What
You're Missing in our subscriber-only CounterPunch newsletter
SPECIAL REPORT: How Iraq is Being
Destroyed
"A
weak Iraq suits many." Three years after the US attack,
Iraq is breaking apart. Eyewitness report from Patrick Cockburn
in Irbil. One of the great
left journalists of his time, he was on the front lines in Korea
and Vietnam. Chris Reed on Wilfred Burchett, the man who made
Murdoch foam at the mouth.Katrina
washes whitest. Bill Quigley in New Orleans reports tales of
lunacy and hope. CounterPunch
Online is read by millions of viewers each month! But remember,
we are funded solely by the subscribers to the print edition
of CounterPunch. Please
support this website by buying a subscription to our newsletter,
which contains fresh material you won't find anywhere else, or
by making a donation for the online edition. Remember contributions
are tax-deductible.Click
here to make a donation. If you find our site useful please:Subscribe
Now!
Bush, the Constitution,
the Pentagon and Washington's Silver
By RON JACOBS
One of my favorite lines from the recent
news has to be this one that appeared in the Washington Post
on April 7, 2006: Some (Iraqis) say flatly that American soldiers
act like "cowboys in Western movies," in Kamal's words.
Some U.S. commanders acknowledge the problem exists. But they
blame it on insurgents who disguise themselves as (Iraqi) civilians."
My initial reaction to these commanders comment is that the
insurgents are civilians. They are civilian Iraqis who live in
Iraq that have decided to pick up guns to oppose the foreign
troops that have occupied their country. The Iraqis belong there.
The US troops don't. It's as simple as that.
On the same day, there was
a report on the AP wires that described a speech George Bush
gave in Charlotte, NC. the day before. In that report, there
was no mention of the protest against Bush outside the event,
but there was a quote from his speech inside. After telling
the (mostly sycophantic) audience that he would willingly send
more troops to Iraq if the generals told him they were "needed,"
Bush continued, stating, "during the Vietnam War there was
a lot of politicization of the military decisions. That's not
going to be the case under my administration." Now, I
don't know what constitution Mr. Bush operates under, but it
certainly isn't the one I learned in school. That constitution--the
one passed in 1789 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia--very
clearly puts civilians in charge of the military, not the other
way around. No war on terror or any other (imaginary or real)
enemy should change that.
But then, it's been clear for
a while that George Bush and his minions don't give a damn about
the Constitution anyhow. That much was also apparent in his
remarks to an audience question in Charlotte that asked Bush
if he would apologize for his warrantless spying on US citizens.
"Would I apologize for it? The answer is absolutely not."
After all, if this administration is going to ignore the body
of the US Constitution, then any amendments to that bady must
mean even less. Not that they are alone in that, given the beating
most of the Bill of Rights has taken over the years.
Meanwhile, that same day, General
Robert Magnus, the assistant in command over at Marine Corps
headquarters, was insisting that the Marines can maintain their
troop levels in Iraq indefinitely. He lectured the press, clearly
stating his opposition to a military draft because his military
needed highly trained recruits to go fight US wars in "Port-au-Prince
or Kandahar." In other words, Magnus opposes a draft because
it would allow people into the military that questioned their
orders in a much broader way than is currently occurring in today's
military.
The general should probably
have added Tehran to his shortlist. Rumors continue to swirl
about US intentions for that nation. Despite the clear signal
from most of the UN Security Council that it has no desire to
antagonize the Iranian regime, Washington seems intent on provoking
some kind of confrontation--the louder the better. As for those
funds Condi Rice asked the US Congress to send to willing groups
of Iranians in and out of their country who want the mullahs'
government deposed, it seems there are very few takers. In fact,
according to an April 6, 2006 article from Radio Free Europe
(definitely not a mouthpiece for the Iranian regime), "a
loose affiliation of (Iranian) intellectuals at home and abroad
has rejected such aid as "an insult" to the Iranian
people." A spokesperson for this group of Iranian dissidents
went on record saying, "Democracy is not a product that
we can import from another country. We have to prepare the ground
for it so that it can grow and bear fruit -- especially because
independent and national forces, and also self-reliant forces,
in Iran will never accept a foreign country telling them what
to do and which way to take." This sentiment is publicly
shared by another prominent opposition group known as the National
Council of Resistance for Iran (NCRI). The spokesperson enhanced
his remarks, stating that any activists that accepted the aid
would be immediately branded as US spies.
If the buildup to the 2003
invasion of Iraq is any indication, what this means for Iran
then is that Washington will create its own "Iranian opposition"
from less scrupulous individuals eager for US dollars and potential
power in a future US-installed government in Tehran. At this
point, the only opposition group known to receive any US funding
is a group run by the non-Iranian US citizen and neocon writer
Kenneth Timmerman. His group, the Foundation for Democracy in
Iran (FDI), is on record as having received funding from the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a quasi-private agency
that uses US government funds to support the subversion of elections
in Central and South America and its machinations in concert
with the CIA in various so-called popular movements in eastern
Europe and the Middle East. Indeed, if one looks at the sidebar
on the FDI's website, they will find a listing of five or six
Iranian opposition groups. Most of the groups appear to be composed
of very few people and feature articles by US imperial cheerleaders
like Henry Kissinger and Michael Ledeen, among others.
No matter what one thinks about
the elections in Iraq and the West Bank and Gaza, the US reaction
to them reinforces the view that underlies the sentiment that
Washington is not truly interested in democracy as much as it
is interested in empire. The Iranians are right to refuse Washington's
silver, no matter how it is packaged. Accepting it is the first
step towards betrayal.
CounterPunch
Speakers Bureau Sick of sit-on-the-Fence speakers, tongue-tied and timid?
CounterPunch Editors Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St Clair
are available to speak forcefully on ALL the burning issues,
as are other CounterPunchers seasoned in stump oratory. Call
CounterPunch Speakers Bureau, 1-800-840-3683. Or email beckyg@counterpunch.org.