Fallujah and then they lose it again. They cannot
even control the main streets of Baghdad.

Who would have believed, in 2003, as US forces drove into Baghdad, that
within two years they would be mired in their biggest guerrilla war since
Vietnam? Those few of us who predicted just that--and The Independent 
was
among them–were derided as nay-sayers, doom-mongers, pessimists.

Iraq is now proving all over again what we should have learned in Lebanon
and Palestine/Israel: that Arabs have lost their fear. It has been a slow
process. But a quarter of a century ago, the Arabs lived in chains, cowed
by occupiers and oppressive regimes. They were a submissive society and
they did as they were told. The Israelis even used a Palestinian police
force to help them in their occupation. Not any more. The biggest
development in the Middle East over the past 30 years has been this
shaking off of fear. Fear--of the occupier, of the dictator--is something
that you cannot re-inject into people. And this, I suspect, is what has
happened in Iraq.

Iraqis are just not prepared to live in fear any more. They know they must
depend on themselves--our betrayal of the 1991 rising against Saddam
proved that--and they refuse to be frightened by their occupiers. It was
we who warned them of the dangers of civil war, even though there never
has been a civil war in Iraq. As a people, they watched Westerners turn up
by the thousand to make money out of a country that had been beaten 
down
by a corrupt dictatorship and UN sanctions. Is it any surprise that Iraqis
are angry?

The American columnist Tom Friedman, in one of his less messianic
articles, posed a good question before the 2003 invasion. Who knows, he
asked, what bats will fly out of the box when we get to Baghdad?   Well,
now we know. So we should repeat Lawrence's chilling remark--without 
the
quotation marks and the date 1920. We are today not far from a disaster.

-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option 
D - up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone 
forwarded you this email and you want to be on our list, send an 
email to ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050112/2f67b560/attachment.htm