There was no link between Al-Qa’ida and pre-2003 Iraq, and even now, the US can’t point to evidence of an Iraqi connection.

It is rather odd to call Paul Bremer an ambassador; the man even wears army boots!

“Soon after the Occupation, the United States and its allies—military and ideological—referred to the Iraqi resistance as ‘foreign elements’ ‘terrorists’ or ‘former loyalists of the Saddam regime’. This phraseology has now become redundant and US military spokesman are now referring to the guerrillas as ‘anti-Iraqi forces’ as if to suggest that the US, British, […] and Polish troops represent Iraq but the Iraqis who resist the occupation are anti-Iraqi.”
—Tariq Ali, “The Iraqi Resistance: a New Phase”, CounterPunch, April 10, 2004.

Referring to many groups conveys the impression that a significant segment of the population is ganging up against the US, and this is counter to the propaganda claim that the opposition is a “small minority”. Furthermore, Americans, including Bush, are notorious for not knowing who is who in a country. So, forget the details, and go for a catchall group!

“Iraqi history is already being written. In revenge for the brutal killing of four American mercenaries — for that is what they were — US Marines carried out a massacre of hundreds of women and children and guerillas in the Sunni Muslim city of Fallujah. The US military says that the vast majority of the dead were militants. Untrue, say the doctors. But the hundreds of dead, many of whom were indeed civilians, were a shameful reflection on the rabble of American soldiery who conducted these undisciplined attacks on Fallujah.”
—Robert Fisk, “By endorsing Ariel Sharon’s plan George Bush has legitimised terrorism”, The Independent, April 16, 2004.

NB: the principle of avenging the occupier’s losses by collective punishment is a war crime. In Lidice during World War II, Germans killed at least 172 civilians to “avenge” some of their own, and this was considered a war crime. In Fallujah, the killing of four mercenaries has resulted in “hundreds” of Iraqi civilians killed. Ariel Sharon would approve.

If the US rejects “Islamic” groups, “Baathists”, … who is left? NB: “Baathists” could be either the nationalists who the CIA helped assassinate in the 1960s or the ones who joined the thugs who killed the former group. The persecuted Baathists (those who opposed Saddam) may have a legitimate grudge against the US, the others were the US’s SOBs.

“Evidently, the CIA helped bring Saddam Hussein’s thuggish party to power and fatally weakened the prospects for Iraqi democracy. Some reliable sources believe that more than ten thousand were killed and more than a hundred thousand arrested in the coup and the bloody weeks that followed, described by historians Peter and Marion Sluglett […] as ‘some of the most terrible violence hitherto experienced in the postwar Middle East’.”
—Hanna Batatu, “CIA Lists Provide Basis for Iraqi Bloodbath”, 1978.

“Last week, in the middle of the growing chaos in Iraqi cities, Bremer savagely denounced groups ‘who think power in Iraq should come out of the barrel of a gun’. He was not apparently referring to the US and British armed forces who seized power in Iraq (and put him into his powerful post) entirely and exclusively by sustained use of the barrels of thousands of guns…”
—Paul Foot, “The beam in Bremer’s eye”, The Guardian, April 14, 2004.

“With the ‘ceasefire,’ large-scale bombing was rare. With a halt in major bombing, the Americans weren’t attacking with heavy artillery but primarily with snipers.”
—Rahul Mahajan, “Report from Fallujah – Destroying a Town in Order to Save it”, April 12, 2004.

There are more mercenaries in Iraq today than there are British soldiers – an estimated 40,000 “security contractors”. The ads in back section of Soldier of Fortune, the trade magazine for literate mercenaries, indicate boom times for the profession.

“It is critical that we cleanse the Iraqi body politic of the poison that remains here after 35 years of Saddam Hussein’s totalitarian rule.”
—Dan Senor (assistant to the US proconsul), April 12, 2004. Commenting on the US Marine attack against Fallujah and Najaf.

“Coalition” only when it suits the Americans. When it comes to reporting casualties, only those of the US military are reported. When it comes to apportioning juicy contracts, US companies get the lion’s share. What do the “coalition” members think about this? The British are complaining that they aren’t even consulted – they dearly would like to play second fiddle.

“Coalition”? Only when it suits them. Provisional? It is starting to look rather permanent.

Hand-picked satraps willing to sign off on the occupation of Iraq, the plundering of its resources, and the construction of several military bases.

It is rather odd that while the US calls on the Middle East to “democratize”, it was actively involved in overthrowing the democratically elected gov’t of Haiti. Here the US armed, trained and funded an armed gang led by death squad leaders to mount the coup. So much for respect for democracy; in the American version even death squad leaders may apply.

“Bremer was described in a special Financial Times profile last week as ‘an imposing figure with a devastating intellect’.”
—Paul Foot, “The beam in Bremer’s eye”, Guardian, April 14, 2004.

It will be rather amusing to see what the FT will say when Bremer is replaced. The countdown for the sacking of Bremer has begun, and John Negroponte has already been slated as his likely replacement. Negroponte’s experience in running the contras against Nicaragua, and his years as proconsul in Honduras give him impeccable credentials. He is another “intellect that devastates”.

The Americans want “stability” first, and then, after a sufficiently long trial period, there may be “elections”. Of course, the US remains the sole arbiter of whether or not Iraq is “stable.”

Even after several years obsessed with Iraq the president and most of his entourage mispronounce the name of the country.

“Flashpoints” is the BBC’s favorite term when referring to the conflict in Iraq. When referring to the Israeli occupied territories it uses “hotspots”. Contrast this with the BBC’s language used a month ago when referring to the armed gang mounting a coup against a democratically elected government in Haiti. Here “towns rose against Aristide’s oppressive rule.” Never mind that death squad leaders and people accused of mass crimes led the rebels in taking over cities, brutalizing the population.

“ ‘Meanwhile, a U.S. Marine commander said not all the fighters in the Iraqi city of Fallujah are Iraqis.’ Lt. Gen James Conway, the Marine commander in Fallujah, said there are some foreign fighters in Fallujah — and he indicates they may have been there for a while.”
—BBC Online, April 7, 2004.

Someone should point out to the gentleman that he is a foreigner too. And is it a justification to attack a city?

“ ‘Foreign fighters’ were now in the battle, according to the US Secretary of State Donald Rumsfeld. The US media went along with this nonsense, even though not a single al-Qa’ida operative has been arrested in Iraq and of the 8,500 ‘security detainees’ in American hands, only 150 appear to be from outside Iraq. Just 2 per cent.”
—Robert Fisk, “A war that was founded on lies and illusions has one simple truth: Iraqis do not want us”, The Independent, Apr. 9, 2004.

“Mr Bush also said that the lesson of those attacks had been that America had to deal with ‘gathering threats’ before they came to fruition, a policy that catalysed the US-led invasion of Iraq.”
—BBC Online, April 14, 2004.

American policy is not so much about responding to “gathering threats”, but rather one of “sowing and reaping the threats.”

“Winning hearts and minds from behind the safe walls of Saddam’s palaces, or in an armoured vehicle, is impossible. Yet given the level of risk, we may be now moving to a turning point in the conduct of operations. If the insurgency provokes the coalition forces, then the steady progress to a peaceful democracy in Iraq will be halted. Without a clear, agreed political process, army commanders will argue for priority to go to the safety of their own troops.”
—Tim Garden, “Coalition forces fight a losing battle to win the peace”, The Guardian, April 6, 2004.

“To win hearts and minds, America needs to turn on the lights, provide clean water, give people jobs and impose law and order. But hardly any of this has happened because Bush administration-connected firms such as Halliburton and Bechtel have stolen the vast majority of the money allocated for such tasks.”
—Christian Parenti, “Autopsy of a Failed Occupation”, AlterNet.org, April 14, 2004.

One of the justifications for the continued occupation is to help Iraq emerge as a prosperous country. Unfortunately, things are only getting worse. Almost a year of occupation and most of the country doesn’t have electricity, the health system has almost collapsed and so on.

Of course, if one questions what is happening on the ground, then one becomes a “naysayer”.

On April 10^th, one IGC member complained that they had not been consulted on the American onslaught against Fallujah and Najaf. So much for “governing” or “council”.

Wild west terminology utilized by CentCom spokesmen when stating their intentions in finding the cleric Moqtada Sadr. NB: Sadr’s father is highly revered in Iraq, and the family is renowned for its opposition to Hussein. Of course, this ramboism is acceptable due to the inherent anti-Islamic prejudice of the occupiers – to them, the cleric is a mere “raghead”.

“The cleric’s young and largely uneducated followers have been dubbed the Mahdi army. They are not an army — more of a loose-knit group of frustrated Shia Iraqis with Kalashnikovs. As one volunteer, Syad Mustafa, said: ‘We don’t have any bases. We don’t have any tanks. We don’t have any jets.’ ”
— Luke Harding, “Huge US attack to crush Iraq rebels”, The Guardian, Apr. 28, 2004.

“What the imperialists term ‘nation-building’ or ‘peace-building’ refers to the need to construct and uphold a political and social regime in the ‘post-war’, or more accurately, post-military intervention scenario. It entails a qualitatively more intensive modality of engagement characterized by acute micro-management of the proxy government. According to the Rand Corporation’s best practices study, ‘nation-building’ is not primarily about rebuilding a country’s economy, but about transforming its political institutions.”
—Alejandro Bendaña (Former Nicaraguan representative to the UN), “Nicaragua’s And Latin America’s ‘Lessons’ For Iraq”, FocusWeb.org, April 8, 2004.

“[The Office of the Secretary of Defense] recently took unqualified possession of the emerging American way of war, and began supplanting the traditional grammar of war with a new one. However, this new grammar-which focuses on achieving rapid military victories-was equipped only to win battles, not wars. Hence, the successful accomplishment of the administration’s goal of building a democratic government in Iraq, for example, is still in question, with an insurgency growing rapidly.”
—Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria, “Toward an American Way of War”, Strategic Studies Institute, March 2004.

Even the military find that although having won the battle they may well lose the war. Obviously, some are questioning Rumsfeld’s “grammar”.

“I will not flinch from historic Iraq fight”
—Tony Blair, The Observer, April 11, 2004.

Nothing like suggesting that others have to continue fighting. This was appropriately uttered when Blair was in Bermuda.

“By its heavy hand, and growing Iraqi recognition of its intention to dominate, the United States has stoked an insurgency that has been growing by leaps and bounds. The only Bush administration answer to this development is the application of more force. When applied to a revolt deeply rooted in the civilian population this means counterinsurgency war, with lavish use of deadly weapons, and therefore escalating civilian casualties. So, added on to an initial war of aggression we are now descending into a war of pacification. This will involve a further destruction of Iraq in order to save it — for Western ends and to save the Bush election campaign.”
—Edward Herman, “We Had To Destroy [Fill in Country Name] In Order To Save It”, Swans.com, April 12, 2004

When a CentCom spokesman was recently (April) asked where one could view a reconstruction project that directly benefited the Iraqi population, he couldn’t name one! Most of the reconstruction projects are centered on the oil industry.

“One U.S. journalist found that many reconstruction projects that had allegedly been ‘rebuilt’ had in reality barely been touched. One ‘repaired’ school was overflowing with raw sewage. When I visited Ramadi and Fallujah in January, people on both towns were angry about chronic water and electricity shortages. Power plants, telephone exchanges and sewage systems all remain looted and bombed out. According to the NGO CorpWatch, only 10 percent of Halliburton’s initial $2.2 billion in contracts has been spent on meeting community needs.”
—Christian Parenti, “Autopsy of a Failed Occupation”, AlterNet.org, April 14, 2004.

A distinct unwillingness to recognize that errors have been made, and that to withdraw conveys a sign of “weakness”. To withdraw while conveying a “sign of strength”, then the US would have to follow Sharon’s example in withdrawing from Gaza. In the case of Gaza, this involved transforming it into a giant prison camp, assassinating leaders, stopping the delivery of emergency food…

Just like the “Sunni triangle” [q.v.], these terms convey the impression these areas are tiny and thus no cause for concern. The people living there are “a small minority.” There is never a need to mention how many people live there.

While the White House is doing its best to allay comparisons with Vietnam, it chooses to resurrect one of Nixon’s favorite terms to justify the continuation of the Vietnam War. Nixon claimed that the silent majority favored the war. Just as it was a bogus argument then, it is a bogus argument now.

“Things are getting worse, much worse in Iraq. Yesterday’s horrors proved that. Yet just a day earlier, Brigadier General Mark Kimmitt, […], assured us that there was only an ‘uptick’ in violence in Iraq. Not a sudden wave of violence, mark you, not a down-to-earth increase, not even a ‘spike’ in violence – another of the general’s favourite expressions. No, just a teeny-weeny, ever-so small, innocent little ‘uptick’. In fact, he said it was a ‘slight uptick’.”
— Robert Fisk, “Things are getting much worse. It’s not just a ‘spike’ or an ‘uptick’ in violence”, The Independent, April 1, 2004.

“Among the more laughable assertions of the Bush administration is that the mujaheddin are a small group of isolated ‘extremists’ repudiated by the majority of Fallujah’s population. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
—Rahul Mahajan, “Report from Fallujah – Destroying a Town in Order to Save it”, April 12, 2004.

“Today the Free Press is refusing to look beneath the claim of an intention to grant ‘sovereignty’ and to transfer power to Iraqis on June 30th, to see the ways in which a US military presence and veto power and constraints on the Iraq constitution and law would give this country continued domination.”
—Edward Herman, “We Had To Destroy [Fill in Country Name] In Order To Save It”, Swans.com, April 12, 2004

When Iraqis submit and are silent about their lot, and when the media stop reporting it, then Iraq may be deemed “stable”.

“Stability” is also a justification for continued occupation – if the US forces leave, then anarchy will break out, and “even the Iraqis don’t want that.” This overlooks the fact that most Iraqis already live without security, electricity, clean water, proper jobs, press freedom… To call this situation anarchic would give anarchy a bad connotation.

“The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff [Gen. Myers] said Thursday that the deadly insurgency that flared this month is ‘a symptom of the success that we’re having here in Iraq’ and an effort to undermine the country’s transition to self-government.”
—Sewell Chan, “General Calls Insurgency in Iraq a Sign of U.S. Success”, Washington Post, April 16, 2004.

Echo from Vietnam: General Myers sharpened his teeth in Vietnam where a high body count was considered a “success”.

Echoes from Gaza:

“… this operation was a great success.”
—Ariel Sharon, Oct 2002, commenting on the bombing of the Khan Yunis refugee camp where a one-ton bomb dropped by a F16 killed 14 and wounded 80 Palestinians.

“And, as the attacks against US forces increased around Fallujah and other Sunni Muslim cities, we were told this area was the ‘Sunni triangle’, even though it is much larger than that implies and has no triangular shape.”
—Robert Fisk, “A war that was founded on lies and illusions has one simple truth: Iraqis do not want us”, The Independent, Apr. 9, 2004.

The use of words like “triangle” has much to do with the “military experts” who draw lines on maps for the BBC or CNN. See Shia circle.

“Sometimes a guy will go down, and I’ll let him scream a bit to destroy the morale of his buddies,” a Marine corporal said, “then I’ll use a second shot.”
—Tony Perry, “For Marine snipers, war is up close and personal”, Los Angeles Times, Apr. 19, 2004

When US generals and Rumsfeld complain about violence against US troops, the label “terrorism” sounds increasingly hollow. NB: violence against a fully armed occupation force is not terrorism.

“Donald Rumsfeld claims that the resistance is just a few ‘thugs, gangs and terrorists’. This is dangerous wishful thinking. The war against the occupation is now being fought out in the open, by regular people defending their homes and neighbourhoods – an Iraqi intifada.”
—Naomi Klein, “An Iraqi intifada”, The Guardian, April 12, 2004.

Term used by a CNN military analyst to refer to the possibility that Iraqi resistance fighters may join the pilgrimages to travel to other “flashpoints”.

“With the pilgrimages we have a trafficability problem.”
— Kelly McCann, Military Annalyst, CNN, April 11, 2004.

“[President Bush] dismissed as ‘false’ comparisons between the fighting in Iraq and the bloody Vietnam War which embroiled the US three decades ago. ‘I also happen to think that analogy sends the wrong message to our troops and sends a wrong message to the enemy,’ he added.”
—BBC Online, April 14, 2004

It is not an issue of “message”, it is an issue of evaluating what this war was about, and what the American occupation of Iraq is trying to accomplish. Resistance to the creation of an American-subservient regime implies that the analogy with Vietnam is useful.

The comparison with Vietnam has more to do with references to quagmire but little else. However, there are many differences, and a striking one dealt with the logic of continuing both wars. In the case of Vietnam, there was an ongoing ideological and realpolitik logic to the pursuit of victory. What is different about Iraq, and the American public in particular, is the lack of resentment/reaction once the paper thin justifications for war were debunked.

“As the casualties mount in the besieged Iraqi city of Fallujah, Qatar-based Al Jazeera has been one of the only news networks broadcasting from the inside, relaying images of destruction and civilian victims – including women and children. But when CNN anchor Daryn Kagan interviewed the network’s editor-in-chief, Ahmed Al-Sheik, on Monday – a rare opportunity to get independent information about events in Fallujah – she used the occasion to badger Al-Sheik about whether the civilian deaths were really ‘the story’ in Fallujah.”
—FAIR, April 14, 2004.

“Two nights ago, this most dangerous man, George Bush, talked about ‘freedom in Iraq’. Not ‘democracy’ in Iraq. No, ’democracy’ was no longer mentioned. ‘Democracy’ was simply left out of the equation. Now it was just ‘freedom’ — freedom from Saddam rather than freedom to have elections. And what is this ’freedom’ supposed to involve? One group of American-appointed Iraqis will cede power to another group of American-appointed Iraqis. That will be the ‘historic handover’ of Iraqi ‘sovereignty’. Yes, I can well see why George Bush wants to witness a ‘handover’ of sovereignty. ‘Our boys’ must be out of the firing line — let the Iraqis be the sandbags.”
—Robert Fisk, “By endorsing Ariel Sharon’s plan George Bush has legitimised terrorism”, The Independent, April 16, 2004.

“We are locked in an historic struggle in Iraq. Were we to fail, which we will not, it is more than the ‘power of America’ that would be defeated. The hope of freedom and religious tolerance would be snuffed out.”
—Tony Blair, The Observer, April 11, 2004.

This statement was uttered the same week the Americans sought to “kill or capture” the cleric M. Sadr.