Iraq revolt: Tactics of
diversion By Ritt Goldstein
While the thin veneer of Iraqi stability cracked
in Fallujah, then buckled when al-Hawza - the newspaper
associated with Shi'ite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr - was
summarily closed, it disintegrated completely over the
weekend. The Fallujah killing and mutilation of United
States mercenaries was widely perceived as horrific, but
equally harsh damage was to done to the well-publicized
myth of the common Iraqi's warmth towards the US. In the
extremely volatile atmosphere then prevailing, coalition
forces arrested a key Muqtada deputy, Mustafa al-Yaqubi,
detonating the current violence, with considerable
speculation existing as to why.
Numerous media
accounts have posed questions of US incompetence, others
suggesting a dark and preconceived agenda, some
suggesting the possibility of both. Evidence suggests a
combination is indeed likely, and the result of the Bush
administration's blindness via the politicization of
intelligence, coupled with the twin political
imperatives of legitimizing a long-term US troop
presence and diverting public attention from the issues
of September 11.
Appearing this past Sunday on a
nationally broadcast US news show, the Republican
chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
Indiana's Richard Lugar, said: "Our focus has been on
9/11 - who did what and who didn't - but it ought to be
on June 30," the date on which the coalition is
scheduled to return sovereignty to Iraq. And now the
public's attention has indeed shifted.
Both
Lugar and the Foreign Relations Committee's ranking
Democrat, Joe Biden of Delaware, argued for a possible
delay in the sovereignty process, as well as examining
the need for added troops. Concerns have been widely
raised over civil war and the dangers of turning over
security to the Iraqis. And while Biden has argued for
an Iraq hand-off to the United Nations and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization, a key issue regarding June
30 has apparently been forgotten; namely, it doesn't
matter one iota in terms of the US military presence or
role. The US military had no plans to hand over security
responsibilities.
According to a US Department
of Defense news transcript from the March 3 briefing by
the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), June 30 is
militarily insignificant. "We don't see that date as a
significant military date in terms of changing our
tactics, techniques, procedures, nor our mission," said
US General Mark Kimmitt, the deputy director of
coalition operations. To emphasize the point still
further, Kimmitt added: "We fully expect to be operating
on July 15 the same way we're going to be operating on
June 15."
According to a February article by
Inter Press Service, the former Iraq administrator,
Lieutenant General Jay Garner (ret), argued that the US
should have very long-term bases in the country,
comparing the geostrategic importance of Iraq to that of
a former US colony, the Philippines. "Look back on the
Philippines ... they were a coaling station for the
navy. That's what Iraq is for the next few decades: our
coaling station that gives us great presence in the
Middle East." But the Filipinos fought a long and bloody
revolt against US forces, and the costs of conflict
demand legitimation.
Apparently oblivious to
what the reality of June 30 means, Washington has begun
heated discussion of the June dangers of transferring
"security" to Iraqis. This gives rise to potential for
speculation regarding the US leadership's apparent lack
of knowledge pertaining to the US military's plans;
though, past administration actions suggest the
possibility of something more.
In a late fall
interview with noted former Central Intelligence Agency
analyst Ray McGovern, questions of the administration's
tactics as regards its public relations (PR) mechanisms
emerged. In describing to this journalist the structures
which exist for molding opinion, McGovern spoke of "the
best-ever PR machine the world has ever seen",
highlighting an ability to obscure and confuse unwanted
truths. And in a noteworthy parallel which illustrates
the administration's use of diversions to counter what
it perceives as politically undesirable revelations,
McGovern coincidentally recounted another September
11-related episode, that involving Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) whistleblower Colleen Rowley.
Rowley had repeatedly attempted to get approval
to pursue what turned out to be vital leads on the
September 11 plot, but was repeatedly rebuffed by her
superiors. She was later called on to testify before
Congress regarding the restraints which had been forced
on her.
"Colleen Rowley's testimony was
devastating," McGovern said, then proceeding to describe
the administration's tactic of creating a media
diversion. "The Department of Homeland Security was
prematurely announced, knocking the FBI whistleblower
out of the media's primary coverage," McGovern revealed,
providing an interesting footnote on present events.
As to what June 30 actually does mean, according
to CPA adviser Daniel Senor: "Ambassador [L Paul]
Bremer's portfolio will be handed over on June 30. His
portfolio is increasingly on the political process. On
June 30, the Iraqis will take over for their own
political process."
Returning to the military
issues of the transfer, Senor noted that the "situation
doesn't necessarily change on the military side". Senor
also noted that "it doesn't change for much of the
civilian reconstruction". And that is the official
Defense Department version of June 30 events. But while
Washington may be unaware of it, perhaps Iraq's Shi'ites
are, and have developed increasing concerns regarding
the way Iraq's "democracy" is unfolding.
The
Shi'ites are estimated to comprise 60 percent of Iraq's
populace, and it's been long postulated that they
envision the formation of the new Iraqi government as
their only chance to achieve political power, something
the previously ruling Sunni minority denied them. But
though increasing concerns regarding an Iraq civil war
are valid, speculation exists that the present violence
could well unite Sunnis and Shi'ites, placing them in
opposition to coalition and Kurdish forces, the Kurds
also perceiving the moment as the only opportunity for
assuring their long-cherished autonomy.
At the
end of March, the administration had announced its
intention to appoint an Iraqi prime minister after
"extensive deliberation and consultations with
cross-sections of the Iraqi people", its latest idea in
a string of failed attempts to ensure a US-friendly
political process. The individual in question would
receive the hand-off of political power on June 30, with
speculation existing that Ahmed Chalabi (a Shi'ite) is
the intended candidate. But Chalabi is closely linked to
the US and its neo-conservative community, with those
connections escaping few Iraqis.
As early as
January, it was reported that both US State Department
regional experts and the CIA believed a Shi'ite
explosion was coming if the group perceived that a
viable democracy wasn't likely. Speculation exists that
the current coalition moves against Muqtada could, in
part, be a gamble aimed at controlling the timing and
nature of that blast. But one of the key problems, a
reason for the string of Iraqi political failures, is
the politicization of the intelligence process.
"We [CIA] were once a place that the president
could come and say, 'hey, you tell me what you really
think'," McGovern said, recalling his years of
personally briefing the White House. He concurrently
noted that the CIA currently had too many who had
allowed their decisions to sway with the prevailing
political currents, effectively blinding US policy
regarding the nature of the issues and events it faced.
The substantive extent of the present gamble
which the Bush administration appears to be undertaking
cannot be exaggerated, providing a measure of the
perceived severity of US political imperatives, or
administration blindness.
Providing commentary
on Iraq's reality, Democratic senator Ted Kennedy just
charged that Iraq is "Bush's Vietnam". But on October
28, former US national security adviser Zbigniew
Brezinski provided what may be a more accurate analogy
to another country, where France battled insurgents.
Brezinski described a movie "which deals with a reality
which is very similar to that we confront today in
Baghdad ... The Battle For Algiers".
In
Algeria, the French lost, and some observers believe
that France itself was nearly plunged into civil war
because of it.
Ritt Goldstein is an
American investigative political journalist based in
Stockholm. His work has appeared in broadsheets such as
Australia's Sydney Morning Herald, Spain's El Mundo and
Denmark's Politiken, as well as with the Inter Press
Service (IPS), a global news agency.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All
rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
