August 13, 2007
by Robert Fantina

In a recent editorial in the New York Times, Mr. Michael E. O'Hanlon and Mr. Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institute reported on progress they saw in Iraq in 'military terms.'

One wonders how anyone can view positively the occupation and subjugation by 160,000 foreign soldiers of a formerly sovereign nation. There appears to be a new mantra for the United States, replacing 'the land of the free and the home of the brave' (whatever on earth that ever meant) with 'bomb them into submission.'

Messrs O'Hanlon and Pollack were early supporters of the Iraqi invasion, but then were critical of how it was handled. Perhaps now, with some signs of progress in 'military terms' (meaning progress toward the conquest of a foreign land), they can justify their earlier support for America's latest imperial adventure.

It appears that some people, mainly those who cling tenaciously to President Bush's faltering war bandwagon, have lost sight of some important facts; indeed, some of them, perhaps including Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack, never had a firm grasp of those facts to begin with.

On September 12, 2002, President Bush told the U.N. the following:

"Today, Iraq continues to withhold important information about its nuclear program -- weapons design, procurement logs, experiment data, an accounting of nuclear materials and documentation of foreign assistance. Iraq employs capable nuclear scientists and technicians. It retains physical infrastructure needed to build a nuclear weapon. Iraq has made several attempts to buy high-strength aluminum tubes used to enrich uranium for a nuclear weapon. Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year. And Iraq's state-controlled media has reported numerous meetings between Saddam Hussein and his nuclear scientists, leaving little doubt about his continued appetite for these weapons."

Five days later, inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) entered Iraq. Led by Hans Blix, two hundred and fifty inspectors looked in vain for the evidence of weapons of mass destruction that Mr. Bush said were there. With surprising support from Saddam Hussein they visited sites that were previously off-limits, and still found nothing. Yet on February 5, 2003, one of Mr. Bush's most reliable yes-men, then Secretary of State Colin Powell, continued the fairy tale. Mr. Powell told the U.N. that Iraq had failed to account for its stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons, including four tons of the nerve gas VX. "We have evidence these weapons existed," Mr. Powell said. "What we don't have is evidence from Iraq that they have been destroyed or where they are."

Five weeks later, as the weapons inspectors continued their work, Mr. Bush recommended to the U.N. that they leave: his war was about to begin.

Less than two months after his 'Shock and Awe' campaign, one that targeted population centers in a nation where over 50% of the citizens were under the age of 15, the president declared victory in his infamous 'Mission Accomplished' speech, stating that major combat operations in Iraq had ended. That was on May 1, 2003. One can only wonder why, if that had been the case, by early 2007, with over 3,000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead since that May 1 statement, Mr. Bush felt the need to dust off the tired, worthless policy of escalation used by two of his less illustrious predecessors during the Vietnam War, rename it 'surge' and put it into practice in Iraq. Fortunately the world had straight-speaking, forward-thinking Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to explain that it wasn't an escalation; the addition of tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers to the war zone was merely an 'augmentation.'

(Article Continues Below)

So now we have the Messrs O'Hanlon and Pollack crowing about progress in 'military terms.' The nation invaded by the U.S. under false pretenses is showing some signs of finally buckling under the cruel thumb of its American oppressors. All it has cost is the lives of nearly three quarters of a million Iraqis, nearly 4,000 Americans, the displacement of almost a third of the population of Iraq, and the fleeing from the country of two million of its citizens.

But wait! It appears that perhaps such glorious progress has not been made. With the deaths during the first week of August of nineteen Americans comes the fear that the 'insurgents' (freedom fighters if seen from the Iraqi perspective) may be regrouping. Perhaps an additional 'augmentation' will be required.

Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack did note that political progress is not occurring quite as marvelously as military progress; it is apparently easier to kill people in the cities than to persuade their leaders to establish coalitions among groups that have fostered rivalries and hostilities for centuries. On August 6 the following political development occurred in Iraq: "Five ministers suspended their participation in meetings of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki's cabinet on Monday, sending a warning signal that they may pull out of his increasingly isolated government if their demands are not met." The report further stated: "Their move, coupled with the largest Sunni Arab bloc's decision to withdraw its six ministers last week, struck yet another blow to Mr. Maliki's faltering efforts to present his religious Shiite-led coalition as a "national unity" government." With these developments, and the members of the Iraqi parliament currently on a month-long vacation while their citizens and American soldiers die in the streets, Mr. O'Hanlon and Mr. Pollack are at least justified in their pessimism about political progress in Iraq.

Mr. Bush has long been convinced that the American way of life is best, not just for Americans, but for the world. Dismissing the religious and cultural differences that impel some nations to seek a religious figure for their political leadership, he seems to feel that all these nations need is to be victimized by a level of U.S. terrorism beyond what most people could imagine. Kill enough of the people, imprison and torture them, and before long they will break. And if they don't, perhaps their numbers will be reduced significantly to eliminate them as a risk. Then, when a U.S.-approved government is installed, Iraqi oil can flow smoothly into American cars, industries and homes. Mission accomplished.

If you enjoyed this post, please consider the following:

1. Make a donation of $1 or more to help keep this website active.


   click here

2. Click Here to Subscribe to the Free Populist Party Newsletter

Robert Fantina [send him email] is a long-time activist for peace and social justice. He has worked with the Coalition for Peace Action in New Jersey. Following the 2004 presidential election, he moved to Canada, where he now resides. Robert is the author of Desertion and the American Solder: 1776-2006.