|
|
|
|
|
Polly Mann, W A M M
|
Almost every day we hear of U.S. soldiers dying in Iraq. We hear little about the deaths of Iraqi civilians, but this is almost standard procedure for the U.S. media. The implication is that the only deaths Americans are concerned about are those of our own.
The deaths of U.S. soldiers are, of course, greatly disturbing the Pentagon. And according to journalist Seymour Hersh in a recent article in The New Yorker magazine, it is causing a reevaluation of military strategies. The Bush Administration, believing that members of the Baathist Party are responsible for the continuing violence in Iraq, has sought advice from Israeli military and intelligence officials. As a result, Israeli commandos and intelligence units have been working closely with their U.S. counterparts at the Special Forces training base at Fort Bragg, North Carolina.
The U.S. is planning to assemble teams of Iraqi intelligence troops and train them to penetrate the Baathist insurgency. A former CIA station chief described the strategy to Hersh: “We have to resuscitate Iraqi intelligence, holding our nose, and have Delta and agency shooters break down doors and take them—the insurgents—out.”
An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said: “The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.”
The new Special Forces operation is aimed at the broad middle of the Baathist underground. But many of the officials Hersh interviewed were skeptical of the plans, citing the Phoenix program of the Vietnam War as an example of an operation that got out of control. A former Pentagon official said: “There will be a lot of close controls—dos and don’ts and rules of engagement. The problem is, we’ve not penetrated the bad guys. The Baath Party is run like a cell system. It’s like penetrating the Vietcong—we never could do it.”
A senior Arab diplomat noted: “We do not believe that the resistance is loyal to Saddam. Yes, the Baathists have reorganized, not for political reasons but because of the terrible decisions made by Jerry Bremer, the director of the Coalition Provisional Authority. The Iraqis really want to make you pay the price. Killing Saddam will not end it.” We know, now that Saddam has been captured, that the diplomat was right.
Reporter Julian Borger, in a recent article in the British Guardian Weekly, quotes U.S. intelligence and military sources as confirming that Israeli advisers are already in Iraq, training American Special Forces in aggressive counter-insurgency operations, including the use of assassination squads against guerrilla leaders. “U.S. forces in Iraq’s Sunni triangle have already begun to use tactics that echo Israeli operations in the occupied territories, sealing off centers of resistance with razor wire and razing buildings from where attacks have been launched against U.S. troops. But the secret war in Iraq is about to get much tougher, in the hope of suppressing the Baathist-led insurgency ahead of next November’s presidential election. U.S. Special Forces teams are already behind the lines inside Syria attempting to kill foreign jihadists before they cross the border, and a group focused on the ‘neutralization’ of guerrilla leaders is being set up, according to sources familiar with the operations.”
A former senior U.S. intelligence official stated that “this is basically an assassination program. That is what is being conceptualized here. This is a hunter-killer team.” He concluded that he feared the new tactics would inflame a volatile situation in the Middle East.
The first I learned of an assassination attempt conducted by the U.S. military was in a tiny article in the inside pages of the Star Tribune many months ago. I was astounded that there was no editorial denouncing the policy, but I thought surely there would be letters to the editor protesting this policy. This country is not about assassinations. It is about capturing enemies or criminals and trying them in a court of law—not murdering them.
Finally, a dissenting voice was heard. In a recent “Democracy Now!” radio interview hosted by Amy Goodman, retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. John Gardner said all the things I have been hoping for—indicting the U.S. military for such practices, which are against the rule of law and against the U.S. Constitution. Gardner had to be retired from the Air Force to make such statements, for under current laws he could be reprimanded or perhaps court-martialed for questioning government policy.
If the U.S. military is to follow the Israeli military model, will it adopt the following policies the Israeli military have used against Palestinians? Would the U.S. military destroy roads leading from one village to another? Ration water, including that used by hospitals? Destroy date palm trees, olive trees, and other Iraqi crops? Establish curfews that keep Iraqis confined within their homes, unable to work, attend school, buy food, etc.? Demolish homes? Imprison and torture Iraqis?
Not all Israelis, of course, endorse these policies. Israeli journalist and peace activist Uri Avnery says Palestinians are humiliated daily, not abstractly but concretely, and that the above practices result in a Palestinian rage that is responsible for suicide bombers.
Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s response to the suicide bombers and other attackers is force and more force, retaliation, an eye for an eye. The usual response to an identified Palestinian attacker is to bulldoze his home. The U.S.-based Caterpillar Company has designed such a bulldozer especially for this use.
The Israeli military engages routinely in targeted assassination. Why would the Bush Administration look to the Israeli military for answers to its problems in Iraq? Obviously, the Israeli military has not succeeded in quelling the Palestinians.
What might work to bring order out of chaos in Iraq? Retired U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, in a 1998 editorial published in the National Catholic Reporter, offered a solution with which many WAMM members would agree: “Getting rid of our nuclear weapons—unilaterally if necessary—will enhance our security. Drastically altering our foreign policy will insure it. Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children. Instead of continuing to kill thousands of Iraqi children every day with our sanctions, we should help Iraqis rebuild their electric power plants, their water treatment facilities, their hospitals—all the things we destroyed and prevented them from rebuilding with sanctions.
“Instead of training terrorists and death squads we should close the School of the Americas. Instead of supporting insurrection, destabilization, assassination, and terror around the world, we should abolish the CIA and give the money to relief agencies. In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is what the American people need to hear.” w |
|
|
Co$t of War
Estimated cost of the war in Iraq as of 10:00 p.m., Friday, January 23, 2004:
$97,260,426,472
For the same amount of money, an estimated 1.3 million additional public school teachers could be hired for one year.
—www.costofwar.com
|
|
|
|
© 2004 Women Against Military Madness. All rights reserved.
|
 |
|
Complete February 2004 Index - click here
|
|
 |
|
|
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
|
|
|
|
|
|
