Lies and Oil: A Brief History of the U.S. in Iraq

In “A History of Violence: Facing U.S. Wars of Aggression,” we saw a broad overview of how the American government uses military force to protect its economic interests and global power. Now we will take a closer look at the U.S. wars in Iraq. Sources include those listed at the beginning of the aforementioned article, particularly Hegemony or Survival, Imperial Ambitions, The Untold History of the United States, and A People’s History of the United States.

The story of the United States and Iraq begins with oil.

In 1963, British intelligence and the CIA supported the Ba’ath Party’s overthrow of Iraqi Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qassem, who threatened British and American oil interests. Qassem sought to take ownership of Iraqi oil from private foreign companies like BP, Exxon, and Mobil so the production and distribution of oil, and its profits, would serve Iraq. The Ba’ath coup was successful, and Qassem was publicly executed.

Iraq’s new dictator, Ba’ath party member Saddam Hussein, became a close U.S. ally (the CIA had recruited him to murder Qassem[1]). Though Hussein was not a perfect ally (he ended up nationalizing the Iraqi oil industry in the early 1970s, seizing 75% of Iraq’s oil production[2]), the U.S. had a vested interest in protecting its access to Iraq’s oil, and thus it supported the 1980 Iraqi invasion of Iran (a country that in 1953 also had its uncooperative government overthrown and a brutal dictator installed by the CIA, but had since continued to displease American officials).

Reagan removed Iraq from the list of terrorist states so he could arm Saddam with military equipment—throughout the 1980s, the United States supplied Iraq with war machines and $40 billion worth of loans. The government sold Iraq biological and chemical weaponry, and the CIA instructed in their use. Iraqi nuclear engineers were invited to the U.S. for instruction in weapons manufacturing.[3] The Reagan Administration blocked U.N. resolutions condemning Saddam’s atrocities and use of illegal weapons. The U.S. military even assisted the Iraqis between 1987 and 1988. After 8 years, one million Iranians and Iraqis were dead. After the war was over, a war during which Saddam massacred Kurdish Iraqis and other ethnic minorities with these devices, the U.S. continued to supply him with anthrax, cyanide, and other chemicals. Again, the interests of oil corporations encouraged passivity toward violence and death on a massive scale.

But in 1990, Saddam went too far, greatly displeasing American leaders and quickly devolving into an enemy. Iraq launched an invasion of Kuwait to seize control of the Kuwait oil industry. Tensions escalated between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, and the Bush Administration feared Saddam would also attempt to seize nearby Saudi oil fields—which were enriching U.S. oil companies. President George H.W. Bush amassed over half a million troops in Saudi Arabia and drove Saddam from Kuwait in 1991, utterly destroying his military. Tens of thousands of Iraqis died. With Iraq defeated and defenseless, the U.S. maintained control of Iraqi airspace, and enforced harsh UN sanctions that severely restricted imports to force Saddam to disarm. This economic warfare caused widespread poverty and a huge death toll. Clinton’s Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, when asked her opinion in 1996 on the nearly 600,000 Iraqi children under the age of 5 who died as a result of U.S. sanctions, said, “We think the price is worth it.” An “Oil-for-Food” program introduced by the Clinton Administration sought to alleviate the starvation. Food would be shipped to Iraq if Saddam would sell large amounts of oil on the world market. Foreign nations would get oil, and the profits from the sales would fund food and medicine for Iraqis, war reparations to Kuwait, and U.S.-U.N. operations in Iraq.

Iraq eventually dismantled its biological and chemical weapons program, a process overseen by UN inspectors.

On September 11, 2001, members of the Al-Qaeda terrorist group killed thousands of American civilians in New York and D.C. by hijacking planes and crashing them into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. The summer before, the CIA and FBI had warned a dismissive President Bush that Al-Qaeda was planning to attack the U.S. by hijacking planes.[4] The U.S. invaded Afghanistan to destroy Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, the brutal Afghani rulers who refused to hand over bin Laden. At the same time, the Bush Administration launched a propaganda campaign attempting to link Saddam with the attack and convince Americans he was a well-armed threat to our existence, despite Iraq’s poverty, extreme military weakness, and documented disarmament. Richard A. Clarke, the National Security Council counterterrorism coordinator at the time, said, “When the 9-11 attacks occurred, Bush cabinet members immediately discussed how that tragedy could be used to justify an invasion [of Iraq]” and “Bush himself asked me to try to pin the blame for 9-11 on Iraq.”[5] The administration was so eager to blame Iraq, Donald Rumsfeld had ordered strike plans against Iraq on September 11, while the ruins of the twin towers still smoldered.[6]

A false case was made for war against Iraq. It reminds one of what one of Hitler’s officials, Hermann Goering, said a generation before: “The people don’t want war…the leaders of the country determine the policy…the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounced the pacifists for lack of patriotism.”

Real evidence that Iraq participated in an attack against the U.S. or was planning to do so never materialized. The “evidence” the government presented—that one of the 9/11 hijackers met with an Iraqi intelligence official, that Iraq was buying uranium from Niger, kept mobile biological weapons labs, and helped train Al-Qaeda—all turned out to be forgeries and lies.[7] Secretary of State Collin Powell presented all this to the United Nations (Bush told him, “Maybe they’ll believe you”), but later called it a low point in his career.[8] Michael Morell, a CIA official who served as Bush’s intelligence briefer, admitted in 2015 that the Bush Administration took the information he provided and distorted it.[9] Later, Bush administration officials like Cheney and Rumsfeld ordered the use of torture in Iraq in an attempt to turn their lie into a truth, to establish a link between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda operations.[10] As Noam Chomsky documents, an army psychiatrist named Major Charles Burney explained that “a large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link…there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.”[11] The press reported that “the Bush administration applied relentless pressure on interrogators to use harsh methods on detainees in part to find evidence of cooperation between al Qaida and the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein… [Cheney and Rumsfeld] demanded that the interrogators find evidence of al Qaida-Iraq collaboration” and a senior intelligence official said, “There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took…”[12]

In truth, the Bush Administration saw an easy opportunity to eliminate a rogue dictator and seize control over the second-largest oil reserves in the world.[13] There was no need to invade Saudi Arabia, the home nation of nearly all the 9/11 terrorists—Saudi Arabia was a close ally and a crucial oil partner. Around the globe, there were other countries suffering under worse dictators, but spreading freedom and democracy was not the real goal (once Iraq was occupied, Washington actually tried to prevent elections, because the Iraqi electorate, strongly opposed to the U.S. invasion and U.S. policies, threatened control over the country).[14] Iraq, one of the richest prizes in the world, was both vulnerable and, with a little dishonesty, could be made into an enemy with weapons of mass destruction that supported the 9/11 attacks. Seizing Iraq would open the door to further interventions and tighter control of the region. “Pentagon officials foresaw a five-year campaign with a total of seven targeted countries, beginning with Iraq, followed by Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and the biggest prize of all, Iran.”[15] In the National Security Strategy of 2002, the Bush administration declared it had the right to launch pre-emptive wars against any nation that it perceived to be a future threat, and that no nation should be allowed to challenge America’s global dominance.[16]

The invasion launched in March 2003, and over the next decade millions of innocent people were displaced, hundreds of thousands of civilians killed (in mid-2015, it was estimated that 1.3 million people had died because of the War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan[17]). Thousands of U.S. soldiers died, trillions of taxpayer dollars were wasted, and the country fell into sectarian violence and civil war.

The Bush Administration announced that American companies would rebuild the Iraqi oil industries, and Halliburton, Baker Hughes, and other U.S. drillers raked in hundreds of billions in profits.[18] Bush even had to issue a “signing statement” to the 2008 National Defense Authorization Act that declared he wouldn’t obey parts of the bill that forbade spending taxpayer money to, in Bush’s words, “establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq” or “to exercise United States control of the oil resources of Iraq.”[19]

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Notes

[1] http://www.alternet.org/world/35-countries-where-us-has-supported-fascists-druglords-and-terrorists

[2] https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/185/40719.html

[3] Chomsky, Who Rules the World?, 164-165

[4] Stone, Concise, 277

[5] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-a-clarke/iraq-war-anniversary_b_2904285.html

[6] Stone, Concise, 282

[7] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-a-clarke/iraq-war-anniversary_b_2904285.html

[8] Stone, Concise, 289

[9] http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/05/michael-morell-bush-cheney-iraq-war

[10] Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects, 259

[11] Chomsky, Who Rules the World?, 31

[12] Chomsky, Who Rules the World?, 31

[13] Hegemony or Survival, Chomsky; Imperial Ambitions, Chomsky

[14] Chomsky, Hopes and Prospects, 236

[15] Stone, Concise, 290

[16] Foner, Giver Me Liberty, 1045

[17] http://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

[18] US Companies Get Slice of Iraq’s Oil Pie, Kramer, New York Times.

[19] http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/30/bush_asserts_authority_to_bypass_defense_act/

Tow Truck Driver: God Said Not to Help Disabled Woman Due to Bernie Bumper Sticker

Conservative Christian Ken Shupe, who runs Shupe Max Towing in Traveler’s Rest, South Carolina, left a woman with disabilities who had just been in a car accident stranded on the side of a highway. Upon noticing Cassy McWade’s Bernie Sanders bumper sticker on the back of her vehicle, God allegedly told Shupe not to help McWade.

“Something came over me, I think the Lord came to me, and He just said get in the truck and leave,” Shupe explained. “And when I got in my truck, you know, I was so proud, because I felt like I finally drew a line in the sand and stood up for what I believed.”

Shupe said Bernie Sanders supporters had given him grief in the past about paying their towing bills. “I’ve had some horrible experiences in the last six months with towing cars for this mindset individuals, in that I don’t get paid. They want to argue about a $50 tow bill, and it turns into just a drama and a fuss. And I said, you know, I’m not going to associate with them, and I’m not going to do any business with them.”

Shupe is a Donald Trump supporter.

McWade said, “He goes around back and comes back and says ‘I can’t tow you.’ My first instinct was there must be something wrong with the car. And he says, ‘No, you’re a Bernie supporter.’ And I was like wait, really? And he says, ‘Yes ma’am,’ and just walks away.”

She added, “I personally don’t believe that you…have to agree on anything just to be kind to one another. I was like, what did I do to you?”

McWade has psoriatic arthritis, fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and early-stage Crohns Disease. She says her handicap placard was on her rearview mirror and that Shupe had been told on the phone that she was disabled.

Shupe claimed he did not know McWade had disabilities, but noted: “Had she been disabled, would I have towed her car? No… I would have pulled forward and sat there with her to make sure she was OK until another wrecker service showed up to get her home safely, but I still would not have towed her car. I stand by my decision, and I would do it again today if the opportunity presented itself.”

A writer for a popular atheist website wrote: “Just like the Good Samaritan in the Bible.”

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Maine Democrats to Vote on Eliminating Superdelegates

On Wednesday, May 4, 2016, Maine Public Broadcasting reported that when Democrats in Maine gather in Portland on Friday and Saturday for the state convention, they will not only elect delegates to represent Maine at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia but will further vote on a change to the state’s superdelegate system.

Superdelegates are Democratic politicians who can vote for any candidate they wish during the Democratic primaries and caucuses — they do not have to vote for the candidate that gets the majority of votes from the people. Maine has 5 superdelegates. Bernie Sanders beat Hillary Clinton 64% to 35% in Maine, but Bernie Sanders only got 1 superdelegate. This has been extremely controversial across the country, as superdelegate totals help a candidate clinch the party nomination for president.

The amendment to fix this in Maine would require superdelegates be awarded to each candidate based on how the public voted.

“We have a system of government where you have one person, one vote, by and large,” said state representative Diane Russell, a Bernie Sanders supporter who is leading the effort. “The primary system is not when that happens. And I think that we need to start moving toward a system that’s more fair, that’s more democratic and more reflective of the popular vote.”

Russell claims the measure has widespread support and is confident it will pass.

The superdelegate change would be put in place for 2020, but the amendment also includes a non-binding suggestion that superdelegates from the 2016 contest also be redistributed, awarding Bernie Sanders superdelegate support equal to his victory in the state. DNC rules, however, may inhibit this.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Despite Clinton Lead, Polls Still Show Sanders Would Do Best Against Trump

On Tuesday, May 10, 2016, an NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll showed in a potential matchup between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, Sanders would win 53% to 40%. A Hillary Clinton v. Donald Trump contest would result in a Clinton victory by a 5-point margin, 49% to 44%. The margin of error for the poll was plus or minus 1.3%.

These results are consistent will prior surveys.

While reporting on this poll, Common Dreams noted:

The latest Quinnipiac University survey released Tuesday shows Clinton beating Trump by just one point—43 to 42 percent—in both Florida and Pennsylvania. In Ohio, the real estate mogul holds a four-point lead over Clinton, with 43 to 39 percent.

Echoing the NBC News findings, Sanders bests Trump in all three of those states’ hypothetical match-ups. The Vermont senator leads by two percentage points in both Florida and Ohio (44-42 percent and 43-41 percent, respectively) while beating Trump 47 to 41 percent in Pennsylvania.

The Quinnipiac survey notes that “since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.”

Bernie Sanders faces a steep climb to overtake Hillary Clinton in the delegate count, which currently stands at Clinton 1,705 and Sanders 1,415.

West Virginia votes tonight, and Sanders is expected to win, but the state only carries 37 delegates — divided up according to vote totals. Winning Kentucky, Oregon, and Puerto Rico could help Sanders a bit, as they have between 60-75 delegates, but the big prizes remaining are New Jersey (142 delegates) and California (546 delegates). Sanders needs to win by large margins to overcome his delegate deficit.

Trump and Hillary, confident Sanders cannot make a comeback, have focused attention on attacking each other and gathering voters left over from the nomination season. Trump has taken a turn to the left in an attempt to reach liberals who dislike Clinton (even talking about raising the minimum wage and taxes on the wealthy), while Clinton has taken a turn to the right to appeal to conservatives who dislike Trump. Both strategies come with risk, as Trump may alienate conservative voters who suspect he is more liberal than he pretends and Clinton may only confirm to Bernie Sanders supporters and other leftists that she is, as she recently claimed, “a moderate and center” politician whose record leans unacceptably to the right.

It remains to be seen if these shifts in rhetoric will help, hurt, or not effect Sanders’ upset efforts.

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.

Atheists Dub Ken Ham’s Ark Attraction “Genocide and Incest Park”

A group of atheists, the Tri-State Freethinkers, are calling Ken Ham’s “Ark Encounter” amusement park in Williamstown, Kentucky, the “Genocide and Incest Park.” The atheists hail from Kentucky, Ohio, and Indiana.

The park features a massive ark (currently under construction) that the creators say is accurate according to measurement descriptions in the Christian bible. The company responsible is Answers in Genesis, helmed by Ken Ham.

The Freethinkers are attempting to purchase billboard space for an image of humans drowning outside the Ark, below the words, “Genocide and Incest Park: Celebrating 2,000 Years of Myths.” In the bible, the Judeo-Christian God causes a flood that wipes out all of sinful humanity and the world’s other lifeforms, minus Noah and his family, who build an ark large enough to save themselves and pairs of land-dwelling creatures (according to the Ark Encounter website, Noah cared for 7,000 animals). When the flood is over, Noah’s family repopulates the earth, presumably through in-family sex.

To Christians, this was part of God’s plan and therefore tolerable, similar to other divine actions in the bible non-Christians find horrific. The atheist group believes all this to be pure myth, but are having a difficult time finding billboard owners receptive to their rebranding of the theme park.

Lamar, a national billboard name, rejected the advertisement, the local office head calling it “not appropriate” and “inflammatory.” Two years ago, Lamar advertised for the Ark Encounter, with one billboard reading: “To all of our intolerant liberal friends: Thank God you can’t sink this ship.”

Another billboard company rejected the atheists’ ad as well.

Beyond their criticism of genocide and incest inherent in the bible story and the theme park, the Freethinkers further condemned the $18 million in state tax credits granted to the project, calling it a violation of church-state separation, and the park policy of only hiring born-again Christians, pointing out this violates equal opportunity in employment laws.

Regarding the billboards, Ken Ham declared of the atheists, “They don’t want people to be exposed to the truth of God’s Word.”

For more from the author, subscribe and follow or read his books.