Bob Giaquinta for Congress

The Mismanaged War on Terrorism

Iraq-June 2005

As the quagmire of the invasion of Iraq plods on, George the Younger is the only one, backed by his puppeteers, Cheney and Rumsfeld, declaring our victory. Even his staunchest cohorts in the legislature are starting to distance themselves from him, there are mid-term elections coming up. Bush's greatest talents, oratory and self-denial, are still holding strong (when I use the word Bush I mean he and his advisors, I'm not sure who is making the decisions). Doesn't he realize and can't he admit he was wrong. Can't he apologize to the citizens of the world and admit that he is and was wrong.

The administration's lack of understanding of the history of Iraq was its first blunder. Iraq was controlled by the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years, with its population basically tribal in nature. The ruling Sunni controlled the area, which was Shiite in majority, for hundreds of years. The difference between the Sunni, and Shiite was basically a right to ascendancy of control of the Muslims after the death of the prophet Mohammed in the seventh century. One group backed one of his father-in-laws, and one backed one of his son-in-laws (Mohammed had several wives). A civil war followed and the differences are still being felt today. You might liken this to Christianity's Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Methodists, Presbyterian, etc. Churches. All are Christian religions, but how many wars have been fought between each other to establish the "true" Christianity?

Bush also likened the war as a crusade. Bad choice of words! During the crusades of Richard the Lionhearted and his cohorts, a great number of atrocities were committed. Whole cities were slaughtered without any heed whether the population was Moslems, Jews or Christians. In one city the crusaders cannibalized the citizenry. These facts are part of the oral history in the area. For Bush to use the word crusade showed some real genius.

After World War I, with the demise of the Ottoman Empire, the British took control of this area. Eventually, in 1932, Iraq was granted its independence, and the Hashemite Monarchy was created, while basically still controlled by the British. A coup in 1958 overturned this government, lead by Quassim's socialist government. In 1963 another coup (backed by the CIA), by Arif, changed governments. This party ruled until 1968, when the B'aath party overthrew this government. Saddam took over leadership of this government, and was given aid by the USSR. In the early 1970s he actually started many people oriented programs, such as agrarian reform, free education, etc. At that time our power base in the area was Iran, other than Israel, with the US backed Shah. With the Shah's departure, and the government being controlled by Islamic clerics, our power base was in trouble. Saddam made a better deal with the US, and disassociated Iraq from the USSR, and became our "boy" in the area, helping us to combat Iran's influence there. In the 1980's, Iraq and Iran had a war that lasted eight years, we provided financial backing for Saddam. Saddam thought he had U.S. approval to invade Kuwait, but he misread the US's desires, or the US changed its mind after covertly giving its approval. Another factor, which is greatly unknown, was that Saddam was threatening to change the oil dollars (US) to Euros which would diminish the stability of the dollar. This had to be punished, he was now a "bad boy" (after we ignored his genocide and repression for many years). Enter the First Gulf War. After being ejected from Kuwait, and losing the war, Bush the First told the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam by revolution. The Shiites and Kurds tried, resulting in the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Shiites and Kurds, as Bush One stood around and watched, offering no help. The US's goal was to keep a powerful dictator which we could control, other than Saddam, but Saddam was too strong, and this strategy didn't work.

The winners of WWI artificially produced Iraq's borders. It encompassed three large, different, and distinct groups, the Sunnis, Kurds and Shiites, with smaller minorities, the Turks, Armenian, etc. The Shiites are the largest majority and are more orthodox Islamic than the others, more like those in control of Iran. The Kurds speak a different language, not Arabic, and are Sunnis. The ethnicity of the Kurds is a much stronger bond than being Sunnis, the Arabic Sunnis, under Saddam, wrecked havoc on the religiously equal, but ethnically different Kurds. The Sunnis ruled the land for decades, although they were not the largest majority. The Sunni B'aath party, under Saddam, was in charge, in fact in order to be "elected" to the government one had to be a member of the B'aath Party. If teachers, engineers, etc. wanted to advance in their field, they had to be B'aath Party members. Naturally with this power, the other regions suffered, and built up resentment to the Sunnis. Iraq, with probably the second most oil reserves in the world, has become a strategic part of the US's designs for continued world domination.

The reasons we should not have gone to war were numerous. Without a large international coalition, backed by the UN, much like the First Gulf War, the US's involvement would be interpreted as an imperial over-reach by most of the world, and rightfully so. The weapons inspections were fruitful at that time, and the UN chief inspector wanted to continue on this course to find or prove that there were no weapons of mass destructions (WMD). If the US was successful in defeating and ousting Saddam, an occupation would only legitimize regional defiance, we are still considered infidels, and have no right to be on Islamic territory. If Democracy eventually failed, Iraq could become a haven for international terrorism, exactly what we were trying to eliminate. There was still the resentment to Bush One and the US for not backing the Kurds and Shiites revolutions after he advised them to do so. Not only would the US not have a large UN backed coalition, but also their largest ally would be the British, Iraq's former colonizer.

None of these points seemed to be considered when Bush decided to oust Saddam. He had this goal previous to 911, as reported by several administrators, including his previous Terrorism Czar, Richard Clark. Bush's Secretary of the Treasury said that the first order of business, at his first meting after the inauguration, was how to get rid of Saddam. I'm not so sure that the same scenario would not have been put in place if Gore had been elected in 2000. In 1997 Clinton's defense secretary, William Cohen, warned that Saddam had enough VX to kill everyone in the world. Secretary of State Albright said Saddam was "Hitleresque" and would use his weapons of mass destruction. Clinton's national security advisor, Sandy Berger, warned Saddam would use WMDs. In 1998 Clinton said Saddam had stockpiles of chemical and biologic weapons, and the capacity to quickly restart production of WMDs. This "fear factor" was being used by the Democrats before 911, and helped set the stage for Bush's invasion. Unfortunately, 911 gave the US government a new "evil" to replace the "communist threat" which had been used by our government for many decades. We tried to use the "war on drugs" for several years, but that was self-limiting. We now had a new slogan, " the war on terrorism", to have an excuse to reduce American citizen's rights (Patriots Act) and control the rest of the world, with big business as the main recipient of the profits. Manipulated reports from intelligence agencies indicated that there were WMD in Iraq, which were to be used against the US, none have been discovered. Also, Bin Laden and Saddam were plotting to terrorize the US, and Saddam was a player in 911. Not so. Bin Laden despised Saddam as much as the governments of the US, Britain, and Saudi Arabia. Intelligence showed Saddam had nothing to do with 911. Only after these assertions were proven false did the new spin come out, Democracy for Iraq, ready or not.

Although Bush did go to the UN to form a coalition to oust Saddam, telling the citizens of the US that he was exhausting all efforts to settle this peacefully, he could not get much support from the world. The Downing Street Memos show that he was just going through the motions. A meeting with the British, before Bush went to the UN, basically said that the British should get ready for war with Saddam, unilaterally, they probably would not get support from the UN. Although these papers were reportedly destroyed, neither Bush nor Tony Blair ever denied them. Could it be that they fear if they did deny the accusations, the papers would suddenly reappear, and they would be caught in a provable lie?

A former diplomat, Joe Wilson, was sent to Niger by the CIA to check out the validity of Sadaam's intent to purchase nuclear resources. Wilson had been ambassador to Iraq, and two African nations. In an op-ed piece he said that the memos were forged, which has been substantiated, and there was no such operation. Shortly thereafter, Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, who was a CIA operative, was revealed to the press by a Whitehouse official, just to "get even" for Wilson's affront. Independent Council Fitzpatrick is investigating the leak, which may involve Libby, Rove, Cheney, etc. This is how the Bush administration deals with anyone who disagrees with the administration's arrogant falsehoods.

The State Departments role in this whole affair is hard to comprehend. The State Department did a study, in 2002, about a war and reconstruction of Iraq. They are knowledgeable in this area, that is there job! Bush ignored The Transition to Democracy in Iraq report that the State Department had produced. Such recommendations as:

1. The number of troops necessary to accomplish Iraqi democracy, about 500,000.
   
2. Do not disband the Iraqi Army, they are needed for security.
   
3. Do not purge the B'aath Party, they control the infra structure of the country and are needed for a smooth transition.
   

None of this was considered by Bush. After the six weeks of the war, and we had "won", he, in his flight suit aboard a US aircraft carrier, arrogantly challenged the insurgents (if we were the insurgents we would be called patriots) to "Bring it on!" They have! Instead of turning the reconstruction over to the State Department, which was the standard procedure, Bush put the Pentagon in charge. This job is not in their area of expertise, and they had no plan.

Cheney and his cronies told us that we would be welcomed as liberators, which actually lasted for a few hours. Due to lack of forces, "coalition" and the non-existent Iraqi Army, we only protected the oil fields. The unprotected infrastructure, government buildings, electricity plants, museums, etc. were not controlled. When the Iraqi people saw this they came to the conclusion that we were only interested in the oil, they're not stupid. If this was not true, then why didn't we immediately try to turn over authority to the UN? We were not liberators, but rather occupiers. We compounded this by bringing in exiled leaders, who definitely could control their countrymen. The native Iraqi did not respond well to this action. Some of these exiles were crooks, such as our top puppet Chalabi. General Garner wanted our forces out in a few months, and wanted to turn the country over to Chalabi. Chalabi hadn't been in Iraq since 1958, and had no backing. We paid him million of dollars for many years. He was to be our "puppet" leader. As a military expert, Garner knew his position was not tenable due to lack of troops. With the failure of inserting Chalabi, the occupation began. Chief of Staff Shinesky asked for 400,000 troops in order to control Iraq. This recommendation was heard by deaf ears, Bush did not want full mobilization, that would be bad politics for the 2004 presidential election. Thus Shinesky was blown off. General Sanchez claimed he did not have the equipment and parts to fight an effective war. He was not backed up. You cannot develop a democratic state without a state, and the state must have a monopoly on controlling violence. By not having enough troops, the borders were not secured, allowing " Jihad" terrorists to infiltrate the country. Also, the stores of Iraqi weapons were not protected. This combination of willing fanatical foreign terrorists, and unprotected arms proved to be an explosive combination. Although the US military was selected to control the formation of a democratic Iraq (without a plan), the commanders were ignored by Bush whenever they asked for something, and they were either removed from command or asked to retire (their careers were over).

The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), headed by Paul (Jerry) Bremer, was the Pentagon's governing organization for the occupation of Iraq, replacing General Garner. Bremer previously worked for Kisssenger, Haig and the neo-conservative think tank Heritage Foundation. He might have been the wrong person, despite his intellect, and background. He ruled with an iron fist, took little heed of his advisors, and probably did not stand up to Bush. With UN Resolution 1483, he was given complete authority to rule Iraq, legitimizing the occupation, and infuriating the Iraqi. He then proceeded to disband the Iraqi army, with little or no pay, putting hundreds of thousands of soldiers on the street the with no jobs. He purged all B'aath party members creating a vacuum of government workers, teachers, engineers, etc. He appointed the 25 members of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), mostly exiles, without the consideration of opinions of religious or government officials. Each one of the IGC Iraqi members had an " American advisor" to keep them in check. Sistani, the most respected Shiite religious leader, would not legitimize the IGC, saying they were not elected. Bremer did not realize that Sistani was a moderate, who believed the government should not be run by clerics, as in Iran, but must consider Islamic law in the constitution. Brahimi, from the UN helped, smooth things out, after resolution 1843. Sistani agreed to a transitional government with elections before May 2005, which would compose a constitution, by August 15, 2005. After the constitution was ratified by vote of the people on October 15, 2005, general elections, on December 15, 2005, would follow.

Things really started to fall apart while the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) was being composed. During this procedure of writing a provisional constitution Bremer forced things, and ignored Iraqi feedback and the Sunni. He underutilized diplomats in the State Department, some of his staffers were 24 year olds, just out of college (many of them from the Heritage Foundation), who had the power to disperse money. His staff was rotated every few months, lacking any cohesiveness. Rather than giving the money to the provinces, having them disperse it to repair the infrastructure, he centralized disbursement, the money was not getting to where it was needed. Rather than awarding contracts for repairing Iraq to Iraqi companies, and giving jobs to the 50% unemployed Iraqi, 98% was given to international "contractors", with "no bid" contracts, such as KBR, a Halliburton subsidiary (Cheney's previous employer, and he has millions of dollars of stock options which he will use in the future). This allowed time for these unemployed to ferment and become terrorists. The greatest numbers of these contractors were for security, about 20,000 mercenaries. They did not have to answer to anyone, and were not compelled to any law. These contactors were also responsible for feeding our troops, delivering oil, etc. Billions of dollars were spent and billions are unaccounted for. The US has now "privatized" war, not only paying large corporations for the materials, but also paying them for running the war logistically.

Sadir, a young Shiite Islamic fundamentalist, with his Mahdi Army was causing problems in the south. Rather than negotiating with or eliminating him, Bremer ignored Sadir. A coalition of other tribal militia eventually forcibly quieted him down, he was too radial for Sistani. With the TAL completed, everyone knew it was not legitimate and would be replaced, but it did show the areas which would be a problem for the permanent constitution, the selection of the provisional government was started. UN envoy Brahimi, and Bremer basically chose who would be on it, and the US turned over the government to the TAL in June 2004. However, the country was still occupied. Bremer got out of town immediately, with his accounting records, which were under investigation by the UN. The infrastructure for producing the oil was repaired, and the oil was flowing, under Bremer's reign. What can't be explained is why the meters that measure the flow of oil were not repaired. Could it be that there was some oil unaccounted for? The proceeds of the sale of Iraqi oil is supposed to pay for the war and rebuilding of Iraq. Where is it?

The insurgency, or rebellion, or civil war, depending on how you look at it, intensified, led by the Sunni, who thought they got the raw end of the deal, and foreign terrorists. The insurgents are assassinating Iraqi people and Coalition (American) forces. Rather than pulling out or sending the proper amount of troops to contain the situation, Bush did nothing other than saying that " progress was being made".

The Sunnis were so upset with the provisional government and TAL, that they boycotted the January 2005 elections, which put them in a more desperate situation. Although a concession was made to allow them to have 17 of 53 of the representatives on the council that was composing the constitution, they were still unhappy.

As it stands at this time, the same problems exist as when the TAL was being composed. The major problem is the concept of " Federalism", where the provinces have an autonomy, which is wanted by the Kurds, who have been autonomous for 13 years (they really want to secede), and the Shiite. The areas controlled by the latter two groups have an abundance of oil. The territory of the Sunni has very little. The Sunni want their fair share, whereas the Kurds and Shiite want to keep a greater portion for themselves. This, along with the resentment towards the Sunni that is still apparent, due to the decades of repression that both groups suffered at the hands of the Sunni, leads to a volatile mixture. The amount of control by Islam is another problem. The Sunni want Iraq to be an Arab state, the Shiites want it to be an Islamic state, and the Kurds don't want to be part of the state. The status of women is also a big problem. Surprisingly, under the Saddam regime women had more rights than in any other Islamic state. Women were protected in the TAL, by being assured of 20% representation in the legislature. The way the constitution stands now they will become second-class citizens.

Our reorganizing and build-up of the Iraqi army at this point is a waste. Not only is it too late, when we train Sunnis for the Iraqi Army, their loyalties are to the Sunni. When we train Kurds, their loyalty is to the Kurds. When we train Shiites, their loyalty is to the Shiites. Hopefully, when we are training and equipping these armies we are doing it equally. This way if and when a civil war erupts it will be a fair fight.

Isn't anyone in the Bush administration a student of history? Do they think that USA stands for United States of Amnesia? One doesn't have to go back thousands of years to see that when a totalitarian state is eliminated there is a break-up of its constituents. Two recent examples are; when the USSR was dissolved a myriad of different states appeared, and when a microcosm of this event, the breakup of Yugoslavia, unfolded the same thing happened. Most of the states formed from the disintegration of the USSR was done fairly peacefully, due to the fact that most countries were countries before and religiously similar, Ukrania, Estonia, etc. They had their own ethnicity, religion, etc. and able to function as independent states quite easily. Yugoslavia was formed after WWI, combining Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, etc. These had been separate states also, but they didn't like each other, mostly due to religious differences, but had been combined into one state, eventually being controlled by the Tito and the USSR. Without the totalitarian control, we experienced the Balkan crises of the 1990's, which included civil war, and genocide. What did Bush expect when he removed the totalitarian Saddam regime, which like the Balkan states, were diverse and didn't like each other?

Democracy is a government that is legally and honestly elected by its constituents, usually combined with some civil rights. It does not mean all democracies have to be the same as ours. In fact, no government formed recently has copied our constitution, most have used a parliamentary system. If the people of a nation vote in a socialist government, this is still democracy. When Bush "offered" democracy to Iraq he couldn't tell them what democracy was for them, that is their choice, and he would have to live with the consequences. There is a rule that lawyers follow when questioning a witness, " If you don't know the answer, don't ask the question". If you offer democracy you must accept the consequences.

The way things are going, the US will spend 500 billion dollars, lose over 2,000 troops, and will have killed tens of thousands of Iraqi. These estimates are if we get out in the next year. If it takes us another 4 years we can probably double these amounts. What will Bush gain. Several scenarios can be explored as to the eventual conclusion of this situation: US occupation could continue for 4-20 years. This will further infuriate the nations of the world, especially the Muslim states. Iraq will become a great training area for terrorists. We will definitely be considered imperialists, with a great loss of life on both sides, an increase in US homeland terrorist attacks, and a great expenditure of funds. I don't think the US citizens will stand for this.

With a pullout of coalition forces, a vacuum may be created which fanatical extremists, or bordering countries may try to fill. This will lead to more bloodshed, and who knows what type of government.

With a gradual pullout of forces the government may survive. However, it will be a loose federation. It will probably still be named Iraq, but it will probably be West Iran (Shiites), South Kurdistan (Kurds), and South Syria (Sunni). I'm sure border clashes will occur, and the possibility of all-out civil war exists.

So Bush's great experiment of democracy, after all other justifications for war had vanished, really has been a great success.

In our recent history, notably the Vietnam War, some lessons should have been learned by our government ,and it's citizenry. Lies by Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon as to the extent of our involvement and purposes of that war are now known, mostly due to the Freedom of Information Act of the late 1960's. The wool is constantly being pulled over our heads. Are we so apathetic to what our government does in our name? Is it ignorance, complacency … what? Where are the students that rallied against the Vietnam War? We are now in our 50's and 60's, probably in high positions and/or financially secure. Where are our voices? Were we only protesting because we might be drafted, protecting ourselves?

It took eight years for the US to withdraw from Vietnam after the anti-war protests were organized and massively supported in 1968. If something is not started soon the government's real Iraqi objective will be accomplished, to have a US military presence in the area to protect the petroleum corporation's profits.

October 2005

The ratification of the constitution was successful, due to an eleventh hour compromise in favor of the Sunnis. The insurgency continues, with over 2000 US soldiers, and tens of thousands of Iraqi killed. Now they have to have an election!

Cheney's Chief of Staff, Scooter Libby, has resigned after being indicted in the Valerie Plame affair. Rove is still under investigation in this matter, and maybe Cheney.

President Bush continues to arrogantly state that the US will keep its resolve, insinuating that those opposed are not patriotic and not supporting our troops.

January 2006

The Iraqi election took place. There hasn't been much reported on the outcome. I think that they are still counting the votes. They're even slower than in Florida! Those darn chads.

Nothing has been forthcoming from Fitzpatrick as to further indictments in the Plame affair.

Bush has admitted to some poor decisions, and "welcomes honest critics". The hawkish Democratic Representative Murtha, who is a decorated war hero, called for a withdrawal of US troops. If he isn't an honest critic I don't know who is! Bush and Cheney called his statement reprehensible and aiding our enemies.

The administration is becoming dictatorial. In 1968 the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was passed. The government could wiretap communications within the US as they saw fit, but must get a warrant within 72 hours, from a secret judiciary panel. Prior to 911 more than 15,000 warrants were petitioned, about 10 were refused. Bush is not getting warrants and believes he doesn't have to. The 5th Amendment is now being negated by Bush. Cheney says that we can mistreat prisoners (they were against McCain's proposal barring all torture, but reluctantly folded), and can lock up people, by calling them enemy combatants and not soldiers, without a charge, forever. We are now forced to recognize that renditions, moving prisoners to other countries noted for their brutal tactics in interrogations, are being ordered by the military. This action is outlawed by the Geneva Convention. Their argument is that the presidents "wartime" powers overrides constitutional guarantees. The Rules of Law, Separation of Powers, and the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution are being ignored.

A letter from former high-ranking government officials and law professors was sent to congressional leaders stating that Bush's actions violates existing law. The Congressional Research Service, which is a non partisan branch of congress, stated "It appears unlikely …that congress has expressly or impliedly authorized NSA electronic surveillance…".

It seems that Bush believes that his "Commander in Chief" status allows him to do anything he wants to do when at war. If so, any president can declare war on anyone and it is his right to become a dictator. The US is supposedly fighting for liberty in Afghanistan and Iraq and diminishing it from the USA.

The Pentagon's National Security Agency (NSA) has now taken over for the CIA and, to a lesser extent, the FBI. The NSA, which has a very close association with the top telecommunications industry, has instituted "The Program". The transit traffic on telephones and the internet are "switched" through the USA, which, they say, allows them to have surveillance on these messages, even though they are only supposed to snoop outside of the country. There is no independent oversight. The control of intelligence by one agency, under the control of the military, can become a big problem. When the military controls information we only get one point of view, the military's. The pentagon has spent millions in public relation. advertising propaganda. to confuse the people of the US. The CIA and FBI could give different views and outlooks when situations arise. There are no longer checks and balances in the intelligence community!

October 2007

Two years later and nothing has changed, except for the death toll and other casualties, and the spending has increased to about $600 billion. Scooter Libby was found guilty in the Plame affair, and was immediately pardoned by Bush. Rumsfeld has resigned, and is being sought by France as a war criminal. The Democrats have taken control of congress, and have done nothing. Presidential powers are becoming stronger with no checks and balances. The top contenders for president don't see us getting out until 2013. Torture and rendition continue. The cost of taking care of our wounded soldiers is $350 million over the next 40 years. The court system is throwing out claims by "renditioned" persons by declaring that it would violate the "state secrets doctrine". The new US Attorney General was confirmed after stating that he didn't know water boarding was torture (I know the terrorists are winning when our morality is being changed). Major communication companies have admitted to tapping communications. The "surge" is supposedly showing great improvement. We are approaching 4,000 dead, 30,000 wounded, more thousands of Iraqi dead, one million Iraqi refuges, and Bush thinks things are going fine.

April 2008

We've officially jumped the hurdle of 4,000 dead American servicemen. Iraqi deaths and refugees continue to mount. By the end of 2008 we will have spent one trillion dollars on this war. We are spending billions on an embassy, which is said to be more of a fort than an embassy. But the Surge is working, …until last week. Now we have the Shiite factions fighting each other for control. Basra is a shambles due to the "legitimate" government attacking Al Sadr forces for control of southern Iraq. The transparency of the "Surge" is now showing its true colors, much like the "Tet" offensive of the Vietnam War opened the eyes of our populace. The decline of deaths was not that we had more troops in country. The government hides the facts that the Sunnis and Shite are now separated into isolated compounds, which are controlled by warlords, and ethnic cleansing is under control because of this factor. The Sunni and Shiite are separated. Nor do they tell us that we are paying the Sunni militias to get rid of the Al-Qeada insurgents. They didn't say that the unilateral suspension of fighting by the Al Sadr army had anything to do with it. This last attack by the Iraqi government on Al Sadr, which had to be taken over by US troops because it was a flop, shows how fragile this civil war is. As I wrote several years ago, we cannot control a civil war.

The military is extending the tours of servicemen, by about seven months. This is called stop-loss, but many are calling it a "backdoor draft". Those who enlisted voluntarily, are being held longer, whether they want to or not. Recruitments are down, and this is a way of hiding that fact.

The Kurds are being invaded by Turkey, with our help and approval. It took the US six weeks to get to Bagdad, hopefully we can get out in an orderly fashion in a few months. Let's get started. Hopefully the next administrations foreign policy makers will have negotiations with the countries that surround Iraq. Their help is needed to try and repair this fragmented peoples.

To be continued, hopefully not too much longer!

Return to Issues.