T
he
Pentagon announced that it had tested the biggest non-nuclear
bomb in history, 9.5 tons in weight, in preparation for
its use in Iraq. Two weeks earlier, General Richard Meyers, the
chairperson of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that
U.S. policy was to “shock” Iraq into surrendering by
unleashing 3,000 guided bombs and missiles over Baghdad in the
first 48 hours of the campaign. U.S. military officials calculated
that 300,000 Iraqi military and civilians would be killed. The
United Nations estimated that at least 10 million Iraqis would
be killed, wounded, displaced, and traumatized.
As the U.S. war against Iraq is prolonged, as Iraqi civilian and
military resistance hardens, as guerrilla and militia attacks
become more audacious, and the Anglo-American military casualties
mount and supply lines become more tenuous, the U.S. military-civilian
command escalates the war. Terror bombings of civilians are routine—targeting
large concentrations of civilians, especially in daylight, and
crowded market places. Military forces are ordered to engage in
“search and destroy” missions, made infamous in Vietnam,
focusing on locating and destroying civilian homes, schools, hospitals,
and any inhabitants in areas suspected of harboring “enemy
forces.” In a country where it has been demonstrated that
over 90 percent are hostile to the U.S. invasion, the “search
and destroy” policy makes explicit the genocidal nature of
the war. The consequences of Anglo-U.S. bombing of civilian targets
from above, means more Iraqi car bombs from below. The U.S. total
war against the Iraqi people has turned this into an international
“people’s war” against imperial conquest.
The most striking expression is the massive revival of Pan-Arab
solidarity throughout the entire Arab world—and, of course,
beyond. Not since the days of Egyptian leader Abdul Nassar have
there been so many millions of Arab citizens in the street expressing
solidarity and taking inspiration from the Iraqi resistance. The
Pan Arab upsurge has led to a movement toward democratizing Arab
nations: independent television stations have sprung up throughout
the region, semi-official newspapers in Egypt and elsewhere have
broken with their regimes and denounced U.S. aggression and Arab
collaborator regimes. Bush’s imperial plan of colonizing
the Middle East has boomeranged: the growing and powerful Pan
Arab movement threatens to provide the foundations for a vibrant
civil society, active anti-imperialist citizens capable of overthrowing
their corrupt pro- U.S. rulers, and evicting U.S. military bases.
As the Pan Arab movement spreads, Washington’s Arab client
regimes and covert allies begin to divide. Syria permits the flow
of food and light arms to Iraq. Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and the
Gulf States, who are threatened by mass protests and active hostility
by their entire populations, repress and retreat. Thousands of
Arab volunteers, Iraqi exiles, and emigrants and non-Iraqis form
international brigades and cross the borders to join the Iraqi
resistance.
In the West, as the mass movements escalate their opposition into
large-scale, daily confrontations and civil disobedience, splits
occur within the governing elites. In England, former Labor Foreign
Minister, Robin Cook resigns; in Spain, Aznar’s long-time
political mentor breaks with the regime along with scores of local
officials.
On March 27, Euro-American business leaders meeting in Brussels
denounced U.S. uni- lateralism and severely interrogated Alan
Larson, a senior economic adviser to Colin Powell at the European
Policy Center. The European business leaders were particularly
incensed that the post-war billion dollar reconstruction contracts
were given to U.S. firms and the Europeans were excluded. Even
U.S. business elites complained that only firms allied to the
Cheney and Rumsfeld clique were selected.
While
the Western business elites squabble over the spoils of war, the
European regimes that opposed the U.S. unilateral war have partially
returned to their subservient position. On March 27, France, Germany,
and Belgium joined 22 other countries to defeat a motion to convoke
a special session of the UN Commission on Human Rights, to examine
the human rights and humanitarian situation of the Iraqi people
under savage attack from the U.S. In the General Assembly and
the Security Council, no concrete resolutions were forthcoming
to condemn U.S. imperialist slaughter on Iraqi civilians, despite
80 speakers on the first day of the session. While billions of
people outside the UN condemn the war, the UN is silent. This
demonstrates that the anti-war struggle is essentially an extra-parliamentary
battle.
The right-turn by the French regime is most evident in the politics
of “humanitarian aid.” On March 27, Dominique de Villepin,
the French Foreign Minister, called for a rapid restoration of
the United Nation’s “oil for food program” to provide
humanitarian aid to Iraq. He argued that the U.S. could administer
occupied Iraq “under the umbrella of the UN to confer legitimacy.”
He stated that the UN should approve, even if it did not run,
humanitarian operations in postwar Iraq. Clearly the European
regimes accept the U.S. conquest of Iraq, but hope to secure a
part of the oil wealth after voicing their opposition.
On the surface, the issue of humanitarian aid seems simple—supplying
food, water, and shelter to 23 million Iraqis whose lives and
livelihood have been destroyed by the U.S. war. But the politics
of humanitarian aid go much deeper and raise several fundamental
questions. Will humanitarian aid be an instrument of war and conquest
or disinterested support for victims of a criminal war? Is humanitarian
aid really aid? Who will deliver and what is the destination of
humani- tarian aid and under what conditions?
First, this is not really “aid”: the source of “aid”
is the income derived from the exploitation and sale of Iraqi
oil that has been confiscated by the UN-U.S. It is hardly a “humanitarian”
act to return a portion of the wealth stolen from a victimized
country. Humanitarian aid during and after the war is only destined
for U.S.-occupied territories and is offered to Iraqi-controlled
cities and villages on condition that they surrender. That is
not aid, but blackmail. Under current circumstances humanitarian
aid is part of the U.S. siege strategy: to starve and bomb the
civilian population. Military encirclement and the bombing of
markets and waterworks provokes hunger, thirst, and slow death
for millions. Humanitarian aid then is offered to break the resistance
of the most vulnerable and weakened sectors of the population.
In the post-war period, humanitarian aid will be used to legitimate
what Villepin calls “transatlantic solidarity,” and
U.S. colonial rule.
A real humanitarian aid policy would include contributions from
the UN in addition to the oil for food policy; a cease fire to
allow shipments of humanitarian aid to all civilian population,
especially those in Iraqi held cities and villages. Humanitarian
aid should be delivered to the Iraqi officials, Red Crescent,
and civil society groups for distribution and there should be
no “labeling” of aid for propaganda purposes. Bush approved
the UN humanitarian aid initiative, but the UN has not spoken
to any real humanitarian aid policy that deals with victims in
the cities controlled by the Iraqi resistance.
One of the major reasons why issues like humanitarian aid are
misunderstood is the role of the Anglo-American controlled mass
media (AAMM) and their counterparts in Europe, Japan, and Latin
America. The key to understanding the war propaganda role of the
AAMM is to examine what Washington calls “embedded reporters”—journalists
integrated with the Anglo-American forces attacking Iraqi cities
and under military command censorship. Freelance and independent
journalists are excluded from accompanying the invasion forces.
The result is the exclusion of reports on U.S. massacres and photos
of mutilated and dead civilians in the streets and hospitals of
Baghdad and Basra.
What is published is Anglo- American propaganda, non-existent
captured cities, non-existent popular uprisings in Basra and Iraqi
children receiving caramels from U.S. soldiers. The London
Daily
Mirror
was the only Anglo-American daily to publish a photo
of two headless Iraqi soldiers beside a tattered white flag of
surrender while “allied” soldiers stare down on their
victims. The U.S. military celebrate the success of “embedded
news reporters” reinforcing the belief of their pro- war
supporters in the U.S. and Britain, whose “direct reports
from the war zone” serve as propaganda to convince the doubters
of the “authenticity” of the war as experienced through
the eyes and mouths of the conquering generals and combat officials.
The media amplify and disseminate the Bush/Blair propaganda about
abuse of prisoners who are interviewed on Iraqi television—
forgetting the thousands of captured Afghan and Arab prisoners
who were suffocated and murdered in metal shipping containers
after their surrender to the U.S.-Northern Alliance or the hundreds
of manacled, blindfolded, and caged prisoners in Guantanamo. The
embedded reporters parrot U.S. propaganda about abused prisoners,
but fail to report on the latest “search and destroy”
orders that target all Iraqi civilians and “take no prisoners.”
The notion of “embedded” reporters”—that is,
the formal incorporation of the journalists as part and parcel
of the military propaganda machine—represents a general assault
on the freedom of the press in Anglo-American society.
The
imperialist war has met mass resistance in Iraq, the political
and economic costs of the war have increased domestic opposition.
President Bush declares the war will continue indefinitely. The
U.S. warlords admit there is no quick end. The regimes in Spain
and Britain are isolated domestically. Some pro-war media are
going into opposition—
El Pais
in Spain, the
Daily
Mirror
in Britain, and for the first time the
NY Times
has published some critical articles. But the war is demonstrating
the profound growth of authoritarianism in the regimes supporting
the U.S. They ignore the vast majority of their citizens opposing
the war; Bush confines his public meeting to military bases. The
Euro-American allies meet in a remote island in the Atlantic—fearful
of mass public rejection. Decisions are taken by inner cliques
of confidants—parliaments, congress- es, civil society are
all excluded. Civilian space is militarized.
As the Iraqi resistance continues, as the military ground campaign
is stalled, as domestic opposition grows, and Pan-Arabism becomes
a reality, the out-of-control extremists in the White House look
to the Final Solution—they consult with Israeli military
experts about a “Jenin solution”—mass destruction
with bulldozers, helicopter gun- ships, and carpet bombing of
the entire civilian population of Baghdad. Which will come first—the
capture of Baghdad, the popular overthrow of client regimes, the
collapse of Western democracy? Will new wars result or new revolutionary
movements?
We shall struggle against the former and act to bring about the
latter.
James
Petras teaches sociology at SUNY Binghamton and has written
extensively on U.S. foreign policy and emerging social movements.
