OPINION & EDITORIAL
U.S. terrorism rampant in Middle East
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Paul Pryse:
- U.S. terrorism rampant in Middle East (October 18, 2007)
Related Stories:
- U.S. should re-evaluate rocky relationship with Pakistan (February 8, 2007)
- Afghanistan's slide to anarchy (April 11, 2007)
- Israel promotes imperialism (September 27, 2006)
- Headlines, news void of Afghani problems (September 21, 2006)
- Hahn's rhetoric obscures 9/11 lessons (September 12, 2007)
by Paul Pryse
Thursday, October 18, 2007
America’s chief ally in the war on terror, the British government, announced Monday a new strategy in the war against the Taliban. They are going to let them reenter the Afghani government.
That’s right. The government whose rule President Bush called "a totalitarian nightmare" is negotiating with the British for the opportunity to rule Afghanistan. Again.
The possibility of "moderate" members of the Taliban rejoining the government raises the question why we ever invaded in the first place. However, the government is not the only factor in Afghanistan sliding backward. According to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, nearly every aspect of life in Afghanistan is worse than it was before the U.S. invasion. Many women commit suicide by self-immolation, the only escape from their misogynistic country.
It has become cliché to say the invasion of Iraq had nothing to do with fighting terrorism. However, Mr. Bush and his cohorts’ willingness to let Afghanistan sink back into fundamentalist rule reveals the "war on terror" is not about fighting terror either. Lofty rhetoric about spreading democracy and combating evil is just a cover for consolidating American power in an economically vital region of the world.
During the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Bush promised the war on terror would cause democracy to blossom throughout the Middle East. It was an odd claim for a man with close ties to the Saudi royal family, the rulers of a brutal fundamentalist regime. However, the January 2006 elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council provided a chance for Mr. Bush to prove his commitment to democracy. When Palestinians voted for Hamas, a party that refused to recognize Israel or kowtow to the United States, Mr. Bush and his allies reacted ruthlessly. Israel began to refuse turning over tax revenue to the Palestinian Authority, undermining Hamas’s ability to govern. The United States and Israel are now sanctioning the Gaza Strip, Hamas’s base of support, as punishment for failing to obey. Israel’s stranglehold has caused rampant childhood malnutrition, and according to the Gaza director of the United Nations’ Relief and Works Agency, Gaza’s children attend school "hungry and unable to concentrate." To the United States, democracy means, "What we say, goes."
The claim that America is in the Middle East fighting terrorism is equally dubious. In mid-September, a terrorist group drove through Baghdad’s Nisour Square, firing guns in every direction as Iraqis fled, killing 17 people and wounding 27. An Iraqi government investigation found that four vehicles passed through the square with bullet holes found at 360 degrees around the convoy. The group responsible was not al-Qaida, but Blackwater USA, the American-hired mercenary company.
Blackwater is not the only U.S.-backed thug company in Iraq. In January 2005, Newsweek reported that the Pentagon was considering what they called the "Salvador Option." A reference to the American-trained death squads that terrorized El Salvador and Honduras in the 1980s, the Salvador Option would involve training Shiite militias to uproot the insurgency from the Sunni population. As one Pentagon official explained, "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists. … From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."
The Sunnis of Iraq ended up paying that price. Within a year, the United Nations revealed there were Shiite death squads operating within the Iraqi Ministry of the Interior. The death squads killed many of their victims using electric drills to bore holes into their skulls and torsos. Not surprisingly, these sectarian murders contributed to the Shiite-Sunni violence that is occurring today.
Unfortunately, the belief that the United States has the right to terrorize the Middle East is not confined to the Bush administration. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Aug. 1 he would consider unilaterally invading Pakistan to fight al-Qaida, provided he had "actionable intelligence." In September, fellow Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton voted to label a division of the Iranian military a terrorist organization, laying the groundwork for a potential attack on Iran. All of the Democratic presidential frontrunners, including John Edwards, said they could not guarantee that all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by 2013.
Many Americans have realized the war in Iraq is about controlling oil. Recently, even former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and retired U.S. General John Abizaid have publicly stated that oil is a main cause of the occupation. However, the "war on terror" is still generally beyond criticism in mainstream discourse. Somehow, the Democrats and the media have separated the corrupt and brutal war in Iraq from the rest of Bush’s foreign policy, as if Iraq was just a "misstep" in a generally noble cause. This country is going to see a massive, grassroots anti-war movement before it sees an end to U.S. occupation of Iraq. But if we want to avoid more wars in the Middle East, we need a movement that also demands an end to all American terrorism.
Paul Pryse (pryse@wisc.edu) is a senior and member of the International Socialist Organization.
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 9:30am):
I don't think that the Socialists will fare well in the Caliphate. Most are blasphemers and apostates and will have their thoats cut. Gay Socialists will of course not exist.
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 9:33am):
That's quite an impressive shotgun spread of hate-America slanders, allegations and hearsay-- naturally backed by not a shred of evidence.
Yep, that's the al-Qaeda view of things. Once again, brought to you by the seditious Marxist liars of the ISO.
As if Americans needed yet another illustration of the "Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left"
http://www.amazon.com/Unholy-Alliance-Radical-Islam-American/dp/089526076X
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 12:06pm):
I agree with 9:33, everything is just fine. We're accomplishing missions and showing the world how totally awesome we are.
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 12:25pm):
9:33 - The article isn't evidence-less.
Goddamn conservatives, so insecure about the people's right to distinguish their government from their country.
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 1:51pm):
It's amazing that an article that explains the FACTS of what the US has established in Afghanistan (increased death rates, a government now possibly including the Taliban again) and Iraq (death squads and mass destruction) is considered "evidence-less." Unless the definition of "evidence" is "the same old tired lies I hear on FOX News every night."
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 3:41pm):
ISO Lie #1: "The government whose rule President Bush called 'a totalitarian nightmare' is negotiating with the British for the opportunity to rule Afghanistan."
al-Guardian (UK) speculated that Afghanistan (not UK) were reaching out to so called "moderate" Taliban. The ground truth says different.
Daily Times (Pk) reports: "Only 10 percent of the people of Afghanistan support the Taliban, while between 80 to 90 percent wish the Unites States to retain its presence in the country, a meeting on Afghanistan was told on Tuesday."
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C10%5C18%5Cstory_18-10-2007_pg4_24
ISO Lie #2 "Mr. Bush promised the war on terror would cause democracy to blossom"
Where? When? No such "promise" was ever given. We have seen promising elections in Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan.
ISO Lie #3 "In mid-September, a terrorist group drove through Baghdad's Nisour Square, firing guns in every direction... The group responsible was not al-Qaida, but Blackwater USA..."
That is pure slander. Why is everyone innocent until proven guilty-- except Americans serving in Iraq? We saw these same injudicious slanders hurled at the Haditha Marines by Leftists. Now Senator al-Murtha is being sued for his serial slander of those (court proven) innocent Marines.
Lie #4 "In January 2005, Newsweek reported that the Pentagon was considering what they called the 'Salvador Option.' A reference to the American-trained death squads.."
Again, no evidence-- just specious allegations. See also, al-Murtha slander above referenced.
ISO Lie #5 "the war in Iraq is about controlling oil."
Iraq controls it's own oil revenues. The price of oil is at record levels. How does that happen if we're there to steal their oil?
You lying Marxist ghouls need to come up with some new material. This stuff is more stale than a Soviet archive and more rancid than a North Korean gulag.
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 6:05pm):
Way to hold the war makers feet to the fire. The US war of terror must be stopped completely.
Anonymous (October 18, 2007 @ 7:13pm):
Refuting right wing arguments is about as hard as playing dodge ball at the blind kids school, but since it's a thursday night and i have some time, ill take a whack at a few.
The notion that since Iraqi oil is under the control of the Iraqi government, the US has no control over it is ridiculous. The Iraqi government is completely reliant upon US military support for its stability and is thus subject to US power in the most direct fashion possible. At the barrel of a gun. Just ask Diem what happens to regimes which fail to curry US favor.
The Blackwater killings hardly need to be discussed. The Iraqi report was comprehensive and established Blackwater's culpability beyond reasonable doubt. The State Department report, on the other hand, was written by a Blackwater employee.
Finally, the Salvador option and US sponsorship of death squads has been copiously documented. The US provided massive funding to the Ministry of the Interior, control by the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, whose Badr Brigades were the number one group implicated in Shi'a death squad killings. Furthermore, John Negroponte's discussion of using "the Salvador Option" is public record and documented in numerous sources.
As Wittgenstein said, "whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent." In other words, if you don't know what you're talking about, shut yer yapper,
Anonymous (October 19, 2007 @ 8:29pm):
Wow! Bullying blind kids... Behold! compationate Marxism.
The notion that US military presense implies American control of Iraqi oil is ridiculous. Oil is a fungible asset sold by Iraqis on the open market. Iraqis are earning massive windfall profits from emerging global demands for oil. Marxists clearly have no concept of how free markets work.
The ALLEGED Blackwater shootings remain in the same category as the Haditha Marines. It's pathetic watching Leftists fling their feces through the bars of their cages over and over again-- always giving the benefit of the doubt to terrorists, while slandering American servicemen (enlisted and retired) without an ounce of shame. When will you ISO toadies offer apologies to the Haditha Marines for your serial slanders?
Finally, enjoy that dustbin of history with the Marxist-terrorist Sandanistas. Ronald Reagan (God bless his soul) and Colonel North defeated your Marxist-terrorist allies in El Salvador-- Contra-style. Eat it, punk.
As King Solomon said, "The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness." In other words, stop drooling on your mom's keyboard and get back to her basement.
Now how do you like the sound of them apples, Will?
Anonymous (October 20, 2007 @ 2:37pm):
Behold reactionary spelling abilities.
That response is called sidestepping. Not addressing the Iraqi report on Blackwater. Not addressing whether the US is using death squads in Iraq.
The oil response is typically vapid, and sidesteps the issue of the government's complete and totdal dependence on the US military presence. Again, look at Diem.
As for the free market, Iraqis, who have to daily face its ravages with unemployment rates exceeding 50%, know its workings all too well.
Also, Wittgenstein trumps superstition every day of the week.
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
