No end in sight [Archives:2004/797/Opinion]

December 9 2004

The announcement that the United States is going to send an additional 12,000 troops to Iraq reinforces the American determination to impose a permanent presence in the region and raises the concerns of many observers that the US adventure in Iraq is not merely a war on terror or a messianic mission in Mesopotamia. Notwithstanding the end of the Provisional Occupation Authority and the handover of “Iraqi Sovereignty” to an Iraqi government that has little say in the determination of Iraq's future, it is clear that the current American Administration in the White House is out to pursue its pre set agenda for Iraq and probably for the region as a whole. It is not far fetched to assume that this additional build-up was in the plans of the white House even before the presidential elections, but was held back for fear that the American public might just wise up to the real intentions of their leadership for the region and switch their votes. It is not clear how the US expects that with additional troops, the United States can solidify its hold on Iraq. This reminds one of the previously misguided adventure of the United States in Vietnam, when it was hoped that adding more American firepower and military personnel will break the back of anti-American resistance in that country. History proved otherwise, and the Vietnamese were more determined to display their strong xenophobia against any foreign influence in the running of their affairs. With a force that surpassed 500,000 troops, the US found itself in a trap of high powered national resistance, for which Communist rule was favored against anything which the Americans could otherwise produce in South Vietnam. Needless to say the South Vietnamese Government was incapable of attracting public support with its ugly facade of corruption and dictatorial rule and submission to the dictates of their American masters.
So, what have the Americans given the Iraqis for their wonderful expedition, which by all counts is proven to be a flop, both from an Iraqi perspective and even an American perspective (except if you are part of the military industrial complex that always thrives on war)? A continuous venue of bloodshed and unhealthy living conditions have dominated the scene in Iraq, especially in the Sunni Triangle, that has only led to increased hatred for the Americans and a strong determination to make the American stay in Iraq as unpleasant for them as it can be made. The obvious day to day sceneries of bombings and well executed ambushes or attacks on US convoys is showing that this is no fly by night resistance. On the contrary, the erratic fluctuations of US casualties (and Iraqis) obviously points to a strong persistence that the insurgency is also there to stay and with strengthening momentum.
But the American White House has its perceptions that have nothing to do with the number of casualties or the amount of destruction that Falluja sustains, but have a whole different set of arithmetic to be guided by. This arithmetic could actually involve the inclusion of additional areas where the ugliness of Iraq can be extended, as apparently manifested by the continuous animosity and belligerent attitude characterizing the current US relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. There is even a similar pattern of the pre-invasion theatrics for pre-occupied Iraq now being unleashed against Iran, in an effort to raise American war fever against a new sector for the Zionsit-Likudnik agenda to be unleashed.
With the IAEA not being able to find the desired proof of the need to “teach Iran a lesson” in relentless right wing demagoguery, the White House releases its propaganda machine to reinforce the adage, “if you are not with us you are against us”, and points its fingers against Dr. Mohammed Al-Baradi'ey, the General Manager of the Internatioanl Atomic Energy Agency for “complicity” with Iran in hiding its nukes. The effort was reminiscent of a once theatrical effort to put down the IAEA and UN Inspection Teams efforts in Iraq, but without alluding to any complicity. Then the reliance was on a star performance by Colin Powell to project a far more dramatic WMD picture in Iraq, that rejected the obviously observed reality that there is nothing really to worry about in Iraq and there is no threat to anyone noticeable there, as reported by these two instruments of the international community. In other words, America is always right and the facts on the ground do not have to substantiate that claim to uncontested infallibility. But with Mr. Al-Baradi'ey all by himself, the allusion to complicity is strengthened by his affiliation to Islam, which the right wing propaganda machine will find easy listening ears to and thus complicity would not be construed as far fetched and “hard to believe”. How could a guy with a name like “Mohammed” be considered as a credible monitor of a Moslem state that is on the top of the list of the right wing-Likudnik agenda that dominates US foreign policy? That is what is being projected in right wing media in the US and no effort is being spared to assume that anything that Baradi'ey could say and do would be of any help to substantiate his findings that Iran is indeed playing by the rules.
Apparently Iran is sensing the “war itch” that is being projected by the Bush Administration towards it and notwithstanding all the diplomatic efforts to bolster its defense against the hate filled Likudnik-right wing campaign to picture Iran is a menace, Iran also had its own military show of strength to remind the United States that Iran is not the Iraq of Saddam Hussein and that if war is an American objective for Iran also, then it is ready. The display of military prowess put up by Iran last week quite near the Americans in Iraq was a clear message to the American demagogues that if you want war with us, you will not find Iran a sitting duck. The recent Iranian military maneuvers put forth a display of a formidable military capacity under the command of the Ayatollahs and shows that Iran understands how to play the psychological warfare game very well.
The question that remains unanswered is what does Washington have to gain by submitting to unjustified fears fired up by Zionists and their American supporters, who are vent on making the United States a perpetual global bully?