Jefferson Corner

On January 26, 2007, the Canadian Prime Minister, Mr. Stephen Harper took the very courageous decision and personally and formally issued an apology to Maher Arar, the Canadian citizen of Syrian origin for the wrongful imprisoned and torture. Mr. Arar, on a tip from the Royal Canadian Mountain Police was arrested by US authorities on September 26, 2002 while in transit at JFK and sent to Syria, via Jordan to be imprisoned and tortured on terror charges by the very professional and well experienced Syrian secret police. A year of torture that tells the story of Syria’s of the middle ages.
The case of Maher Arar shed a clear and shameful light on the behavior of both the US and Canadian authorities who became and continue to act and behave with contempt and without any due regards to human rights and without due regards to constitutional rights and international treaties. Syria does not give a damn about human rights in the first place.
Maher Arar, a wireless engineer was arrested on very flimsy evidence, perhaps no evidence, on terror related charges. It seems that both the Canadian and US authorities were desperate to file charges against people, who looked like and smelled like Arabs and Muslims. Maher was arrested in New York and was interrogated for over 8 hours and then was shackled and put away at the Metropolitan Detention Center. When asked for a lawyer, a representative of our US Injustice Department told him as Canadian he was not entitled to a lawyer. This story changed when a day later he was taken from his cell at 9 pm to see his lawyer. When he arrived at the meeting room, there were some dozen of terror and security experts , but no lawyer, who made arrangements for Maher to be deported via Jordan to Syria. Maher always insisted on his innocence but US security and terror experts where not interested in the truth nor the facts or evidence. They wanted numbers.
The decision to deport Maher Arar was taken at the highest level of the US Injustice Department by Secretary John Aschcroft, the very devout man with good and true Christian values and his deputy Larry Thompson. Secretary Aschcroft like all senior officers within the Chaney-Bush administration were desperate to show Americans and America that their war on terror was in full swing, to make up for the security screw up that allowed the hijackers to take over several civilian aircrafts killing and murdering over 3000 innocent Americans. Aschcroft declared that Arar was deported to protect America and that he has a right to do so.
Of course unlike the US, Canada seems to behave differently and has not been hijacked by the so-called national security, terror experts and think tanks, decided to open an inquiry into the case and the national commission headed by Dennis O’Connor concluded that Maher Arar was absolutely innocent and cleared him of any and all charges. The US as expected never admitted any wrongdoing and insists that its decision is based on classified information. Of course and unlike the US where officials who screw up in their job never get fired but get promoted and get awarded America’s highest medals like Paul Premer and George Tenet, the chief of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Giuliano Zaccardelli was forced to resign because of his contradictory (lies) testimony to the House of Common Committee on Public Safety and National Security. The Canadian Prime Minister by personally appearing and issuing his public apologies showed that he was not only a statesman, but a man of courage and represents the true democratic and human values that made our friends to the north a model state in North America.
Now to Syria. Every day we hear from the Chaney-Bush administration about how bad Syria is, and that its government supports terrorism and support torture and its kills and murder its citizens. Well, why would a country with such a reputation (it is true) be the choice for the US to subcontract the torture of Maher Arar to? Because, Syria is an excellent model of a criminal state and it is a state that for over 60 years, and especially under the Assad dynasty and the Ba’athis Party have been committing murder left and right and is well known in the Arab world as one of the worst countries, there are several of them, when it comes to torture and human rights abuse. I am sure Syria’s prison walls have tens of thousands of stories to tell about the torture and killing of innocent people, false charged with violating Syria national security.
By selecting Syria as the subcontractor for the torture of Maher Arar, the US could not have done any better. Of course, the US Constitution forbids such torture and to over come this clear constitutional prohibition, US security officials decided to go over seas and seek the truth. Of course the truth was always there, Maher Arar was no terrorist. Thank you Canada and than you Mr. Stephen Harper. Perhaps you can teach some of our officials some sense of humility in the face of truth.

Share This

Let me state from the very start that Hamas engagement in suicide bombing within Israel of 67 was not only morally wrong, but was a disaster for Hamas and for the Palestinian people and cause. As a former soldier, I always believe in the rights of the Palestinians in fighting the occupation using military means. However, I never accepted the idea of killing and murdering innocent civilians and never understood let alone believe in the fairy tales of 70 virgins waiting for those who commit simple murder of innocent people.
One year have passed since Hamas won a fair and square elections, perhaps the most open and closely watched elections in any part of the Arab world. Of course, if one is to look into the backgrounds of such election, one can see that the Palestinians voted for Hamas, not because Hamas want to liberate Palestine from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River, but because the people were sick and tired of Fatah, and its long time dominance of Palestinian politics and decision making process. More importantly, the Palestinians by voting Hamas in, where voting Fatah, the corrupt to the core organization out of office. It is an open secret that Fatah not only robbed the country blind but also was fleecing every one and every company, not to mention the collusion of some of its leadership with the Israeli Occupation, let alone entering into business with the Israeli Occupation in building the Wall and Israeli settlements.
Too bad that Fatah colluding with Israel, the US and the EC did not give Hamas a chance to show what they can do and to meet their commitments to clean a corrupt government. Hamas was virtually isolated and boycotted by key countries and by the Palestinian leadership from the very start. As such it is very difficult to make a judgment on Hamas performance as a government. It simply did not have a chance to do any thing. More over, Fatah and its partisan civil service Fatah cronies (reminds me of the days of the late Richard Daley and Chicago) making sure that Hamas got itself in a hole with worries about meeting the payroll for Fatah employees and never have the chance to implement and carry out any of its reforms and clean the government and bring charges against those who simply fleeced the people, let alone end the occupation.
During its first year of office, Hamas have failed at all fronts. It failed at meeting the payroll, failed at keeping law, order and security, and of course failed at ending the occupation and made a mess of the Israeli evacuation from Gaza. However one must not put all of the blames on Fatah and its leadership. Hamas and its leadership should also share the blames. Hamas simply failed to understand the need to reach out to the world and to reach out to the Arab countries, especially King Abdallah of Saudi Arabia and enlist his support for the Arab Peace Plan. Hamas acted as if it is living in a vacuum, with the elected leadership waiving its rights to make decisions for the people, giving such rights to the un-elected leadership in Damascus. Hamas failed to inform the people who elected it to power, and tell them that Khalid Mishal has a veto power over any thing and every thing, and that the voters are beholding to the decisions from Damascus. Hamas never acted like a government.
Hamas leadership proved itself as incompetent as that of Fatah, putting the interest and priorities of people on the back burners while putting its own selfish interest first. So far, Hamas did not come up with an alternative to President Mahmoud Abbas election platform. Meanwhile, Hamas and Fatah by supporting kidnapping and killing of each other and of innocent people proved they are unfit and are incapable of leading the struggle to end the Israeli Occupation. The Palestinian people and especially leading intellectuals and businessmen such as Dr. Mustafa Bargouthi, and Dr. Haider Abdul-Shafi share the responsibility for not mobilizing the people to have an alternative leadership to the old and failed, incompetent and corrupt Fatah and provide an alternative to Hamas which proved it is not yet ready for prime time and certainly does not have the world view needed to gain the support of the Arab and world community to end the Israeli Occupation.
Too bad for the people of Palestine, Hamas and Fatah have moved away from the main mission, which is ending the Israeli Occupation and focusing on their own narrow and selfish interests, while exposing the people and the country to the risk of civil war. It seems that the Palestinian people are unwilling to learn from the past and are incapable to rise up to the occasion. The Palestinian leadership for the last 100 years or so has been nothing but a disgrace, full of selfish interest and incompetent to lead to independence and freedom. Hamas leadership is behaving in the same way as Fatah leadership, of course absence the corruption and fleecing of the people, but never the less as incompetent as Fatah. Those responsible for the killing in Gaza should be brought to trial, but then there was never an independent system of justice and court system. The absence of the rule of law, was supported by the US and Israel and Europe during the days of Arafat, when his preventive security organizations where arresting people left and right and were committing acts of torture, not to mention acts of murder. All this was ok with the US and Israel as long as Arafat was meeting his contractual security commitment to Israel. Khalid Mishal, why are you making the decisions, when you were never elected by any one, and never appeared on the ballot? If the Palestinian people wanted to have a government run from Damascus, they would say so. Mr. Ismail Haniyah, you are a decent man, but you do not have the leadership and the will power to lead and make decisions on your own. As for Fatah it is a lost cause, there is nothing that could be done, not even $500 million from the US could ever fix and repair such an organization. One would think with Arafat death the idea of Arab trusteeship is over, however Hamas proved us wrong. If Damascus is unable to liberate the Golan Heights how can Hamas believe Damascus is able to liberate the Palestinians from the Israeli Occupation?

Share This

It is a well known fact that our congress, the US Congress is for sale. And the Israeli lobby is the biggest stock holder in our Congress, trading, buying and selling members left and right, and in many cases, even staff the offices of members of congress. For the $ 50 millions or so, the Israeli lobby invest in congress, every election cycle, members of congress vote, aned award, Israel and the lobby some $10 billions. A retun on invesment of some 2000% not a bad return on investment. Even the most savy of investors on Wall Street could never achieve such a return. The sad thing for America and for Israel is that such an investment in congress is against the long term interest of the US and also of Israel. The lobby is not doing members of congress or the US any favor. the money invested allows members of congress to waive their rights and duties to vote on the issue and make the decisions, allowing their staff members to make such decisions for an on behalf of members of congress. One need to wonder how many schools and hospitals a $10 billions every election cycle could do for us, the tax payers. There must be a way to make sure the congress is not for sale.
Sami Jadallah

The Christian Science Monitor from the January 26, 2007 edition

The hidden cost of free congressional trips to Israel Branded as ‘educational,’ these trips offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story.

By Jim Abourezk SIOUX FALL, S.D.

- Democrats in Congress have moved quickly – and commendably – to strengthen ethics rules. But truly groundbreaking reform was prevented, in part, because of the efforts of the pro-Israel lobby to preserve one of its most critical functions: taking members of Congress on free “educational” trips to Israel. The pro-Israel lobby does most of its work without publicity. But every member of Congress and every would-be candidate for Congress comes to quickly understand a basic lesson. Money needed to run for office can come with great ease from supporters of Israel, provided that the candidate makes certain promises, in writing, to vote favorably on issues considered important to Israel. What drives much of congressional support for Israel is fear – fear that the pro-Israel lobby will either withhold campaign contributions or give money to one’s opponent. In my own experience as a US senator in the 1970s, I saw how the lobby tries to humiliate or embarrass members who do not toe the line. Pro-Israel groups worked vigorously to ensure that the new reforms would allow them to keep hosting members of Congress on trips to Israel. According to the Jewish Daily Forward newspaper, congressional filings show Israel as the top foreign destination for privately sponsored trips. Nearly 10 percent of overseas congressional trips taken between 2000 and 2005 were to Israel. Most are paid for by the American Israel Education Foundation, a sister organization of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the major pro-Israel lobby group. New rules require all trips to be pre-approved by the House Ethics Committee, but Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts says this setup will guarantee that tours of Israel continue. Ron Kampeas of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported consensus among Jewish groups that “the new legislation would be an inconvenience, but wouldn’t seriously hamper the trips to Israel that are considered a critical component of congressional support for Israel.” These trips are defended as “educational.” In reality, as I know from my many colleagues in the House and Senate who participated in them, they offer Israeli propagandists an opportunity to expose members of Congress to only their side of the story. The Israeli narrative of how the nation was created, and Israeli justifications for its brutal policies omit important truths about the Israeli takeover and occupation of the Palestinian territories. What the pro-Israel lobby reaps for its investment in these tours is congressional support for Israeli desires. For years, Israel has relied on billions of dollars in US taxpayer money. Shutting off this government funding would seriously impair Israel’s harsh occupation. One wonders what policies Congress might support toward Israel and the Palestinians absent the distorting influence of these Israel trips – or if more members toured Palestinian lands. America sent troops to Europe to prevent the killing of civilians in the former Yugoslavia. But when it comes to flagrant human rights violations committed by Israel, the US sends more money and shields Israel from criticism. Congress regularly passes resolutions lauding Israel, even when its actions are deplorable, providing it political cover. Meanwhile, polls suggest most Americans want the Bush administration to steer a middle course in working for peace between Israelis and the Palestinians. Consider, too, how the Israel lobby twists US foreign policy into a dangerous double standard regarding nuclear issues. The US rattles its sabers at Iran for its nuclear energy ambitions – and alleged pursuit of nuclear arms – while remaining silent about Israel’s nuclear-weapons arsenal. Members of Congress may not be aware just how damaging their automatic support for Israel is to America’s interest. At a minimum, US policies toward Israel have cost it valuable allies in the Middle East and other parts of the Muslim world. If Congress is serious about ethics reform, it should not protect the Israel lobby from the consequences. A totally taxpayer-funded travel budget for members to take foreign fact-finding trips, with authorization to be made by committee heads, would be an important first step toward a foreign policy that genuinely serves America.
• Jim Abourezk is a former Democratic senator from South Dakota.

Share This

Few days ago, while having breakfast at a café on the Corniche in Tangier, looking to Spain in the not far distance, I read a short story in one of the Moroccan newspapers, announcing that on the suggestions of authorities in the US, American tour operators are planning to assign security officers to groups traveling to Morocco. With the conclusion that American tourists traveling to Morocco need American security officers to protect them against terror attacks. Not so sure what kind of weapons they will carry!
This very short story prompted me to write this posting raising questions about the basis for such decisions. To me it seems the decision is made along the same line as that of George Bush and his weapons of mass destructions in Iraq.
These days, it seems that war on terror has taking a life of itself, creating a business, unlike any other business, where so called “security” experts, first scare the hell out of people, then tries to play on the fear of citizens and try to raise that fear in order to fill the need that arise out of such fear. Like the Chaney-Bush, they try to scare the hell out of people, and once they feel the people are scared, they try to increase the degree of fear, and then they come up with nothing but mumpo-jumop slogan and offers of security for the people, wasting hundreds of billions on the war on terror.
This business of security from terror is nothing more than a racket, a business, perpetuated by the Chaney-Bush administrations for the benefits of their friends and of course every Tom, Dick and Harry, not to mention, Shlomo, Avi, and Natan. Even lovers of certain governor where hired as “security and terror experts”.
The disturbing thing about this story is that the false needs for such security and terror experts to accompany tourists traveling in Morocco. I have been traveling to Morocco for over 20 years and I travel to the country almost every month and I travel by car, alone all over Morocco and all I can say, the country is much safer than New Orleans, Washington DC, not to mention Chicago, Detroit and Miami.
Few years back a number of British and German tourists where attacked and killed while on their way from Miami International Airport to Miami and North Miami. No one in the state of Florida and in Miami decided to arrange for armed security officers to accompany these tourists. It seems that the idea of arranging for security details to accompany American tourists traveling within Morocco is much more than a simple security concerns for the lives of American tourists. It has every thing to do with a political and self serving reason to show Americans traveling in Morocco instilling fear and of course telling they have every reason to be concerned and they should fear terror attacks and of course with raising the fears, comes the offer to fill the gab, and of course, finding jobs to the many retired police and military personal. American tourists are more safe in Morocco than back at home and there are no real or imagined reasons for allowing such security details to accompany these tourists. Of course the biggest danger to American tourists not terror, but dangerous and reckless Moroccan drivers who are danger to themselves and danger to the people at large. More tourists’ die from reckless drivers than from terror attack. Some 13 years ago, some Algerians terrorist shot and killed few Spanish tourists in Marrakech and in 2002 some home grown Moroccan terrorists killed a score of Moroccans. I was here in May when this terrorist’s attack took place and I was out on the streets watching as hundreds of thousands of Moroccans took to the streets to denounce these terrorists and their supporters. One has to give due credit to the Moroccan security organizations that were able to seek and arrest members of these terrorist organization. Morocco may have some problems, but terror toward American tourists is not one of them. It is so unfortunate for Morocco and especially to American tourists that the Chaney-Bush administration continues to promote fear for self-serving certain political and ideological reasons. Americans are by and large some of the most decent tourists, very good and humble attitude, curious, generous, and very caring. I think the people in Morocco have a much understanding of world politics and worldview than the experts’ sittings in the White House. Drop the idea it is a stupid idea.

Share This

The article listed appeared in the NYT editorial page on January 4th. President George H.W.Bush has some great leaders and thinkers within his circles of advisors unlike his son who does not have one single person that can rise to a serious intellectual, let alone a thinker or a philosopher with a vision for the future. Too bad for America first and too bad for President George W. Bush that he did not reach to his father for help, instead relied on “stupid” think tanks in Washington to get him in the mess in the first place and to keep him in the mess when he needed to get out. More disgusting is the photo posting in todays electronic Haaretz, the Israeli paper, of Secretary Roce smiling next to that racist, facist Maldovian Jew, Avigdor Lieberman, who not only advocate the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from their home land of Palestine, but who also advocate the wholesale murder and assasination of Palestinians and of course, with the objective of stealing their lands. Standing and smiling with that racist Jew, Perhaps Secretary Rice has some message to the Palestininans. I wonder what someone as racists as Avigdor Lieberman thinks of Blacks?
Sami Jadallah

From the New York Times
January 4, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor

Getting the Middle East Back on Our Side
By BRENT SCOWCROFT
Washington

THE Iraq Study Group report was released into a sea of unrealistic
expectations. Inevitably, it disappointed hopes for a clear path through the
morass of Iraq, because there is no “silver bullet” solution to the
difficulties in which we find ourselves.

But the report accomplished a great deal. It brought together some of
America’s best minds across party lines, and it outlined with clarity and
precision the key factors at issue in Iraq. In doing so, it helped catalyze
the debate about our Iraq policy and crystallize the choices we face. Above
all, it emphasized the importance of focusing on American national
interests, not only in Iraq but in the region.

However, the report, which calls the situation in Iraq “grave and
deteriorating,” does not focus on what could be the most likely outcome of
its analysis. Should the Iraqis be unable or unwilling to play the role
required of them, the report implies that we would have no choice but to
withdraw, and then blame our withdrawal on Iraqi failures. But here the
report essentially stops.

An American withdrawal before Iraq can, in the words of the president,
“govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself” would be a strategic
defeat for American interests, with potentially catastrophic consequences
both in the region and beyond. Our opponents would be hugely emboldened, our
friends deeply demoralized.

Iran, heady with the withdrawal of its principal adversary, would expand its
influence through Hezbollah and Hamas more deeply into Syria, Lebanon, the
Palestinian territories and Jordan. Our Arab friends would rightly feel we
had abandoned them to face alone a radicalism that has been greatly inflamed
by American actions in the region and which could pose a serious threat to
their own governments.

The effects would not be confined to Iraq and the Middle East. Energy
resources and transit choke points vital to the global economy would be
subjected to greatly increased risk. Terrorists and extremists elsewhere
would be emboldened. And the perception, worldwide, would be that the
American colossus had stumbled, was losing its resolve and could no longer
be considered a reliable ally or friend — or the guarantor of peace and
stability in this critical region.

To avoid these dire consequences, we need to secure the support of the
countries of the region themselves. It is greatly in their self-interest to
give that support, just as they did in the 1991 Persian Gulf conflict.
Unfortunately, in recent years they have come to see it as dangerous to
identify with the United States, and so they have largely stood on the
sidelines.

A vigorously renewed effort to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict could
fundamentally change both the dynamics in the region and the strategic
calculus of key leaders. Real progress would push Iran into a more defensive
posture. Hezbollah and Hamas would lose their rallying principle. American
allies like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states would be liberated to
assist in stabilizing Iraq. And Iraq would finally be seen by all as a key
country that had to be set right in the pursuit of regional security.

Arab leaders are now keen to resolve the 50-year-old dispute. Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert of Israel may be as well. His nation’s long-term security can
only be assured by resolving this issue once and for all. However, only the
American president can bring them to the same table.

Resuming the Arab-Israeli peace process is not a matter of forcing
concessions from Israel or dragooning the Palestinians into surrender. Most
of the elements of a settlement are already agreed as a result of the
negotiations of 2000 and the “road map” of 2002. What is required is to
summon the will of Arab and Israeli leaders, led by a determined American
president, to forge the various elements into a conclusion that all parties
have already publicly accepted in principle.

As for Syria and Iran, we should not be afraid of opening channels of
communication, but neither should we rush to engage them as negotiating
“partners.” Moreover, these two countries have differing interests,
expectations and points of leverage and should not be treated as though they
are indistinguishable.

Syria cannot be comfortable clutched solely in the embrace of Iran, and thus
prying it away may be possible. Syria also has much to gain from a
settlement with Israel and internal problems that such a deal might greatly
ease. If we can make progress on the Palestinian front before adding Syria
to the mix, it would both avoid overloading Israel’s negotiating capacity
and increase the incentives for Damascus to negotiate seriously.

Iran is different. It may not be wise to make Iran integral to the regional
strategy at the outset. And the nuclear issue should be dealt with on a
separate track. In its present state of euphoria, Iran has little interest
in making things easier for us. If, however, we make clear our
determination, and if the other regional states become more engaged in
stabilizing Iraq, the Iranians might grow more inclined to negotiate
seriously.

WHILE negotiations on the Arab-Israel peace process are under way, we should
establish some political parameters inside Iraq that encourage moves toward
reconciliation and unified government in Iraq. Other suggested options, such
as an “80 percent solution” that excludes the Sunnis, or the division of the
country into three parts, are not only inconsistent with reconciliation but
would almost certainly pave the way to broader regional conflict and must be
avoided.

American combat troops should be gradually redeployed away from intervening
in sectarian conflict. That necessarily is a task for Iraqi troops, however
poorly prepared they may be. Our troops should be redirected toward training
the Iraqi Army, providing support and backup, combating insurgents,
attenuating outside intervention and assisting in major infrastructure
protection.

That does not mean the American presence should be reduced. Indeed, in the
immediate future, the opposite may be true, though any increase in troop
strength should be directed at accomplishing specific, defined missions. A
generalized increase would be unlikely to demonstrably change the situation
and, consequently, could result in increased clamor for withdrawal. But the
central point is that withdrawing combat forces should not be a policy
objective, but rather, the result of changes in our strategy and success in
our efforts.

As we work our way through this seemingly intractable problem in Iraq, we
must constantly remember that this is not just a troublesome issue from
which we can walk away if it seems too costly to continue. What is at stake
is not only Iraq and the stability of the Middle East, but the global
perception of the reliability of the United States as a partner in a deeply
troubled world. We cannot afford to fail that test.
————————-
* Brent Scowcroft was national security adviser to Presidents Gerald R. Ford
and George H. W. Bush. He is now president of the Forum for International
Policy.

Share This

Mr. Robert Fisk, is perhaps the best journalist any where. Lots of smarts, lots of guts, lots of courage and lots of vision. Perhaps congressional staff members, espcially Democrats, should make Mr. Fisk a required reading for their bosses. Both can learn a great deal and have a better insight into what is going on around the world. A whole lots of smart that Weekly Standard could never match.
Sami Jadallah

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/fisk/article2144057.ece

Robert Fisk: Bush’s new strategy - the march of folly
So into the graveyard of Iraq, George Bush, commander-in-chief, is to send another 21,000 of his soldiers. The march of folly is to continue…
Published: 11 January 2007
There will be timetables, deadlines, benchmarks, goals for both America and its Iraqi satraps. But the war against terror can still be won. We shall prevail. Victory or death. And it shall be death.

President Bush’s announcement early this morning tolled every bell. A billion dollars of extra aid for Iraq, a diary of future success as the Shia powers of Iraq ­ still to be referred to as the “democratically elected government” ­ march in lockstep with America’s best men and women to restore order and strike fear into the hearts of al-Qa’ida. It will take time ­ oh, yes, it will take years, at least three in the words of Washington’s top commander in the field, General Raymond Odierno this week ­ but the mission will be accomplished.

Mission accomplished. Wasn’t that the refrain almost four years ago, on that lonely aircraft carrier off California, Bush striding the deck in his flying suit? And only a few months later, the President had a message for Osama bin Laden and the insurgents of Iraq. “Bring ‘em on!” he shouted. And on they came. Few paid attention late last year when the Islamist leadership of this most ferocious of Arab rebellions proclaimed Bush a war criminal but asked him not to withdraw his troops. “We haven’t yet killed enough of them,” their videotaped statement announced.

Well, they will have their chance now. How ironic that it was the ghastly Saddam, dignified amid his lynch mob, who dared on the scaffold to tell the truth which Bush and Blair would not utter: that Iraq has become “hell” .

It is de rigueur, these days, to recall Vietnam, the false victories, the body counts, the torture and the murders ­ but history is littered with powerful men who thought they could batter their way to victory against the odds. Napoleon comes to mind; not the emperor who retreated from Moscow, but the man who believed the wild guerrilleros of French-occupied Spain could be liquidated. He tortured them, he executed them, he propped up a local Spanish administration of what we would now call Quislings, al-Malikis to a man. He rightly accused his enemies ­ Moore and Wellington ­ of supporting the insurgents. And when faced with defeat, Napoleon took the personal decision “to relaunch the machine” and advanced to recapture Madrid, just as Bush intends to recapture Baghdad. Of course, it ended in disaster. And George Bush is no Napoleon Bonaparte.

No, I would turn to another, less flamboyant, far more modern politician for prophecy, an American who understood, just before the 2003 launch of Bush’s illegal invasion of Iraq, what would happen to the arrogance of power. For their relevance this morning, the words of the conservative politician Pat Buchanan deserve to be written in marble:

“We will soon launch an imperial war on Iraq with all the ‘On to Berlin’ bravado with which French poilus and British tommies marched in August 1914. But this invasion will not be the cakewalk neoconservatives predict … For a militant Islam that holds in thrall scores of millions of true believers will never accept George Bush dictating the destiny of the Islamic world …

“The one endeavour at which Islamic peoples excel is expelling imperial powers by terror and guerrilla war. They drove the Brits out of Palestine and Aden, the French out of Algeria, the Russians out of Afghanistan, the Americans out of Somalia and Beirut, the Israelis out of Lebanon… We have started up the road to empire and over the next hill we will meet those who went before.”

But George Bush dare not see these armies of the past, their ghosts as palpable as the phantoms of the 3,000 Americans ­ let us forget the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis ­ already done to death in this obscene war, and those future spirits of the dead still living amid the 20,000 men and women whom Bush is now sending to Iraq. In Baghdad, they will move into both Sunni and Shia “insurgent strongholds” ­ as opposed to just the Sunni variety which they vainly invested in the autumn ­ because this time, and again I quote General Odierno, it is crucial the security plan be ” evenhanded”. This time, he said, “we have to have a believable approach, of going after Sunni and Shia extremists”.

But a “believable approach” is what Bush does not have. The days of even-handed oppression disappeared in the aftermath of invasion.

“Democracy” should have been introduced at the start ­ not delayed until the Shias threatened to join the insurgency if Paul Bremer, America’s second proconsul, did not hold elections ­ just as the American military should have prevented the anarchy of April 2003. The killing of 14 Sunni civilians by US paratroopers at Fallujah that spring set the seal on the insurgency. Yes, Syria and Iran could help George Bush. But Tehran was part of his toytown “Axis of Evil”, Damascus a mere satellite. They were to be future prey, once Project Iraq proved successful. Then there came the shame of our torture, our murders, the mass ethnic cleansing in the land we said we had liberated.

And so more US troops must die, sacrificed for those who have already died. We cannot betray those who have been killed. It is a lie, of course. Every desperate man keeps gambling, preferably with other men’s lives.

But the Bushes and Blairs have experienced war through television and Hollywood; this is both their illusion and their shield.

Historians will one day ask if the West did not plunge into its Middle East catastrophe so blithely because not one member of any Western government ­ except Colin Powell, and he has shuffled off stage ­ ever fought in a war. The Churchills have gone, used as a wardrobe for a prime minister who lied to his people and a president who, given the chance to fight for his country, felt his Vietnam mission was to defend the skies over Texas.

But still he talks of victory, as ignorant of the past as he is of the future.

Pat Buchanan ended his prophecy with imperishable words: “The only lesson we learn from history is that we do not learn from history.”

The Bush plan, and the question of withdrawal

What Bush says

20,000 troops increase

Mistake of not sending sufficient troops must be rectified. Troops stabilise Baghdad and reinforce Anbar province, on condition that Iraqis take on Shia militias

$1bn reconstruction aid

Fresh funds will help create jobs and stimulate economy to show Iraqis there can be a peace dividend, and friendly Middle East states should help out too

Pullout

US commitment to Iraq is not open-ended but no timetable for troop withdrawal, even though US troops are expected to hand control to Iraqis by November

What Congress says

20,000 troops increase

Troop build-up is a mistake. House expected to vote on increase, Senate legislation forces Bush to seek congressional approval but neither move could block troop deployment

$1bn reconstruction aid

Don’t throw good money after bad. US has squandered billions since the invasion and Democrats plan investigation. Millions of dollars ‘overpaid’ by Pentagon to Iraq contractors

Pullout

Bush has not learnt the lesson of November’s mid-term elections which gave Democrats control of the House and Senate on the platform of a phased withdrawal from Iraq

What Baker says

20,000 troops increase

Up to 20,000 military trainers and troops embedded into and supporting Iraqi army, while combat troops drawn down to avoid increase in total numbers

$1bn reconstruction aid

US economic assistance should be boosted to $5bn per year. US should take anti-corruption measures by posting oil contracts on the internet for outside scrutiny

Pullout

All US combat troops not needed for force protection should be out of Iraq by the first quarter of 2008

Likely outcome

20,000 troops increase

Escalation of conflict

Money will be wasted, with official corruption in Iraq said to drain $7bn a year

Pullout

Troop surge could disguise ‘cut and run’ depending on the circumstances in both Iraq and America

Share This