[Shahnawaz]

The Iraqis Don't Really Want Us

By William Blum

Did you miss this? It should have been the lead story in every newspaper and radio and TV program in America. In the Washington Post it was on page 14. In virtually all of the rest of the media it was on page zero, channel zero, 0000 AM or 00.0 FM.

The US military in Iraq hired firms to conduct focus groups amongst a cross section of the population. A summary report of the findings was obtained by the Post. Here are some of the highlights of the report as disclosed by the newspaper:

Until the March 2003 US occupation Sunnis and Shiites coexisted peacefully.

Iraqis of all sectarian and ethnic groups believe that the US military invasion is the primary root of the violent differences among them.

After the United States leaves Iraq, national reconciliation will happen "naturally."

A sense of "optimistic possibility permeated all focus groups ... and far more commonalities than differences are found among these seemingly diverse groups of Iraqis."

Dividing Iraq into three states would hinder national reconciliation. (Only the Kurds did not reject this option.)

Most would describe the negative elements of life in Iraq as beginning with the US occupation.

Few mentioned Saddam Hussein as a cause of their problems, which the report described as an important finding, implying that "the current strife in Iraq seems to have totally eclipsed any agonies or grievances many Iraqis would have incurred from the past regime, which lasted for nearly four decades -- as opposed to the current conflict, which has lasted for five years."

The Washington Post added this note: "Outside of the military, some of the most widespread polling in Iraq has been done by D3 Systems, a Virginia-based company that maintains offices in each of Iraq's 18 provinces. Its most recent publicly released surveys, conducted in September for several news media organizations, showed the same widespread Iraqi belief voiced by the military's focus groups: that a U.S. departure will make things better. A State Department poll in September 2006 reported a similar finding."[1]

This just in: The US has found the perfect way to counteract such foolish attitudes of the Iraqi people. On January 10, the Associated Press reported: "U.S. bombers and jet fighters unleashed 40,000 pounds of explosives on the southern outskirts of Baghdad within 10 minutes Thursday in one of the biggest air strikes of the war, flattening what the military called safe havens for al-Qaida in Iraq." There was no mention of whether the planes had also dropped pamphlets saying: "We bomb you because we care about you."

On December 20, the legislature of Panama declared the date to be a day of "national mourning" in memory of the American invasion on that day in 1989. "This is a recognition of those who fell on Dec. 20 as a result of the cruel and unjust invasion by the most powerful army in the world," said Rep. Cesar Pardo, of the governing Democratic Revolutionary Party, which holds a majority in the legislature. U.S. officials downplayed the issue. "We prefer to look to the future," said a U.S. Embassy spokesman. "We are very satisfied to have a friend and partner like Panama, a nation that has managed to develop a mature democracy."[2] As with their attack on Iraq on March 19, 2003, the United States, with no provocation or international legality (yes, another war of aggression), first bombed Panama, then staged a ground invasion, killing as many as a few thousand, while offering no believable reason for their psychopathic behavior.[3]

Will we some day see in a free and independent Iraq the setting of March 19 as a day of national mourning?

Some further thought re the 9/11 truth movement

When I say, as I did in last month's report, that I don't think that 9-11 was an "inside job", it's not because I believe that men like **** Cheney, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, et al. are not morally depraved enough to carry out such a monstrous act; these men each has a piece missing, a piece that's shaped like a social conscience; they consciously and directly instigated the current Iraqi and Afghanistan horrors which have already cost many more American lives than were lost on 9/11, not to mention more than a million Iraqis and Afghans who dearly wanted to remain amongst the living. In the Gulf War of 1991, Cheney and other American leaders purposely destroyed electricity-generating plants, water-pumping systems, and sewage systems in Iraq, then imposed sanctions upon the country making the repair of the infrastructure extremely difficult. Then, after twelve years, when the Iraqi people had performed the heroic task of getting these systems working fairly well again, the US bombers came back to inflict devastating damage to them all once more. My books and many others document one major crime against humanity after another by our America once so dear and cherished.

So it's not the moral question that makes me doubt the inside-job scenario. It's the logistics of it all -- the incredible complexity of arranging it all so that it would work and not be wholly and transparently unbelievable. That and the gross overkill -- they didn't need to destroy or smash up ALL those buildings and planes and people. One of the twin towers killing more than a thousand would certainly have been enough to sell the War on Terror, the Patriot Act, and Homeland Security. The American people are not such a hard sell. They really yearn to be true believers. Look how they scream hysterically over Hillary and Obama.

To win over people like me, the 9/11 truth people need to present a scenario that makes the logistics reasonably plausible. They might start by trying to answer questions like these: Did planes actually hit the towers and the Pentagon and crash in Pennsylvania? Were these the same four United Airline and American Airline planes that took off from Boston and Newark? At the time of collision, were they being piloted by people or by remote control? If people, who were these people?

Also, why did building 7 collapse? If it was purposely demolished -- why? All the reasons I've read so far I find not very credible. As to the films of the towers and building 7 collapsing, which make it appear that this had to be the result of controlled demolitions -- I agree, it does indeed look that way. But what do I know? I'm no expert. It's not like I've seen, in person or on film, numerous examples of buildings collapsing due to controlled demolition and numerous other examples of buildings collapsing due to planes crashing into them, so I could make an intelligent distinction. We are told by the 9/11 truth people that no building constructed like the towers has ever collapsed due to fire. But how about fire plus a full-size, loaded airplane smashing into it? How many examples of that do we have?

But there's one argument those who support the official version use against the skeptics that I would question. It's the argument that if the government planned the operation there would have to have been many people in on the plot, and surely by now one of them would have talked and the mainstream media would have reported their stories. But in fact a number of firemen, the buildings' janitor, and others have testified to hearing many explosions in the towers some time after the planes crashed, supporting the theory of planted explosives. But scarce little of this has made it to the media. Likewise, following the JFK assassination at least two men came forward afterward and identified themselves as being one of the three "tramps" on the grassy knoll in Dallas. So what happened? The mainstream media ignored them both. I know of them only because the tabloid press ran their stories. One of the men was the father of actor Woody Harrelson.

Notes:

[1] Washington Post, December 19, 2007, article plus accompanying sidebar; see also the Anti-Empire Report of August 18, 2006, last item, for another Post article demonstrating the belief of the Iraqi people, as well as American military personnel, that things would be better if the US left the country.

[2] Associated Press, December 20, 2007

[3] For the full details, see William Blum, "Killing Hope", chapter 50.

Source: Information Clearing House

[shadha]

Shahnawaz: After the United States leaves Iraq, national reconciliation will happen "naturally."

I'll believe that when I see it happen.


shadha-

[Shahnawaz]

Well, it can only happen when the occupation leaves.

[ChotooMotoo]

Originally Posted by shadha

Shahnawaz: After the United States leaves Iraq, national reconciliation will happen "naturally."

I'll believe that when I see it happen.


shadha-

indeed. wasn't there tribal violence for centuries before the british made Iraq a country? Why would it suddenly cease?

[zzze]

asslamau alaykum

They should still get the hell out. Who do they think they are? This is all about splitting up iraq. Dumbos will get what they deserve soon enough insha Allah.

[Shahnawaz]

indeed. wasn't there tribal violence for centuries before the british made Iraq a country? Why would it suddenly cease?

You, missy, are a joke.
"Maintaining tribal violence" (which doesn't require "your Boys") is not an excuse for occupation.
Funny how you make so many excuses for the US occupation, yet this is not extended to the believers.

Trait of Nifaq, that is. Harsh with the beleivers and humble and reconciling with the disbeleivers.

[MuslimZ]

Originally Posted by Shahnawaz

You, missy, are a joke.
"Maintaining tribal violence" (which doesn't require "your Boys") is not an excuse for occupation.
Funny how you make so many excuses for the US occupation, yet this is not extended to the believers.

Trait of Nifaq, that is. Harsh with the beleivers and humble and reconciling with the disbeleivers.

Why don't you just come out and proclaim us all munafiqoon, instead of this veiled insinuation. It would be more sincere on your part.

[Variable]

I don't know what to think anymore... seeing as how I think I was wrong at every turn of this conflict. When it began I thought "hey great! They'll liberate the land of tyranny - even if their motives are less than sincere"... not so much.

Then I thought a year ago that they should just pull out - it was pretty much a civil war, Rumsfeld was still hanging around and what would 30000 more tired troops going to do.

But, as they say in the military, "the enemy has a vote in every plan"... and this time the US' enemy voted to overstep their boundaries... Al Quaeda managed to piss off their base of support more than the Americans had. Baghdad's violence decreased as the number of American troops stationed there increased. People who weren't clinging to old agendas were put in charge, and it seems to be making a difference. So, I was wrong again...

So now... I just don't know. I don't think this article is the definitive word on the Iraqi's sentiments. If I were Iraqi, I wouldn't much want the Americans there either, but I might want them more than the rival sect in the next neighbourhood over. (and no, the Americans aren't responsible for the sectarianism in Iraq, it was a characteristic part of Saddam's rule and part of the country long before that)

[MuslimZ]

Originally Posted by Variable

If I were Iraqi, I wouldn't much want the Americans there either, but I might want them more than the rival sect in the next neighbourhood over.

This tends to be the most popular sentiment amongst the younger, educated Iraqis that are pushing for reconstruction and throwing out the corrupt biased garbage that pretends to run the country. No one is happy with the occupation. Yet it is begrudgingly seen as the necessary burden to endure until things can be brought under control. The majority of this group see the much greater danger that lies in a country bereft of any authority, impartial police force, or any sort of stability whatsoever. If the clowns in power are given control of the country as the US abandons Iraq; all hell will break lose and the flames will never be stopped.

Until a new, competent, young, and sincere leadership can arise, with the well-trained, well-restrained peacekeeping force to support it; it is ludicrous to demand the complete withdrawal of the US.

No one is happy with the present situation; but now, more than ever, is the time for rational, careful action; rather than rash decisions that could completely cripple the nation permanently. The concept of an immediate withdrawal is based completely on the instinct of instant gratification.

[displaced]

arabs (or maybe just egyptians) have a saying:

"ana we akhuya 3ala ibn 3amy, wana we ibn 3any 3ala ba2eet el nas."

which translates to:

"my brother and I are against our cousin, my cousin and I are against everyone else."

i.e. no matter how much arabs squabble, we don't want foreigners hanging around.

[Aryan_]

Originally Posted by displaced

"my brother and I are against our cousin, my cousin and I are against everyone else."

I prefer the one about tying your camel. How do you say that?

[Variable]

Originally Posted by MuslimZ

This tends to be the most popular sentiment amongst the younger, educated Iraqis that are pushing for reconstruction and throwing out the corrupt biased garbage that pretends to run the country. No one is happy with the occupation. Yet it is begrudgingly seen as the necessary burden to endure until things can be brought under control. The majority of this group see the much greater danger that lies in a country bereft of any authority, impartial police force, or any sort of stability whatsoever. If the clowns in power are given control of the country as the US abandons Iraq; all hell will break lose and the flames will never be stopped.

Until a new, competent, young, and sincere leadership can arise, with the well-trained, well-restrained peacekeeping force to support it; it is ludicrous to demand the complete withdrawal of the US.

No one is happy with the present situation; but now, more than ever, is the time for rational, careful action; rather than rash decisions that could completely cripple the nation permanently. The concept of an immediate withdrawal is based completely on the instinct of instant gratification.

The situation is pretty worrisome, the whole "Awakening" movement is in it's infancy, and it may fizzle, or may outgrow itself pretty soon. Then there are the militias who are sitting around not doing anything, but still armed to the teeth. So many different factions... but it seems that many are sick of the violence and are willing to play ball with old enemies. Fingers crossed things move a long a positive trajectory.

[Jamroll]

The Americans should withdraw all their troops, and start funneling lots and lots of money into Iraq to help rebuild infrastructure and institutions. The Iraqis should be left to govern themselves. It's patronizing to insist that the Iraqis need us there, otherwise they will implode and start eating each others entrails.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Jamroll

The Iraqis should be left to govern themselves. It's patronizing to insist that the Iraqis need us there, otherwise they will implode and start eating each others entrails.

The question is how? How would this new government form? There are so many groups in Iraq that have their own idea on how things should be... including groups that are willing to use violence against unarmed people to achieve that.

And what the Americans are saying now is not that the Iraqis need them there to govern them, but to provide security... which in some cases increases with American presence and in other places decreases with American presence. Funneling all of the money in the world won't help if there is still conflict.

In the end, what no one can dispute is that the most secure places in Iraq is where people have laid down their weapons against each other and the Americans and have focused instead on rebuilding. To some here that may sound like defeat, and to them it's more important that the Americans are humiliated even if that means every building in Iraq gets knocked down doing it.