Ascend, Evolve, Expand.....: American troops already in Iraq    
 American troops already in Iraq1 comment
4 Feb 2003 @ 19:08, by Sandi Hunter

WSWS : News & Analysis : Middle East : Iraq
US military chief admits American troops already in Iraq

By Bill Vann
4 February 2003

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

Even as the Bush administration embarks on the final act in the diplomatic charade within the United Nations Security Council, it has already launched military action on Iraqi territory.

The Pentagon admitted last week that American ground troops are now operating in the north of the country, while US and British warplanes have dramatically intensified their bombing campaign against both military and civilian targets, principally in the south.
Air Force General Richard Meyers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed press reports that US soldiers have been deployed inside Iraq, while refusing to provide any details on how many are in the country or where they are operating. Other top Pentagon officials said that the deployment involves Special Operations troops who are working in conjunction with CIA contingents in Kurdish regions in the north of Iraq.

US forces are reportedly crossing the border into Iraq from both Turkey and Jordan, whose armies are covertly collaborating with Washington. Meanwhile, representatives of the US-sponsored Iraqi opposition have reported that US military cargo planes are using an 8,500-foot-long runway near the town of Irbil in northeastern Iraq.

The preliminary buildup in this region is in large measure driven by a key strategic aim of the coming war—the seizure of Iraq’s oil resources. The oil wells around the Kurdish city of Kirkuk are presently pumping a million barrels a day, and proven reserves in the area amount to more than 10 billion barrels. US military action would likely begin with a drive by Special Forces troops to ensure that Washington winds up in possession of this rich prize and preventing the Iraqi regime from blowing up the fields.

The CIA and Pentagon are also concerned about potential attempts by Kurdish separatists or even Turkey to seize the oil wells for themselves. The Turkish military has repeatedly deployed troops inside Iraq as part of its protracted war of repression against its own Kurdish population.

The Pentagon has also changed the rules of engagement for pilots flying in the so-called “no-fly” zones that Washington and London unilaterally enforce over southern and northern Iraq. Last month alone, US and British warplanes bombed at least three dozen targets, most of them in the southeast of the country.

Ostensibly imposed as a “humanitarian” operation aimed to defend the Shi’ite population in the south and the Kurdish minority in the north, the no-fly zones are sanctioned by no UN mandate and have been used to wage a low-level air war against Iraq, while training US and British pilots for a full-scale invasion. Notwithstanding the humanitarian pretext for the bombings in the “no-fly” zones, US and British warplanes have ceased their flights in the north whenever the Turkish military decided to carry out its own bombing raids against Kurdish villages.

The Pentagon has claimed that its attacks in the no-fly zones are in response to anti-aircraft fire or Iraqi radar having locked onto US warplanes. But the US military is now using each such incident as the pretext for bombing as many as eight separate targets, most of which are in no way connected to the alleged threats to US and British aircraft. Pilots are supplied with the coordinates of pre-determined targets for each sortie.

The clear intent of these bombing raids is to wipe out all Iraqi air defenses within the main corridor that US troops will use in a push across the Kuwaiti border towards Baghdad. This would clear the way not only for unfettered US bombing, but also the use of helicopters and transport planes to bring in troops and supplies.

In a number of cases, bombs supposedly aimed at radar installations or anti-aircraft positions have fallen on heavily populated areas, resulting in the killing and wounding of Iraqi civilians. The Western media barely bothers to report these deaths, which now occur almost every other day.

In one such incident last December 1, missiles slammed into a building housing the state-owned Southern Oil Company in the densely populated city of Basra, killing four office workers and passersby and wounding 27 others. On December 26, bombs again struck civilian targets—including a mosque—in southern Iraq, killing three people and wounding 16.

Iraq has reported over 1,400 civilians killed by US and British attacks over the past 10 years. While Washington has dismissed virtually every report of civilian casualties, the UN’s own statistics indicate that close to 400 have died in bombings carried out over the past four years alone.

These attacks, which kill and maim men, women and children and destroy the basic infrastructure of an already war-ravaged country, are only a foretaste of the “overwhelming firepower” that the Pentagon promises to unleash against Iraq. Plans leaked by the Pentagon promise that a firestorm of some 800 cruise missiles will rain down on Baghdad, a city of nearly 5 million people, in the first 48 hours of the US war. In all, the US plans to unleash some 3,000 precision-guided bombs and missiles against the country in the first two days of the military assault.

As unprovoked acts of aggression against an essentially defenseless population, the deployment of troops in northern Iraq and the no-fly zone bombings—not to mention the slaughter yet to come—constitute war crimes according to the provisions of the United Nations Charter and long-standing tenets of international law.

In both legal and moral terms, these actions are comparable to Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 or Japanese imperialism’s rape of China during the same period. Behind all of the lies about “weapons of mass destruction” and Baghdad sponsorship of terrorism, the motivation is likewise similar—the attempt to overcome systemic economic and social crises at home by means of aggressive war against a weak and oppressed nation.

Yet it is the governments of Bush and Blair, those responsible for this aggression, that will be going to the UN Security Council this week as Iraq’s accusers, posing as the defenders of “peace.” The claims by both governments to be driven by concern for the inviolability of UN resolutions and international law reek with hypocrisy.

The buildup to war has exposed the UN itself as a pliant tool of imperialism. It is institutionally incapable of indicting Washington and London for war crimes; such treatment is reserved only for small, impoverished countries. At the most, it will provide a public charade behind which the five permanent members of the Security Council thrash out the terms of a sordid bargain: a second resolution authorizing full-scale war in return for a share in the carve-up of Iraq’s oil wealth.

See Also:
Bush’s claims on Iraqi weapons—lies in pursuit of war
[1 February 2003]
Blix report to the UN: diplomatic charade masks US imperialist war aims
[29 January 2003]
Casting about for a pretext for war
Washington insists Iraqi scientists submit to private interviews
[25 January 2003]
One-quarter of British army sent for war vs. Iraq
[23 January 2003]


[< Back] [Ascend, Evolve, Expand.....]

Category:  

1 comment

8 Feb 2003 @ 15:30 by sharie : This is a power play on a global scale
Sent: Thursday, February 06, 2003 4:43 AM
Subject: Bush's War - a letter from Spain

This is a letter from a friend in Spain.

It is about 1 AM here in Barcelona. I wanted to share some of what I am seeing because it is important and explain why I think it is especially important to get out an demonstrate against the war on 2/15.

Spain is being presente by the Bush administratin as supporting the war on Iraq. This is not really the case. The news papers in Spain call it "La Guerra de Bush" (Bush´s War). Despite the fact that Spàin has agreed to allow the US use two bases to set up hospitals based on a bilateral treay, there appears to be very little support and very strong opposition to Bush´s war, the opposition saying that Spain is not obligated to support a unilatteral wa¡r outside the UN. I have followed this transformation of Spain´s official stance and it worth outlining lest you be deceived by the American press into thinking there is support of any substance here in Spain.

Based on the polls I have seen Spain is the most opposed of any European country to war with Iraq under any circumstances (over 50%). This is the highest in Europe. If there is no UN mandate the oppositon rises to over 80%. The Spanish media does a credible job from what I can tell in presenting both sides of he story.

When I left the internet cafe this morning I heard very loud sirens and then bursts of gunfire and then some bombs exploding. It was coming from a block or two ahead. The initial sense of terror turned to curiosity when I saw that nobody was running.

It was an anti war demonstration with some very effective street theater. Two vans had powerful speakers mounted on them and a guerilla theater groups was enacting a bombing/invasion. Victims were falling to the gound and when all were dead. They were individually outlined in white on the ground leaving the "crime scene" for about 20 bodies. This was followed the distribution of leaflets remindng people took place throughout reminding people if the demonstration on 2/15.

There were about 200 people in the march and theater troup. A crowd gathered and was very supportive.

I think the sound of the sirens was very effeectve and informative. Many Americans have bought the idea that war is a clean and efficient business and only gets the bad guys and would-be bad guys.


The thing that surprised me personally was the incredible sadness I felt to see this demonstration against my country. I tend to think of myself as human being or a citizen of the world first. I was surprised to realize how much of an American I see myslef as. My emotion was sadness not anger and betrayed my deep seated American values. They were demonstrating against my country and it made me intensely sad that my country was preparing to do such bad thngs that the entire world was standing up and say no to us.

When I went back to my hotel this evening, I turned on the TV and they were giving out Spain equivalent of the Oscars. They are called the Goyas. It was very much like the US academy award production. VIrtually everybody involved was wearing an anti-war badge. They were large black squares about 4 by 6 inches and had blood red letters saying No War.

Everybody who came to receive an award gave the typical sincere speech thanking people and most gave personal speechs against the Bush´s War. Two speeches were particularly poingnent.

The guy who recieved the best actor award spoke at length about the betrayal of the politicans running the country who have chosen to go against the will of the people who put them in office.

A life time ahcievement award was given to an elderly gentleman for 75 years in the pictures. There were excerpts from his pictures followed by a standing ovation that lasted about 5 minutes. In his speech he said that his career began in 1938 when he stepped out on the stage to give a reading of Federico Garcia Lorca´s poetry. (Lorca is considered to be the greatest Spanish poet of the 20th century and is widely known internationally. He was killed by Franco´s fascists at the age of 37.) He concluded his reception speech by saying that the one thing he deeply regreted in his life was that he didn´t see the elimination of the word war. He brought down the house.

I think our only hope to stop this war is to actively demonstrate along with the rest of the world against Bush´s policies. He does not have the world´s support.

It was shameful and ironic to read about Italy´s President Silvio Burlescone´s meeting with Bush several days ago in which he talked about the American Flag being a personal symbol of freedom.

Burlescone, one of Italy´s richest men, was just convicted of Enron-type insider trading in which he bought shares in a company at a very low price with full knowledge that there was going to be a disinformation campaign to inflate the price. As soon as the price rose, he sold it and it collapsed shortly afterwards. He is appealing on the basis that he didn´t get the inside information from someoine in the company--lots of people were apparently part of the conspiracy-- so it wasn´t technically insider trading.

Bush´s general strategy of dividing the spoils of Iraq with those who support his war apparently has gotten Eastern European countries to support him. I expected it to have more support in Spain but it apparently hasn´t.

Most people I have talked with knoiw tha the median in the US is not presenting the full picture and is managing public opinion. It is important to get the word or opposition out in a substantive manner.

Let me end here with some results from the most recent Gallup poll comparing Eureopean suport/opposition to Bush´s war with the American numbers.

The following is from the Gallup Website. Check out [link] for details.

The survey results show that approximately half of the citizens in the world are not in favour of military action against Iraq under any circumstances. The Argentines feel strongest (83%) against military action. A large percentage of the Spanish and the French feel the same way (74% and 60% respectively). A marked one out of five Americans (21%) is not in favour of military action under any circumstances. In general, a war against Iraq declared unilaterally by the US and its allies does not receive much public support.

The following are excerpts from the AP´s report on the poll;

A global survey published Friday gave fresh evidence of the differences in public support for military action against Iraq between Europe and the United States — finding that, on average, just over half the European public is opposed to war, compared with less than a quarter of Americans.

In surveys covering 39 countries, an average of 50 percent of people polled in 10 of the European member states said there were "no circumstances" under which they favored military action. An average of 54 percent of people polled in 11 other European countries agreed.

People were asked if they favored military action against Iraq and offered four possible answers: under no circumstances; only if sanctioned by the United Nations (news - web sites); unilaterally by the U.S. and its allies; don't know/no answer.

In the United States, 21 percent of respondents said no to war under any circumstances, 34 percent said they favored military action with U.N. sanction and 33 percent agreed with unilateral action.

In Britain, which has become Bush's strongest ally in the campaign against Iraq, 41 percent said no under circumstances, 39 percent would support U.N. sanctioned action and only 10 percent agreed with unilateral action.

In France, Germany and Russia, where leaders have opposed unilateral action by the United States and Britain, a majority of respondents said no under any circumstances — 59 percent in Russia, 60 percent in France and 50 percent in Germany.

Backing for unilateral action was low — 7 percent in Russia and France and 9 percent in Germany.

Nick,

Barcelona 4:30 AM  

Your Name:
Your URL: (or email)
Subject:       
Comment:
For verification, please type the word you see on the left:

Other entries in
2 Aug 2006 @ 17:19: Positive reasons....
26 May 2006 @ 15:31: Rise and Fall of the American Empire
19 Apr 2004 @ 01:50: Kerry on "Meet the Press"
19 Jan 2004 @ 17:48: Let's Stop Hitler Again......
14 Jan 2004 @ 21:57: The World Mind and Consciousness
30 Oct 2003 @ 07:54: Bush press conference
27 Mar 2003 @ 17:20: Casualties at Home
16 Mar 2003 @ 10:16: Elizabeth Smart X100,000
31 Dec 2002 @ 13:05: Free Speech International Refuge
17 Dec 2002 @ 10:44: REVOLT! White American Uprising


[< Back] [Ascend, Evolve, Expand.....] [PermaLink]?