© 2008 Eric Margolis

Archives > March 27, 2006

BUSH’S PHYRRIC VICTORY IN IRAQ


On the third anniversary of invading Iraq, President George Bush again reassured Americans last they were defeating the resistance forces there and making progress. Which reminds me of the famous, Fourth Century BC lament of King Phyrrus of Epirus, `one more such victory and we are ruined.’

Cast aside all the war propaganda. The Bush Administration invaded Iraq for three key reasons: 1. seizing Iraq’s vast oil reserves and turning Iraq into a base to dominate the Mideast; 2. to destroy one of Israel’s two main enemies( Iran being the other); 3. to satisfy Americans clamoring for revenge for 9/11 -even though Iraq had nothing to do with that attack.

Three years later the first goal remains elusive while the second and third were achieved. Large parts of Iraq – once one of the Arab World’s most developed nations – are in ruins, anarchy, or approaching civil war.

US occupation forces in Iraq struggle just to defend their bases and vulnerable supply lines. Their fruitless, Vietnam-style search-and-destroy missions, like last week’s `Operation Swarmer,’ are a sure sign of strategic failure and senior officers too stupid or arrogant to draw obvious lessons from recent guerilla wars. Every major US operation in Iraq is telegraphed well in advance to the resistance.

Over 2,300 American soldiers have died; 16,300 wounded. This writer strongly suspects the true number is higher but is being concealed by the Pentagon. At least 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died. Some studies put the number at 100,000. The US holds 15,000-18,000 Iraqi prisoners – more than did Saddam Hussein.

The stalemated wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are costing Washington a staggering $US 9.8 billion monthly as the US Treasury borrows billions from China and Japan just to keep the government running.

The above figure excludes hundreds of millions in secret CIA bribes to rent cooperation from tribal chiefs and politicians, or hire mercenaries called `contractors.’

What was to have been a jolly little war to `liberate’ Iraq’s oil has cost over US$500 billion so far. That’s $50 billion more than the Vietnam War’s total cost (in 2006 dollars). Clearly, the US armed forces are too expensive to send to war lasting longer than a few months.

While a debacle for the US and Iraq, the war has greatly benefited Iran and Israel. Iran’s influence in Iraq grows daily. The recent remarkable public agreement by Washington to open talks over Iraq with Great Satan Iran shows even the Bush people see the writing on the wall in Babylon. Besides, occupying Iraq has left the US too weak to invade Iran.

After getting Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980, and funding the ensuing eight-year Iran-Iraq war, the US now watches helplessly as Iran slowly ingests large portions of Iraq. The US invasion of Iraq handed power to pro-Iranian Shia religious parties. Shia spiritual leader, Ali al Sistani, warned followers they would go straight to hell – and lose their wives – if they did not vote for Shia religious candidates. Some democracy.

Israel has been the second beneficiary of the Iraq war. The long-term strategic goal of Israel’s rightists – shattering unstable Arab states to leave Israel dominant in the region – has been half attained by Iraq’s fragmentation into three parts. Syria is destabilized and faces serious internal unrest, or even possible civil war. Any future challenge by Iraq to Israel’s Mideast nuclear monopoly has vanished.

Meanwhile, Israel has been able to cut defense spending, intensify pressure on the Palestinians, and is quietly extending its influence into the semi-independent, oil-rich Kurdish region of northern Iraq.

Ironically, the third major beneficiary of Mr. Bush’s War has been his nemesis, Osama bin Laden. The only way to drive US influence out of the Muslim World, bin Laden has long maintained, is to tie it down in a series of small wars that bleed it financially. The nearly $10 billion a month wars in Afghanistan and Iraq are doing just this. Iraq, as even Bush admits, has become an incubator, magnet, and call to arms for anti-American jihadists across the Muslim World.

Worse than the billions poured into Iraq, and the $1.5 billion stolen from its government in 04/05, the United States has lost its honor in this brutal little neo-colonial war. The neoconservatives’ ambitions to plunder Iraq’s oil has become a mirage, and the Bush-Cheney diumverate presidency is quickly sinking into the quick-sands of Iraq.

Even SOME OF those unlettered American jingoists who cheered the attack on Iraq to revenge 9/11 -more or less any Arabs would do, as far as they were concerned at the time –even they are now scratching their heads and beginning to wonder if their `war president’ did not make a terrible mistake.

Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2006


WRITER’S NOTEBOOK


*Washington and the EU have protested Belarus’ rigged election and beatings of anti-government demonstrators. So they should. But what about all the rigged elections and beaten or arrested protestors in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and other US Mideast protectorates? Add to this double standard list last week’s Soviet-style rigged vote in Kazakstan, a close US ally.

*What a fiasco in Ukraine. The Orange Revolution has turned into a lemon. This week, Ukrainians delivered a crushing defeat to the forces of Viktor Yushchenko. A coalition between the pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich and the beautiful Yulia Tymoshenko looks likely. Even more likely is ongoing destructive political squabbling in Ukraine.
This is what the Kremlin always predicted would happen.

*A new leaked Downing Street memo confirms Bush and Blair cooked up war against Iraq and sought ways to provoke it. Few more cynical or criminal acts have come to light in our era. Watch this story and see how the US press, which fawns on the White House, handles it. The NY Times ran it front page in their 27 March edition.

*Sepoy of the Year award goes to Pakistan’s military strongman Pervez Musharraf for plunging his fragile nation into small wars in the tribal territories in Northwest Frontier and Baluchistan in order to please his patrons in Washington. He is playing with fire but seems heedless of the risks involved.

*It is distressing to watch Canada, long regarded as a mature, sensible country, engulfed by cheap jingoism and flag waving over its jolly little war in Afghanistan against angry Pashtun tribesmen. This reminds us that nationalism is one of mankind’s greatest evils.

*Speaking of Afghanistan, how amusing to watch the international uproar over a Christian convert sentenced to death. Of course the puppet Karzai regime backed down before Washington’s wrath. Bush’s Christian fundamentalist supporters went crazy. So much for Afghans making their own `democratic’ decisions. Outsiders have yet to understand that medieval Afghan ways are not due to Taliban, but to the culture.

***











Posted by Eric Margolis on March 27, 2006 03:07 PM
Comments:

Eric declares —- “the beautiful Yulia Tymoshenko” —-

I agree. She is a real babe. Why the hell couldn’t Musharraf look more like Tymoshenko?

Posted by Rampart at March 27, 2006 03:42 PM

Her astrology chart…. (born on November 27, 1960, time unknown, Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine).

http://www.astrologyweekly.com/natal-charts/astrology/yulia-tymoshenko.php.gif

According to all those sqiggles, she is corrupt as hell… but that’s part of her charm.

Posted by Rampart at March 27, 2006 04:02 PM

First off, I would like to start off by saying something about nationalism. Eric said it well, it is one of man’s greatest evils=nationalism and even worse chauvinism.

Second off, adding to what Eric said. Iran has greatly benefited from this war, in an ideological point of view. They will now be able to rally the masses around the Islamic Republic. This could prove to be a major shift in geopolitical affairs of the Middle East. Then again, as Eric was pointing out in other columns, I think we won’t be surprised if somewhere down the road, Iraq becomes an Islamic run state, because give free elections in the Middle East and the North Africa, and you will mostly have Islamic regimes. After this occupation, the Iraqi position is going to radicalise and deepen.

It just shows that powerful men and iron fist governments are tough to replace and it leads mostly to civil war. Superb examples throughout history but none more powerful than the case of Tito in ex-Yugoslavia. Watch out for that kind of political vacuum and “civil-war” uncertainty to arise when Fidel Castro dies, and there is nobody as strong to replace him.

Third, the US death figures are much higher than they are in reality (press). The US government tried to cover up the numbers in Vietnam and in WWII and they are doing it now. Just as the Soviets tried to cover their numbers in Afghanistan and just like Russia is doing these days in Chechnya.

Finally, most of you or all have seen Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore. You may think it’s good, but it’s really bullcrap. If you have time and an open-mind see this independantly extremely well made and extremely well documented documentary. You can see it free on Google Video at this address and it lasts 1h 21 min. It’s really great :http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=Loose+Change

It shows that the US government involvement in the act and the cover-up. Amazing. Also available in French. Share with friends.

Posted by theking01 at March 27, 2006 05:30 PM

I agree with most of what Eric wrote this week but a few points left me confused.

“seizing Iraq’s vast oil reserves” —— Who owns Iraq’s oil now? Has the US annexed it? What oil companies have received contracts to drill and sell? I hear that the US “stole” or “seized” Iraq’s oil yet no one presents specific info as to how it’s being done. Not saying it isn’t true, I’m just looking for clarification as to how the situation’s unfolding. Are US companies getting all the drilling rights and profits?

“Over 2,300 American soldiers have died; 16,300 wounded. This writer strongly suspects the true number is higher but is being concealed by the Pentagon.” —— Does Margolis have a single name of a US soldier killed in Iraq and “covered up” or does he just “suspect” it?

“Watch this story and see how the US press, which fawns on the White House, handles it. The NY Times ran it front page in their 27 March edition.” —— So if the press fawns on the White House, how’d it make front page of the NYT?

“This reminds us that nationalism is one of mankind’s greatest evils.” —— Oh dear. Being proud of our soldiers on a UN mission supported by most Afghans is “evil.” Oh but Muslim nationalism is waaaay cool!

“Outsiders have yet to understand that medieval Afghan ways are not due to Taliban, but to the culture.” —— True. And we wouldn’t want to judge that in any way, would we? Might make us feel “racist” or something. Imagine Eric’s rage if America outlawed conversions to Islam.

Posted by Canuckistani at March 27, 2006 05:38 PM

King:

the names of the dead in Iraq are on many websites. CBS news read them all off a couple times (as they used to every week during Vietnam). If any family members out there lost loved ones who aren’t on the lists, it would be news by now. Name me one soldier killed in Iraq and covered up.

Posted by Canuckistani at March 27, 2006 05:41 PM

Ok, I don’t have any names, it’s pure speculation on my part. If you look at it, it’s after the war in Vietnam that the real and complete figures were disclosed. Throughout the war there was a major cover up.

Plus, how can YOU be sure that there is as many dead as they say. There are some soldiers who are on the battlefield and who have not made it back to the US yet, so there is no way to be sure that some of them are alive or dead for that matter. Some families never hear from their son’s duaghters, brothers, fathers, etc., because sometimes it seems that the letter got lost in the mail, or that they have communication problems etc.

As far as let’s say Chechnya goes, 1 year after the second war, a Mothers Against War coalition was founded. They claimed that 3000 of their sons had died and they had never heard from them since the day they left, while the official numbers were around 1000 deaths.

Posted by theking01 at March 27, 2006 06:04 PM

I’m not aware of any “major cover up” regarding deaths in Nam. Again, the CBS news read them all every week. One of the main reasons why domestic opposition was so high was because the numbers WERE known. At any rate, today we have the internet, 24/7 news. You really think there are thousands of names covered up that no one can find?

Also, familes are notified by phone or with a knock on the door. The telegraph days are long gone. So the notion of people just “not getting the letter” is absurd.

As for Russia, you’re dealing with a country that doesn’t have the same level of communications that the USA has. And in that case there IS real proof of extra deaths: the committee of Soldiers Mothers claim to have compiled names from death certificates showing about 10,000 dead since 1999, with Putin and company claiming 5,000 or so. THAT’S real evidence. “Bush lied about lots of things so he’s therefor lying now” doesn’t cut it.

Posted by Canuckistani at March 27, 2006 06:15 PM

And again, as I said it’s pure speculation.

About “not receiving the letter” was not about deaths, was about info on the soldiers sent or not sent by themselves to their families. It’s easy to cover now, and then at the end of the war say ok here is the total which amounts to whatever…it’s easier to say it at the end.

As far as Russia goes, well you just reiterated my statement with up to date info as of …right now.

Posted by theking01 at March 27, 2006 06:58 PM

I believe most soldier-family communication is through e-mail these days.

And even if it was still mostly letters, how would snatching a soldier’s letter home somehow cover-up his death? The army still has to tell the folks. And if a family went months without word from their loved one, don’t you think they’d start to ask around?

So far the US has lost about 2,300 soldiers. How many more would there have to be to make a risky cover-up effort worthwhile and how likely would it be to work?

The Vietnam death toll ‘cover-up’ is a myth, and so is any suggestion that it’s happening “again.”

Posted by Canuckistani at March 27, 2006 07:23 PM

A cpuple of toss-ups:
(i) Will the recently reported murder of civilians by Imperial Troops durng Operation Swarmer, as was credibly reported by the Iraqi police, have much impact on American public support for the war? and
(ii) theking01 mentioned the aftermath of Castro’s passing. I have been to Cuba a few times and loved it. The people are poor, no argument, due largely to the blockade and a creaky, stupid, economic system, but I found them to be proud to be free and basically happy. What, pray tell, will happen post-Fidel?

Posted by ghawley at March 27, 2006 07:24 PM

ghawley:

(i) No.

(ii) Having been to Cuba a few times, the general opinion that I encountered was “we’re thankful for the health care and education and we’re proud to not be under America’s boot. BUT, we’re not free, we want political freedom and if a civil war happens post-Fidel it will likely come from Miami.”

Cubans are tired of Fidel and communism but they don’t like or trust the Miami exiles either, who they fear will simply try to turn Cuba back into Bautista-land.

Posted by Canuckistani at March 27, 2006 07:33 PM

Canuckistani, I ageee on all counts. The people, while basically happy, are tired of the deadening hand of communism. The revolution posters appeal more to tourists than the locals. Post-Fidel will be a most interesting time in Cuba’s eveloution.

Posted by ghawley at March 27, 2006 08:10 PM

Eric Margolis, I totally agree with your article except for one thing: the action Musharraf is taking is a necessary one. The people the Pak army are targeting in the Northwestern Tribal Belt and Balochistan are Al Qaeda and elements that are supported by the RAw, India’s intelligence agency. These elements need to be wiped out. What does Balochistan have to do with American interests? Nothing. It is a Pakistani affair that should be left alone by the outside world.

Posted by crazyinsane105 at March 28, 2006 12:25 AM

There is also the fact that it suits American interests to have trouble in Balochistan so that the Iran-Pak-India pipeline runs into heavy weather.

Why did the American ambassador try to meet with Bugti? You are right… it isn’t any of their damn business. So why did he try to meet him (or did meet him)?

Bugti (the leader of the Baloch troublemakers) is nothing but a terrorist and I won’t hesitate to shoot the person myself if I ever see him. He does have links with RAW (Research and Analysis Wing… Indian secret service). No “hello-hi” for such people. Only a bullet in the head will do.

I think Mushi is being too soft on them. Why are they still alive?

As for NWFP… there is Al-Qaeda activity there, and as Mushi said, “leave… or die”.

Posted by Rampart at March 28, 2006 01:33 AM

I’d expect that Russia also plays a significant role in propping up the regime in Kazakhstan. After all, an Islamist Kazakhstan (less than 100 miles from the Trans-Siberian Railway!) would have the Kremlin’s “Clear and Present Danger” klaxons howling louder than anything short of a fleet of Minutemen rising from their silos in North Dakota.

Posted by George Carty at March 28, 2006 03:17 AM

Iraq will cost the US at least $1 trillion before they leave to a substantial degree, and still talk about “dealing with Iran” goes on. Amazing. I wonder how that will roll through the Western economies. Are there enough buyers of US bonds out there to cover that one?

Posted by JonnyBoy0416 at March 28, 2006 06:47 AM

To JonnyBoy:

There is a saying in Urdu….

“When the Coyote feels it’s his time to die, he heads for the city”.

Posted by Rampart at March 28, 2006 07:53 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?