"War is a quarrel between two thieves too cowardly to fight their own
battle; therefore they take boys from one village and another village,
stick them into uniforms, equip them with guns, and let them loose like
wild beasts against each other."
-Thomas Carlyle

Accepting Reality: America Lost the War in Iraq
The US Forces are Part of the Problem
Why America can't militarily win
By Remi Kanazi

America has lost the war in Iraq. The chance for victory vanished long
ago with the hearts, minds, arms, legs and lives of the Iraqi people.
The insurgence hasn't won; rather the American government never
obtained the formula to win. America, led by war-bent hawks (Vice
President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz) entered this war with
many interests. Among them, the control of a major supply of Mideast
oil, military bases, reconstruction contracts for cronies (i.e.
Halliburton and Bechtel), a new ally/puppet in the region, securing
Israeli dominance, showcasing new products for the arms community, and
the greater concept of making Baghdad a haven for US corporate
expansion (thereby planting a McDonalds and Starbucks on every street
corner). In this excess of interests, the US neglected a major factor
in the equation-the Iraqi people. Every time another suicide bomber
enters the marketplace, Iraqis are reminded of the utter failure and
incompetence of the US government. Nonetheless, those war-bent hawks
couldn't pass up the idea of a cheap war coupled with a swift victory.
What they didn't realize (or refused to listen to) was that after
decades of heartbreak and struggle under Saddam Hussein, the last thing
Iraqis needed was to get "liberated" for an era of struggle under US
occupation.

The Iraqi people know what to expect from occupation. They remember the
1982 Israeli siege of Beirut, the 22 year Israeli occupation of
Southern Lebanon, and the 38 years of oppression that continues to
plague the lives of Palestinians. Iraqis also witnessed the US bombing
campaign of 1991, the reneged US support of a postwar Shia uprising,
and the sanctions that left Iraqi women and children forgotten. While
the West mainly erases these events from their minds, the people of the
Middle East, and more specifically Iraqis, must endure the consequences
of these events.

If the Bush administration interviewed my father, a 59 year old,
Christian Republican Arab doctor living in the US, they would have
realized, "Arabs don't like to be occupied." Arabs-be it Sunni,
Shia, Coptic, Orthodox or Maronite-don't want to be invaded by a
Western force capable of bombing Baghdad to oblivion. Nevertheless,
many Muslim and Christian Arabs in the Middle East send their children
to Western schooling and profoundly appreciate Western Culture. As
James Zogby-president of the Arab American Institute-pointed out on
CNN, Americans can see the integration of US based multinational food
chains and stores in Saudi Arabia. More than 70 McDonalds and 32 Pizza
Huts spread across the country, while a 69,000 sq ft Chuck E. Cheese
opened in Jeddah in 2001, with bumper cars, a bowling alley and a new
ice rink. There is thirst for American culture within Saudi society,
without the aggression and ramifications of US foreign policy.

Where America Went Wrong

US President George Bush and his administration thought they could have
it both ways; fulfilling their interests while containing the
resistance in Iraq. But "winning the hearts and minds of Iraqis"
proved to be unprofitable in postwar Iraq. Consequently, the Bush
administration didn't center on reconstruction and ensuring the
stability of Iraqi society. It is not enough to say that the US forces
"liberated" Iraq. For example, after the fall of Saddam, many
Iraqis supported the American presence, but when the deterioration of
living conditions set in and security declined, the support for the
American presence faltered. The Institute for Foreign Policy (IPS)
documented that 48 suicide attacks a month occurred in 2004 compared
with 20 suicide attacks in 2003. By the same token, the Baghdad morgue
is on pace to record more deaths attributed to unnatural causes this
year than in 2004.

In August of 2003 a poll conducted by Zogby International and American
Enterprise showed that nearly two thirds of the Iraqis wanted US troops
to stay for at least another year. Just seven months later a poll
administered by USA Today/CNN/Gallup revealed that only one third of
Iraqis believed the American presence was doing more harm than good and
57 percent wanted an immediate pullout.

Governmental corruption, lack of electricity, high unemployment, and
rising poverty diminishes the prospect for stability in Iraq. Veteran
journalist Patrick Cockburn asserted that one billion dollars was
"plundered from the Iraq's defense ministry." He also noted that
during the interim Iraqi government's rule in 2004, as much as 2
billion dollars may have gone missing from their ministries. The US
appointed the interim government.

According to the BBC on March 16, 2005, Transparency International
stated in its Global Corruption Report 2005 that foreign contractors
should abide by anti-corruption laws and that the revenues streaming in
from Iraq oil "needed to be much more transparent and accountable."
The BBC continued with a quote from Transparency International's
chairman Peter Eigen, "Corruption doesn't just line the pockets of
political and business elites, it leaves ordinary people without
essential services and deprives them of access to sanitation and
housing," In the BBC article, Transparency International directly
criticized the US for awarding companies contracts in a process that
was "secretive and favoured a small number of firms." As this
corruption became more commonplace, the resistance towards the
occupation surged.

Instead of starting a massive campaign to empower and employ the Iraqi
people, the Bush administration protected US corporate interests,
including close administration allies such as Halliburton and Bechtel.
Figures of unemployment in Iraq reach as high as 60 percent. If the US
heavily integrated Iraqi companies and workers from the outset, the
reconstruction process would have stimulated the Iraqi economy.
According to IPS, nearly 60 percent of Iraqis rely on food handouts.
The average Iraqi income in 2004 was 800 dollars compared with 3000
dollars in the 1980s. In the 1990s, the UN sanctions severely weakened
the Iraqi economy only to then have the US invasion exacerbate the
dilemma.

The US Forces are Part of the Problem

The US troops created an environment of tension and animosity. The
infrastructural destruction and casualties of the US invasion are
compounded by mass arrests for indefinite periods of time without
charge, widespread claims of torture, the mishandling of civilians in
house raids, shootings at checkpoints, and the confirmed use of
chemical weapons on insurgents and civilians in Fallujah.

Incidents such as the torture at Abu Ghraib, the killing of an unarmed
"fighter" in Fallujah (as was filmed on camera last year) and
claims that American forces bombed weddings cripple the support for
American forces.

In the 2004 siege of Fallujah-aptly titled "shake and bake"-the
US military used phosphorous bombs against insurgents. The military
originally claimed the bombs were used to "illuminate the
battlefield." A defense website, GlobalSecurity.org, contends white
phosphorus can burn "to the bone." The BBC reported that white
phosphorous "ignites on contact," and "burns until deprived of
oxygen." The result of this Saddam style attack trumps the scandal of
Abu Ghraib and other highly scrutinized actions by US forces. American
forces using the same procedures as Iraq's former dictator may cause
increased support for attacks against Americans, higher recruitment for
foreign fighters seeping across the borders, and international
condemnation.

The condition of the checkpoint system poses a serious threat to the
daily travelers in Iraq. On June 17 2005, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and
The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) wrote an open letter to U.S.
Secretary of Defense Donal Rumsfeld, "Checkpoint shootings have
sparked outrage among Iraqi citizens, undermining public confidence in
the U.S. military." The two groups claim the procedures of the
American Forces are insufficient and "endanger civilians, including
journalists, as well as U.S. service members."

Mass arrests continue to cause deep concern for Iraqi families and the
rule of law. Author Aaron Glantz documented a troubling account in his
book, How America Lost Iraq. In the village of Abu Siffa, the
townspeople alleged that coalition forces arrested 83 Iraqi men and
boys. One of the townspeople said that three of the detained were under
the age of sixteen, and fourteen were over the age of sixty, while
three men were lawyers and ten were secondary school teachers. A
fifteen year old boy, arrested and released, said that the detainees
were not charged, not given a lawyer, and allowed no visitors. When
Glantz interviewed the boy, only one other detainee had been released.
According to Glantz, Colonel Nate Sassaman "indicated that the raids
and detentions were necessary for 'national security.' But after
two months, U.S. forces admitted that the detainees were only guilty by
association because they lived in the same village as the Ba'ath
official." Glantz asked a schoolteacher, Nasser Jassem Hussein, if he
was a member of the Ba'ath Party, "Of course...We're all members
of the Ba'ath Party here, but that doesn't mean involved in the
resistance." While the detainees were only "guilty by
association," only one more person had been released after the two
months, leaving eighty detainees in US custody. Similar accounts have
been frequently covered in the international press.

The Iraqi Ministry of Human Rights revealed in an October 2005 report
that occupation forces held about 11,500 of the nearly 24,000
detainees. The report stated, "There is an urgent need to provide
remedy to lengthy internment for reasons of security without adequate
judicial oversight."

In November of 2005, new allegations were made that US forces tortured
two Iraqi prisoners. According to the Washington Post, two Iraqi men
claim that "U.S. troops put them in a cage with lions, pretended to
execute them in a firing line and humiliated them during interrogations
at multiple detention facilities." The Post quoted White House
Spokesman Bryan Whitman's response, "this is a legal matter, it will
be handled as such, but it should not surprise anyone that detainees
would make false allegations against their captors." Nonetheless,
Iraqis are more inclined to reject the administration's questioning
of events after the abuses of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
Damning Effects of Troop Presence
Aaron Glantz's wrote, "When you are a soldier in a war zone and you
see a young boy standing in your peripheral vision, you don't have
time to notice whether he's armed. You just shoot." This dilemma
illuminates the problem of the US presence. Securing and
"liberating" a state is quite impossible, if "young boys"
around you get thrown in with the "enemy." Collateral damage is a
term for militaries, not civilians trying to survive. Appropriately,
Iraqis don't react with a "take the good with the bad" attitude
to collateral damage.

In Patrick Cockburn's article, The War So Far: Worse Than Vietnam,
explains the "unraveling" of the occupation:

Many innocent farmers were being shot dead....Ever since Saddam Hussein
closed the banks in 1990....Iraqis kept their money at home in hundred
dollar bills...Farmers feared robbers and were usually armed. When a
U.S. soldier knocked at the door of a house in the middle of the night
and saw an armed Iraqi in front of him he would open fire.

Furthermore, these incidents are underreported in the West as they fall
into the category of "collateral damage."

Cockburn continues, "Ordinary U.S. soldiers can shoot any Iraqi by
whom they feel threatened without fear of consequences. With suicide
bombers on the loose, the soldiers feel threatened all the time."

Sidestepping Humanity

Breaches in US ratified international treaties further exemplify the
lost strategy of the US government and its ability to protect and
"liberate" the nation of Iraq. Eric Seidman interviewed Patrick
Resta, the New England organizer for Iraq Veterans Against the War
(IVAW), who stated, "Our supervisor told my platoon that 'the
Geneva Conventions don't exist in Iraq and that's in writing if any of
you want to see it.'" Resta said that his commander didn't create
the idea, instead it was "policy put in place." The IVAW organizer
also said that they [the medics] were not allowed to tend to Iraqi
civilians unless they were on the brink of death. Instead the civilians
were expected to use their own hospitals, which in his area offer
"only one type of antibiotic, no glass in the windows, little if any
functioning diagnostic equipment, [and] reused surgical instruments
without proper sterilization." The US government ratified all four
Geneva Conventions and all four apply to US forces in Iraq.
Specifically, articles three and four address the issue of humane
treatment of prisoners during war and treatment of civilians in a war
zone.

The Iraqi Media

Satellite TV gives many Iraqis uncensored coverage of the mayhem.
Unfortunately, American forces attacked a number of media outlets,
which reinforces the notion that America is willing to stand in the way
of the "free press" to preserve its own interests. Adam Gantz
reported that the US Defense Department also joined the media circle in
Iraq, founding a Baghdad TV station al Iraqiya, a newspaper al-Sabah, a
pan-Arab radio station, Radyo Sawa, and a news channel for satellite
TV, al-Hurra. These media projects came along pushing the American
agenda during the same period that Al Jazeera's offices were attacked
by US forces and the Baghdad bureau was repeatedly shut down. In
November 2005, the UK's Daily Mirror published an article pertaining
to a secret memo claiming that George Bush and Tony Blair met in April
2004 and discussed taking "military action" against Al Jazeera in
the company's base in Doha, Qatar. Since the article, the British
government has put a gag order on discussing the secret memo.

In March of last year the US forces shut down Muqtada Al Sadr's
newspaper al-Hawza al Natiq for "inciting violence." This double
standard on "free press," and disregard for democracy only
reasserts the failure of the US.

In late November, the New York Times disclosed US plans to embark on a
multimillion dollar secret project to "plant paid propaganda in the
Iraqi news media and pay friendly Iraqi journalists monthly
stipends." This last ditch effort to win back the support of the
Iraqi people is extremely revealing. The administration cannot even
find Iraqis that are willing to support the occupation. Instead they
are looking to feed the same "propaganda" to the Iraqi people that
is being fed to Americans.

Why America can't militarily win

Militarily, the US forces cannot win. Of course, they will conquer
Fallujah, Tal Afar, and any other area where confrontation takes place.
However, the strategy of the insurgency is not to win the war head on,
but rather to weaken the US forces by using guerilla warfare (car
bombs, suicide bombs, and roadside bombs) and capitalizing on Iraq's
spiraling out of control. After the destruction of Fallujah, the
insurgency fled quite quickly, avoiding direct confrontation with US
forces. The infrastructural and economic destruction of Fallujah
didn't destroy the base of the insurgency. Ironically, the siege
fueled recruitment, further isolated US forces from Iraqi civilians,
and didn't significantly enhance American control over the Sunni
stronghold. The American forces eventually retreated, stating that the
insurgency was conquered, only to lose control of Fallujah months after
the battle. Keeping control of a country the size of Texas with 25
million residents is not feasible with 160,000 troops. If the US were
to win militarily in Iraq, they would have to drastically step up their
force count, probably in the range of 450,000 as some military analysts
have suggested, and start rolling over the country. Under the guise of
"liberation" the US forces would need to become the new Saddam
Hussein, forcing Iraqis into submission and killing anyone that comes
in their way. Moreover, since the military has such a low approval
rating, finding people who are willing to rat out the insurgency has
become increasingly difficult.

Losing the Hearts and Minds of Americans

This administration believed they could spin the events of Iraq to the
American people. This was true in the beginning. The American people
forgot about the promised weapons of mass destruction, the assurance
that Iraqi oil would pay for the venture, and the guarantee that the
people of Iraq would greet the US soldiers with open arms. The minds of
Americans, however, started to change as soldiers came home in flag
draped caskets and nearly 15,000 returned wounded, many in wheelchairs
or prosthetics.

The continuing struggle in Iraq and the administrations misgivings,
however, emboldened the anti-war coalition. According to CNN, Decorated
Vietnam Vet and conservative democrat John Murtha stated, "It's time
to bring the troops home." He went on to say "Our troops have
become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against
U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence," he said.
Yahoo quoted him as saying, "The war in Iraq is not going as
advertised...It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion."

While leading democrats are still too wary to call for an outright
withdrawal, the American people may soon be calling for one. In a
CNN/USA Today Gallup poll only 35 percent of Americans approve Bush's
handling of the war, while 54 percent think America shouldn't have
invaded Iraq. The numbers are also rising on troop withdrawal. Nearly
one in five Americans want to see the troops come home today and 33
percent of those polled want the American forces home within a year's
time. Anti-war democrats like Murtha are starting to receive airtime on
major media outlets such as CNN and MSNBC. If this trend continues, it
will profoundly affect those on the fence in the US who are not getting
a clear picture of the anti-war movement. Cindy Sheehan, the mother of
a US soldier killed Iraq and adamant anti-war critic, received
noticeable airtime, but was painted as part of the "fringe left" in
the mainstream press. People like Murtha will reinforce the position of
the anti-war movement considering his long-running history of being
conservative and a friend to the White House. Until this point George
Bush hasn't felt the wrath of a fiery opposition. If the media
continues to give the anti-war movement a platform, the American public
will more quickly realize that we have lost the war in Iraq.

What has Become of Iraq?

The Iraqi Body Count (IBC) claims between 27,000 and 30,000 Iraqi
civilians have been killed since the start of the war. In mid-December
George Bush gave an estimate on the Iraqi death count for the first
time, "I would say 30,000 more or less have died." In a new report
released by IBC, during the first two years of the war 20 percent of
civilian deaths were women and children. Additionally, US forces
accounted for 37 percent of civilian deaths, while insurgents accounted
for only 9 percent of civilian deaths. Affirming the contention of
lawlessness, "post-invasion criminal violence," attributed to 36
percent of the civilian death toll. The numbers by IBC are thought to
be conservative. Last year's Lancet report estimated that 98,000 or
more "excess deaths" of Iraqis may have occurred since the start of
the US invasion.

Anguish and anger resonates within each Iraqi community. In October the
British newspaper, the Sunday Telegraph, released information from a
survey administered by the Iraqi university team which found that 45
percent of Iraqis support attacks on foreign troops. It is not just a
case of Sunni resistance-which make up only 20 percent of the
population-and Iraq's Al Qaeda. There is a strong support for
violence against foreign forces and the numbers are strengthening.
Added to the growing unease in the Shia community in the South, it is
apparent why aggression is effectively taken out against US forces and
interests.

The primary focus of the US involvement in Iraq should be on the basic
necessities of Iraqi society. Proper sewage and access to clean water
are essential. The Ministry of Public Works believes that it may cost
up to 10 billion dollars for Iraqis to access clean water. According to
the website CorpWatch in April of 2005, the US cut the funding for
water projects in Iraq from 4.3 billion to 2.3 billion-"with
further cuts planned for the future." Those "further cuts" were
another 1.1 billion dollars. The Corvallis Gazette Times stated,
"Three of the four major clean-water projects were cancelled."

The reconstruction of water facilities is vital in delivering clean
water to the 80 percent of families in rural areas that use unsafe
drinking water. The postwar sewage systems must also be reconstructed,
which according to the UN report, "seeps to the ground and
contaminates drinking water systems."

The UN development agency conducted a study, entitled Iraq Living
Conditions Survey 2004. The study found that 23 percent of children in
Iraq suffer from chronic malnutrition, while 9 percent of Iraqi
children experienced diarrhea, a leading "childhood killer," in the
two weeks prior to the survey.

Stability cannot be achieved without confronting basic health concerns.
The US government spent more than 200 billion in Iraq, yet it continues
to slash funding on projects that will further Iraqi society.

Can We Leave?

Over the last two years many prominent Republicans and Democrats
professed, "We are there now, we can't just leave." Nevertheless,
if we want to uphold the values of democracy and desires of the Iraqi
consensus, we can "just leave." On October 23, the Sunday Telegraph
disclosed the results of a poll which found that 82 percent of Iraqis
"strongly oppose" foreign troops occupying their country. It's the one
thing the majority of the country can agree on. The 160,000 soldiers
are a driving force behind the resistance for Sunni fighters and
Iraq's Al Qaeda led by Musab Al Zarqawi. We can pull out,
immediately.

While a much larger disparity in views exists between Sunni insurgents
and Al Qaeda, they do share a common cause-resisting the American
occupation. If the US pulled out tomorrow, the Sunni insurgency would
automatically be at great ideological odds with Zarqawi and his gang in
Iraq. The Sunni insurgency is not fighting for Al Qaeda's "greater
Islamic vision," they are trying to make sure the country doesn't break
up and in turn dominate the one-fifth Sunni minority. Even so, some
Sunnis have not opposed sitting down at the negotiating table, so long
as they do not receive the short end of the stick.

The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies revealed
that between 12,000 and 20,000 hardcore insurgents remained in Iraq as
of earlier this year. Diffusing the extreme elements of the insurgency
is fundamental in the stabilization process. The main fuel to Al
Qaeda's fire is undoubtedly the American occupation. While other
factors add to its ease to operate, such as chaos, corruption, fear,
and border security, the main source of motivation to gain new recruits
would be stripped away. The pulling out of US troops alone would at
least make the situation in Iraq more transparent.

The only way to bring Iraq forward is bringing them closer to
independence and sustainability. The Iraqis were thrown into a
whirlpool of violence and the presence of US forces is making the
situation worse. In the Sunday Telegraph poll, only one percent of
Iraqis in some areas feel that America increases security. This lack of
confidence and opposition to the occupation damaged America's position
in Iraq beyond recognition and their mission which has yet to be
defined. The US government spent more than 200 billion dollars in Iraq
over the last two and a half years and the Iraqi people have little to
show for it. Of the 18 billion dollars appropriated for reconstruction,
only 9 billion has been used, while corruption has tarnished its
implementation.

The people of Iraq need security first and foremost, not only from
insurgents, but from robbers and armed bandits as asserted by Patrick
Cockburn. He reported, "Even during a quiet day as many as 40 bodies
may turn up at Baghdad morgue." Furthermore, the political process
needs to take its course. It's senseless to rush into to fixed dates
so Iraqis can hold up their ink stained fingers while the situation on
the ground is left in shambles. Finally, strong Iraqi leadership is
essential in engaging the Iraqi people on a daily basis and not just on
fixed "historic" dates that help out US poll numbers. The Iraqi people
need to feel a sense of control of their society and future, and this
is impeded by the presence of the American military.

These are the principals of democracy: letting the indigenous
population rule as a sovereign nation. I always hear "bring the
troops home." Not only do it for the troops this time, do it for the
Iraqi people.

Remi Kanazi is the primary writer for the political website
www.PoeticInjustice.net. He lives in New York City as a Palestinian
American freelance writer and can reached via email at
remroum@gmail.com

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is
distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest
in receiving the included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with
the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"The great error of nearly all studies of war, an error into which all
socialists have fallen, has been to consider war as an episode in
foreign politics when it is especially an act of internal politics and
the most atrocious act of all . . . Since the directing apparatus has
no other way of fighting the enemy than by sending its own soldiers,
under compulsion, to their death-the war of one state against another
state resolves itself into a war of the state and the military
apparatus against its own people."
-Simone Weil, Politics, 1945