Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Ignored looting indicative of US disinterest in WMD
All of Iraq, from factories and mansions to government ministries, party headquarters, and military installations is being picked clean by looters. Why is there no US concern that critical evidence of WMD is being lost and destroyed?
The military stands idly by while crowds of Iraqi looters ransack official buildings and the homes of government officials, taking computers, destroying files and official records, and sometimes torching or dumping into the street whatever remains. Where the discovery of Saddam's elusive weapons of mass destruction is so important a part of any attempt to "justify" an international crime of almost unparalleled proportion, one would think that these potentially rich documentary resources would be carefully guarded and preserved pending detailed analysis by intelligence and weapons experts.
Never in the course of their existence did UNSCOM or UNMOVIC have access to such a limitless trove of official data, yet the fact is that some of their greatest successes were achieved not by the chance discovery of the weapons themselves or their means of production, but by plodding analysis of shipping manifests, production inventories, budgetary details, funding authorizations, staffing requirements, expense vouchers, and the thousand and one other mundane bureaucratic records that make major capital programs virtually impossible for governments to conceal.
Instead of protecting these sites for the evidentiary treasure they might contain (or even to prevent the destruction of important public records critical to the reestablishment of civil administration), the military's inaction is insuring that no records of anything will survive. Considering that in addition to the foregoing, the US/UK forces have a legal obligation to preserve important records, one is forced to wonder if so cavalier an attitude is more than just negligence.
At the end of World War II, one of the highest Allied priorities was the capture and preservation of Nazi and Japanese records. This has been true in virtually every war ever fought. Yet in Iraq - with so many of Saddam's secrets as yet unknown or unproven - the opposite seems to be true. Already we have seen the official focus purposefully shifted from "defending against weapons of mass destruction" to "liberating Iraq," and no credible evidence of WMD has yet been found. The apparent disinterest in preserving or analyzing potentially valuable Iraqi records suggests that the US and UK are not at all interested in resolving these unanswered questions - perhaps because they already know there's nothing to find. This conspicuous disinterest in any case supports the widely held and growing belief that "Weapons of Mass Destruction" were never the real issue at all, but mere pretext for the long-planned conquest of Iraq as the first step in establishing the US as the dominant force in the Middle East.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
A definite advantage: if no records exist, then no "discovery" of WMD can ever be substantiated or verified. The US is free to plant whatever it wants without fear the "evidence" will be inconsistent with the documentary record.
Yes, and OJ didn't kill Ron and Nicole.
The "quagmire" lasted three weeks. UN inspections lasted months. Plenty of time remains to find the WMD, and if you honestly believe that there are no controls on suspect sites, I have some real estate in Florida you might be interested in...
The mere notion that Mr. justthinking has greater insight to the nature, location and disposition of WMD than does the intelligence community at large is laughable. That you have issue with the "pretext" under which evil was deposed and freedom ushered into Iraq is indicative of your obvious bias in this situation. That I and others have wasted time reading your perspective is a matter for me to take up with my shrink...
King of Paranoia
The "quagmire" lasted three weeks. UN inspections lasted months. Plenty of time remains to find the WMD, and if you honestly believe that there are no controls on suspect sites, I have some real estate in Florida you might be interested in...
The mere notion that Mr. justthinking has greater insight to the nature, location and disposition of WMD than does the intelligence community at large is laughable. That you have issue with the "pretext" under which evil was deposed and freedom ushered into Iraq is indicative of your obvious bias in this situation. That I and others have wasted time reading your perspective is a matter for me to take up with my shrink...
King of Paranoia
If WMD are not to be found, who from the US administration, is going to apologize to the Iraqis and to the UN security council for this lack of taste and the subsequent killing of more than 100 US soldiers and so many others nobody seems to care about ?
<That you have issue with the "pretext" under which evil was deposed and freedom ushered into Iraq...>
methinks you've been watching Fox News with rather too much reverence, sir. The US smashed its former allies' forces, in the process killing thousands of civilians and involuntary conscripts. The freedom that most Iraqi's have thus far experienced is, more than anything, the freedom from electricity, running water, and anything remotely resembling security. There is, i acknowledge, an opening now for Iraqi's to take control of their lives, but the chaos that's overwhelmed the country plays right into the hands of the US occupation--which is exactly why it's being allowed to spread.
To talk about some great shift from "evil" to "freedom" is ridiculous. It may go over well among dolts and patriotic fools, but with people who're the least critical minded, it doesn't. Since when does the US ruling class care about the freedom of semi-colonial countries like Iraq? Has there been some marked shift since the US was supporting Hussein? In lieu of a coherent, anti-capitalist movement in Iraq, there's no reason to believe that freedom and prosperity will take the place of the US' former ally.
Pro-war yahoos are trimphant these days. Reminds me of the days after the great Afghanistan "victory". Don't hear the yahoos talking about Afghanistan much anymore....
methinks you've been watching Fox News with rather too much reverence, sir. The US smashed its former allies' forces, in the process killing thousands of civilians and involuntary conscripts. The freedom that most Iraqi's have thus far experienced is, more than anything, the freedom from electricity, running water, and anything remotely resembling security. There is, i acknowledge, an opening now for Iraqi's to take control of their lives, but the chaos that's overwhelmed the country plays right into the hands of the US occupation--which is exactly why it's being allowed to spread.
To talk about some great shift from "evil" to "freedom" is ridiculous. It may go over well among dolts and patriotic fools, but with people who're the least critical minded, it doesn't. Since when does the US ruling class care about the freedom of semi-colonial countries like Iraq? Has there been some marked shift since the US was supporting Hussein? In lieu of a coherent, anti-capitalist movement in Iraq, there's no reason to believe that freedom and prosperity will take the place of the US' former ally.
Pro-war yahoos are trimphant these days. Reminds me of the days after the great Afghanistan "victory". Don't hear the yahoos talking about Afghanistan much anymore....
"Has there been some marked shift since the US was supporting Hussein?"
Yes. Three little things off the top of my head:
1) the reduced threat from Iran
2) the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War
3) 9/11
Yes. Three little things off the top of my head:
1) the reduced threat from Iran
2) the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War
3) 9/11
4) invasion of Kuwait and Gulf War I
<He said support for the war was thin, but then the polls showed support holding steady at 70%, and 15,000 showed up for a pro-war rally in NY city.>
I have argued that support for Bush’s crusade lacks depth. That 70% of Americans, once the shooting began, respond affirmatively when asked a loaded question about the “war on terror” doesn’t prove that support isn’t “thin.” Nor does 15,000 coming out to a pro-war fest in NYC that riffed off the WTC tragedy to build support (despite the fact that Hussein had no role in that terrible event, even if 50% of Americans have been mislead to believe he did).
<Now that the war is a complete success…>
First: the war’s not over.
Second: thousands of Iraqi’s have been killed and maimed, Iraqi hospitals are completely overwhelmed, and much of the country is still in chaos.
Third: given that the US, once again, dropped cluster bombs and fired depleted uranium munitions, this war won’t be over for many Iraqi’s even when the shooting stops.
<Now he says the Iraqis have only been liberated from essential services.>
Actually, many Iraqi’s have been liberated from life itself….
As I indicated above, I do think that with the destruction of the US’ former ally’s regime, Iraqi people have an opening to take control of their lives, whatever the US’ imperial intentions. It will take the US awhile to establish a truly repressive security apparatus (along the lines of other US-client states like Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, El Salvador, Columbia, Turkey etc etc)--this is an opening I hope the Iraqi’s are able to take advantage of.
<Aaron says the looting is a real problem, but CNN (hardly pro-Bush) says the looting is stopping.>
CNN is a propaganda arm of the Pentagon. I never mentioned the looting, and I imagine it will die down eventually (there’s only so much shit to take), but the chaos to which I was referring is still very much in effect.
<In his post, he said US forces had killed thousands of civilians and conscripts. "Conscripts" is another name for "Soldiers">
If you read the foreign press, you’ll see that contrary to the sanitized version presented in the US, there have been many civilian casualities. Like I mentioned above, the US has used cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons--hardly “precise” forms of weaponry. The so-called “smart bombs” have a distinct accident rate--and when thousands are being fired off, week after week, civilians get slaughtered. Only Americans buy the argument that these deaths can’t be blamed on America. As far as conscripts is concerned, I wrote “involuntary conscripts” to emphasize the fact that a lot of the soldiers being mowed down by the US’ amazing arsenal were press-ganged onto the front-line. That’s a fact. Yes, it’s more proof that Hussein is/was a despicable tyrant--but that’s already been established. What we’re debating here is the merits of an invasionary war waged by his former benefactor--the US. The same US that, let us remember, massacred thousands of retreating (basically mutinying) Iraqi conscripts in the aftermath of Kuwait (while giving a green-light to Hussein’s elite forces to smash uprisings against his rule).
<most of the civilians killed in this conflict have been killed by Iraqis.>
A little evidence to support that assertion would be helpful.
<Next, aaron will tell us that it's only about oil.>
I have never claimed that this war is all about oil, but only a fool would contend that it has nothing to do with oil. This war is about asserting greater US dominance in the Middle East and Central Asia, which are highly important geo-strategically. It’s about showing off weapons systems to the “world community” as a threat and an advertisement. It’s about setting up more bases. Oil comes into the picture not as a use-value, but as an exchange value. Those who say it’s for the American SUV culture are off-base. It’s about maintaining and strengthening arrangements in which oil is denominated in dollars (Iraq had recently started selling oil in Euros) and profits are invested in American assets.
<But if he wants to say for motivated by oil, he might want to stop reminding us of Afghanistan; after all, there's no oil there.>
The US ruling class fights its wars to maintain and strengthen the broad interests of US capitalism. In some cases, US wars and interventions have been pretty clearly in direct response to the fear of nationalization (in Iran in 53, Guatamala in 54...), but often there are a whole set of strategic and military imperatives that are being enacted, and it’s wrong to reduce it all to one source (or resource). Reagan wasn’t lying when he said he didn’t invade Grenada for nutmeg--no, he invaded Grenada to remind the people of the Caribbean and Central America that the US would go ballistic if they charted a course that conflicted with US capitalist interests. In the case of Afghanistan, it’s an important “gateway to the east” (understood as such by Zbginiew Brzezinski in his book “The Great Chess Game” or some similar name), it also is a prospective transit route for oil and gas pipelines connecting Uzbekistan and Pakistan. Indeed, the US puppet, Karzai, recently was party to a deal to set up a gas pipeline linking those two (dictatorial, US-backed) states.
I have argued that support for Bush’s crusade lacks depth. That 70% of Americans, once the shooting began, respond affirmatively when asked a loaded question about the “war on terror” doesn’t prove that support isn’t “thin.” Nor does 15,000 coming out to a pro-war fest in NYC that riffed off the WTC tragedy to build support (despite the fact that Hussein had no role in that terrible event, even if 50% of Americans have been mislead to believe he did).
<Now that the war is a complete success…>
First: the war’s not over.
Second: thousands of Iraqi’s have been killed and maimed, Iraqi hospitals are completely overwhelmed, and much of the country is still in chaos.
Third: given that the US, once again, dropped cluster bombs and fired depleted uranium munitions, this war won’t be over for many Iraqi’s even when the shooting stops.
<Now he says the Iraqis have only been liberated from essential services.>
Actually, many Iraqi’s have been liberated from life itself….
As I indicated above, I do think that with the destruction of the US’ former ally’s regime, Iraqi people have an opening to take control of their lives, whatever the US’ imperial intentions. It will take the US awhile to establish a truly repressive security apparatus (along the lines of other US-client states like Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, El Salvador, Columbia, Turkey etc etc)--this is an opening I hope the Iraqi’s are able to take advantage of.
<Aaron says the looting is a real problem, but CNN (hardly pro-Bush) says the looting is stopping.>
CNN is a propaganda arm of the Pentagon. I never mentioned the looting, and I imagine it will die down eventually (there’s only so much shit to take), but the chaos to which I was referring is still very much in effect.
<In his post, he said US forces had killed thousands of civilians and conscripts. "Conscripts" is another name for "Soldiers">
If you read the foreign press, you’ll see that contrary to the sanitized version presented in the US, there have been many civilian casualities. Like I mentioned above, the US has used cluster bombs and depleted uranium weapons--hardly “precise” forms of weaponry. The so-called “smart bombs” have a distinct accident rate--and when thousands are being fired off, week after week, civilians get slaughtered. Only Americans buy the argument that these deaths can’t be blamed on America. As far as conscripts is concerned, I wrote “involuntary conscripts” to emphasize the fact that a lot of the soldiers being mowed down by the US’ amazing arsenal were press-ganged onto the front-line. That’s a fact. Yes, it’s more proof that Hussein is/was a despicable tyrant--but that’s already been established. What we’re debating here is the merits of an invasionary war waged by his former benefactor--the US. The same US that, let us remember, massacred thousands of retreating (basically mutinying) Iraqi conscripts in the aftermath of Kuwait (while giving a green-light to Hussein’s elite forces to smash uprisings against his rule).
<most of the civilians killed in this conflict have been killed by Iraqis.>
A little evidence to support that assertion would be helpful.
<Next, aaron will tell us that it's only about oil.>
I have never claimed that this war is all about oil, but only a fool would contend that it has nothing to do with oil. This war is about asserting greater US dominance in the Middle East and Central Asia, which are highly important geo-strategically. It’s about showing off weapons systems to the “world community” as a threat and an advertisement. It’s about setting up more bases. Oil comes into the picture not as a use-value, but as an exchange value. Those who say it’s for the American SUV culture are off-base. It’s about maintaining and strengthening arrangements in which oil is denominated in dollars (Iraq had recently started selling oil in Euros) and profits are invested in American assets.
<But if he wants to say for motivated by oil, he might want to stop reminding us of Afghanistan; after all, there's no oil there.>
The US ruling class fights its wars to maintain and strengthen the broad interests of US capitalism. In some cases, US wars and interventions have been pretty clearly in direct response to the fear of nationalization (in Iran in 53, Guatamala in 54...), but often there are a whole set of strategic and military imperatives that are being enacted, and it’s wrong to reduce it all to one source (or resource). Reagan wasn’t lying when he said he didn’t invade Grenada for nutmeg--no, he invaded Grenada to remind the people of the Caribbean and Central America that the US would go ballistic if they charted a course that conflicted with US capitalist interests. In the case of Afghanistan, it’s an important “gateway to the east” (understood as such by Zbginiew Brzezinski in his book “The Great Chess Game” or some similar name), it also is a prospective transit route for oil and gas pipelines connecting Uzbekistan and Pakistan. Indeed, the US puppet, Karzai, recently was party to a deal to set up a gas pipeline linking those two (dictatorial, US-backed) states.
How is what Iraq did to Kuwait any different, let alone worse, that what the US did to Iraq?
"How is what Iraq did to Kuwait any different, let alone worse, that what the US did to Iraq?"
It is different*. But that's not the point. The above was stated in response to what has changed to cause the US to change its policy toward Iraq, from sort-of-friend (enemy of an enemy) to foe.
* OK, just so I don't have to post again, this is why: it's the difference between the German invasion of France and the NATO invasion of Kosovo. One is conquest, the other is liberation.
It is different*. But that's not the point. The above was stated in response to what has changed to cause the US to change its policy toward Iraq, from sort-of-friend (enemy of an enemy) to foe.
* OK, just so I don't have to post again, this is why: it's the difference between the German invasion of France and the NATO invasion of Kosovo. One is conquest, the other is liberation.
"Oil comes into the picture not as a use-value, but as an exchange value... It’s about maintaining and strengthening arrangements in which oil is denominated in dollars (Iraq had recently started selling oil in Euros) and profits are invested in American assets. "
What are you talking about here?
The amount paid to Iraq for their oil (~ $10 billion annually) is *SO* insignificant in relation to total trade denominated in either euros or dollars, that your point is meaningless. For comparison, the French alone spend almost $3 billion per year on pet food.
What are you talking about here?
The amount paid to Iraq for their oil (~ $10 billion annually) is *SO* insignificant in relation to total trade denominated in either euros or dollars, that your point is meaningless. For comparison, the French alone spend almost $3 billion per year on pet food.
regarding the question of chaos and Iraqi perceptions of the US, read this:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030412/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_baghdad_s_anger_2
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030412/ap_on_re_mi_ea/war_baghdad_s_anger_2
NATO dismembered a sovereign state, and turned over control of part of it to their puppets, a vicious, brutal gang of heroin dealing pimps. This is not “liberation.” This is neo colonialism.
so you're saying that the US ruling class cares not that oil is denominated in dollars? It cares not that oil profits are invested in US assets and financial instruments? of course it does.
The US ruling class is highly concerned with maintaining controlling power over the the flow of oil, militarily defending Gulf elites who, it is understood, will invest petrol dollars in US treasuries and other assets. This is an important support for the dollar remaining an int'l reserve currency, allowing the US to run massive trade deficits.
the following article is a really good overview of the role of oil in the conquest of Iraq.
http://www.counterpunch.org/rai02032003.html
The US ruling class is highly concerned with maintaining controlling power over the the flow of oil, militarily defending Gulf elites who, it is understood, will invest petrol dollars in US treasuries and other assets. This is an important support for the dollar remaining an int'l reserve currency, allowing the US to run massive trade deficits.
the following article is a really good overview of the role of oil in the conquest of Iraq.
http://www.counterpunch.org/rai02032003.html
I am a trained economist (in real life) and your analysis doesn't pass the giggle test.
so you're saying that the US ruling class cares not that oil is denominated in dollars? It cares not that oil profits are invested in US assets and financial instruments? of course it does.
"... it is understood, will invest petrol dollars in US treasuries and other assets. This is an important support for the dollar remaining an int'l reserve currency, allowing the US to run massive trade deficits."
What are you talking about? It doesn't matter what currency oil is sold in. If the Saudis want to buy US treasuries (why would they?), they can. Ever heard of currency exchange? When you buy a new Porsche, do you pay in euros? No. Your dollars are eventually converted. In case I haven't been clear yet: It doesn't matter if oil is purchased with dogfood. If somebody wants to buy US assets with that revenue, they simply exchange the dogfood for dollars. It's all the same thing. Having oil revenue denominated in euros does not constrain somebody from investing that revenue whereever they want in whatever currency they want.
so you're saying that the US ruling class cares not that oil is denominated in dollars? It cares not that oil profits are invested in US assets and financial instruments? of course it does.
"... it is understood, will invest petrol dollars in US treasuries and other assets. This is an important support for the dollar remaining an int'l reserve currency, allowing the US to run massive trade deficits."
What are you talking about? It doesn't matter what currency oil is sold in. If the Saudis want to buy US treasuries (why would they?), they can. Ever heard of currency exchange? When you buy a new Porsche, do you pay in euros? No. Your dollars are eventually converted. In case I haven't been clear yet: It doesn't matter if oil is purchased with dogfood. If somebody wants to buy US assets with that revenue, they simply exchange the dogfood for dollars. It's all the same thing. Having oil revenue denominated in euros does not constrain somebody from investing that revenue whereever they want in whatever currency they want.
>The military stands idly by while crowds of Iraqi looters ransack official buildings and the homes of government officials, taking computers, destroying files and official records, and sometimes torching or dumping into the street whatever remains.
What!?! That's like saying the good news is Germany has been liberated from the Nazis. The bad news is the Gestapo is no longer around to provide law and order.
>Already we have seen the official focus purposefully shifted from "defending against weapons of mass destruction" to "liberating Iraq," and no credible evidence of WMD has yet been found.
This is just goofy. Saddam is known to have had such weapons in the 1990s, and U.N. resolutions obliged him to destroy them and account for their destruction. He never offered any such accounting. So in order to doubt that Iraq lacks weapons of mass destruction, you have to believe that Saddam destroyed them and then didn't bother to tell anyone about it.
Your impatience for weapons of mass destruction is downright infantile. You pound the table and demand to know why the coalition hasn't found them and announced it publicly in three weeks--during which time the coalition has been busy waging a military campaign. Weren't we hearing just a few weeks back that the U.N. inspectors needed many more months to find these weapons? Besides, we haven't found Saddam Hussein or his sons either. Does that mean they never existed?
Finally, for the sake of argument, let's accept the implausible assumption that weapons of mass destruction never turn up. In such a case, the worst that can be said about the coalition is that it did the right thing for the wrong reason. Or do you want to take up the cause of restoring Iraq's Baathist dictatorship to power?
What!?! That's like saying the good news is Germany has been liberated from the Nazis. The bad news is the Gestapo is no longer around to provide law and order.
>Already we have seen the official focus purposefully shifted from "defending against weapons of mass destruction" to "liberating Iraq," and no credible evidence of WMD has yet been found.
This is just goofy. Saddam is known to have had such weapons in the 1990s, and U.N. resolutions obliged him to destroy them and account for their destruction. He never offered any such accounting. So in order to doubt that Iraq lacks weapons of mass destruction, you have to believe that Saddam destroyed them and then didn't bother to tell anyone about it.
Your impatience for weapons of mass destruction is downright infantile. You pound the table and demand to know why the coalition hasn't found them and announced it publicly in three weeks--during which time the coalition has been busy waging a military campaign. Weren't we hearing just a few weeks back that the U.N. inspectors needed many more months to find these weapons? Besides, we haven't found Saddam Hussein or his sons either. Does that mean they never existed?
Finally, for the sake of argument, let's accept the implausible assumption that weapons of mass destruction never turn up. In such a case, the worst that can be said about the coalition is that it did the right thing for the wrong reason. Or do you want to take up the cause of restoring Iraq's Baathist dictatorship to power?
Thanks for being one of our most loyal viewers. We distort, you comply.
>Thanks for being one of our most loyal viewers. We distort, you comply.
Thanks for reading Indymedia. We lie, you buy.
Thanks for reading Indymedia. We lie, you buy.
Thanks for your blind support. Can I count on you when I invade Syria? IF WE DON'T SUCCEED, WE RUN THE RISK OF FAILURE. Chew on THAT one, leftists.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$210.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network