|
|
Posted by kevinjhaggerty on 12/28/07 03:38
if you like this, post it elsewhere.
----------------------------------------
the following text is from http://democracynow.org
AMY GOODMAN: As we turn now to a new report issued yesterday by the
international institute for strategic studies found the war in Iraq
has helped Al Qaeda increase its size and galvanize the group's will.
The report concluded in part, "war in Iraq has probably inflamed
radical passion among Muslims, and that's increased Al Qaeda's
recruiting power and morale, and at least marginally its operating
capability." The report by the international institute for strategic
studies is considered to be the annual Bible for defense analysts.
Today we're going to hear a speech by Tariq Ali, hes author of "Bush
in Babylon: the recolonization of Iraq." His book combines Iraqi and
Arab and Iraqi history and world politics. Without knowing the past,
he says, it is impossible to understand what is happening today and
the history is presented as a warning to both occupier and resister.
We turn now to Tariq Ali, who began his speech by talking about there
being two ways to deal with 9-11, he said in New York at the riverside
church, one being political and one military.
TARIQ ALI: The political method involved asking yourself the question
what it was that induced large numbers of young, middle-class
professional people, graduating from universities in the Arab world
and outside to join organizations like Al Qaeda. Why were they doing
it? And if you begin to ask that question, you are then compelled to
look at the region and see what's going on. And at that moment, three
things were going on. One, you had the occupation, the continuing
occupation of Palestine, which was upsetting large numbers of people
in that world. Secondly, you had the continuing sanctions against
Iraq, which, according to UNESCO and the United Nations, has cost the
lives of 500,000 children, wrecked the social infrastructure of Iraq,
prevented the regime from implementing what it was doing before the
war, giving people a decent health service, shelter, education. And
thirdly, the support being given to the venal Arab regimes, which were
backing the west and had backed the west for the last 20 years. These
were the three reasons.
Now, what happened? Did anyone discuss seriously what to do when
attacks of terror take place like this? There were examples from the
rest of the world. Long years ago when the Irish Republican army
attempted to blow up the entire British cabinet and came close to
doing it, with Mrs. Thatcher as their central target, the British did
have two options, they could have gone on a rampage in Northern
Ireland. They could have destroyed the county of the southern Armah,
where the headquarters and the strength of the IRA were. They could
have bombed Dublin if they wanted to. They could have invaded. What
did they do? After a pretty outrageous attack, which nearly took off
the entire front bench of the conservative leadership, they decided to
negotiate. Secret negotiations were begun three months after that
attack, because they wanted to bring this to an end. And if the
American administration had bee serious about dealing with 9/11 they
would have put first massive pressure on the regime in Israel to pull
out of the occupied territories, to withdraw to the 67 Frontiers,
which is what the Israeli peace movement demands, which is what the
brave Israeli reservists, several hundred of them have said they
refuse to serve in the occupied lands anymore. But they didn't do it.
Instead, Ariel Sharon became a valued ally in the war against terror.
He was given the green light to go into whatever he wanted to do. And
instead of ending the sanctions against Iraq, instead of ending the
12-year bombing campaign against Iraq where bombs were dropped on that
country every single week, so much so that American military spokesman
told the New York Times, we've run out of targets to bomb. There's
nothing left to bomb. This is the country they said posed a threat to
the United States of America and its aircraft carrier near the North
Sea called Britain. The aircraft carrier called Britain felt
threatened. They said this aircraft carrier can be destroyed in 45
minutes by a hit from Saddam Hussein. Then it turned out that was a
lie, because just as the regime here has been lying, the regime in
Britain has been lying to its people. So they did exactly the
opposite. And what has happened as a result, this is what partially
explains the massive turnout from February 15. Because millions of
people march, as you know, including in your country, every single
state Capital had a big demonstration. 60,000 people marched in
Minnesota in freezing temperatures, unheard of. A million of you
marched in New York. 800,000 marched in San Francisco.
Why? Most of the people who came out and joined these marches, it was
the first time they had ever done something like this, because
unfortunately, the American left isnt that strong. These were
ordinary people coming up because they were disturbed by what they saw
as the irrational nature of this war that was being prepared. They
understood it, instinctively they saw that. It's wrong, we are being
fed lies, and there is no rational reason for this war.
AMY GOODMAN: Tariq Ali, "Bush in Babylon, the recolonization of Iraq"
We'll be back with him in a minute.
[MUSIC BREAK]
AMY GOODMAN: Melud, here on Democracy Now, the war and peace report,
as we continue with author, writer, journalist, Tariq Ali, "Bush in
Babylon: the recolonization of Iraq."
TARIQ ALI: Pentagon Generals were leaking stuff to the newspapers
saying they didn't know why this war was taking place. In Britain, you
had an amazing development. Britain is a far more secretive country
than the United States where people tend to leak quite regularly.
Which is a good thing, as Amy would agree. We need more people to
leak. But Britain is a very secretive country, and there is a culture
of secrecy there. So when you have, after the fall of Baghdad a letter
written to a daily newspaper in Britain, "the financial times, signed
by sir Robert Brat Waite, former head of the intelligence committee, a
former national security adviser to Tony Blair at 10 downing street,
and what does this letter say? -That the fall of Baghdad means
nothing. He says the British people were skeptical about this war and
they were lied to. Housewives were told to stock up goods for three
weeks in case of terrorist attacks. Tanks were sent to Heathrow
airport. By the way, even at the time the tanks were sent to Heathrow
airport, we knew it was fake, because a number of policemen on the
demonstration said, you don't have to believe that, because when it
will 5:30, the tanks clocked off and went back home, so it's not
serious. And then they frightened people that within 45 minutes
Britain could be hit. They attempted to intimidate people, frighten
them. Partially they succeeded, not completely. And the head of the
joint intelligence committee said fish mongers sell fish, warmongers
sell war. I think our prime minister oversold his wares. This is
unheard of. That indicates that there was a very strong resistance to
this war inside the establishment of that country. When Blair sent 1/3
of the British army to occupy bases in southern Iraq which had been
British bases in the 1920's, 1930's, and 1940's, and which had been
removed at that time after a fierce resistance, so they went to war.
The great leaders of the free world. And what happened? ì What did
they imagine would happen? I'll tell you what they thought would
happen. They thought they would be welcomed with flowers by the
population of Iraq. And why did they think that? Because a handful of
Iraqi collaborators on the payroll of the intelligence agencies here,
all wanting be to be on the payroll of the intelligence agencies,
gearing up for university positions, went to the White House and told
Bush this would be a war of liberation. Just like Japan and Germany
after the Second World War. And this administration believed them. The
intelligence services in the United States didn't believe them. The
CIA was nervous, the defense intelligence agency was nervous. The
generals in the Pentagon were nervous. But not the neo-cons, not the
man in the White House, not his deputy dog, none of them were nervous.
They wanted to go to war, and what had to happen happened. We warned
them in speeches, in writings, in essays, if did you to war against
Iraq, remember one thing. This is not the Balkans. This is not even
Afghanistan. This is a sovereign, independent Arab state who you are
attacking for no rhyme or reason, and even though the population
doesn't like Saddam Hussein, they will hate you even more and resist
you. And that's exactly what happened. ì The resistance first started
in the south. Strong holds of anti-Saddam resistance in the old days.
That's where the resistance first started. Then it spread. The mistake
I made, and I admitted it, I thought it would take about six months
for the resistance to commence in Iraq. I was wrong, happily. It
started very quickly. And you know what never fails to surprise me?
Its how so many people in the United States, and even in Britain, are
surprised that people don't like being occupied. It's a big mystery to
lots of people here that the Iraqis in their majority do not like
being occupied. Well, it's no mystery in that world. And the reason it
isnt a mystery in that world is that Iraq is the country with a
history of resistance. This is what I try to explain in my new book,
Bush in Babylon. The title I choose deliberately because I thought it
was the only thing I thought the great thinker president would
understand. Babylon being an Old Testament city. But what I tried to
show is that in a country with such a strong tradition of resistance
against one empire and a young country formed only in the 1920's, with
that strong tradition, there are large numbers of people alive who
still remember that resistance. And they have created a consciousness
in Iraq, regardless of Saddam Hussein or anyone else, they have
created a consciousness in Iraq, which is a consciousness of a people
with a historical memory. Their memory has not been wiped out. And
that's why they don't take kindly to being occupied by foreign powers.
And that's why the resistance in Iraq will grow.
At the moment, it's at the first stage, classical first stage of
resistance to a foreign occupation -low intensity, guerrilla warfare,
targeting of certain buildings, certain people-, to try and make the
country ungovernable. And they've done it. And the only social layer
in Iraq which might have supported the intervention and occupation,
the layer of merchants who the British used as a prop when they were
ruling the country for 25 years are completely hostile to what's going
on because the aim of this particular occupation is obvious. This is
not an occupation, which takes place in the pattern of traditional
colonial occupation. This is an occupation in an epoch of neo-liberal
capitalism. So you cannot have what the old states used to do, provide
some semblance of normality to countries they occupied.
This empire imposes on Iraq, not just its military, but as Amy pointed
out very eloquently, also imposes on this country its companies, its
businessmen, its privatized mercenaries, and its operators on every
level. And deep down it understands that the occupation is unpopular
because it will not even hire local people to do the cleaning up jobs
in the American barracks. South Asian workers, Filipino workers are
brought in to do that work. And if you are in an occupation where you
can't trust any section of the country, then in reality you recognize
that this Occupation is doomed.
And so the talk which we hear, the bravado, that is Reminiscent. There
are not many analogies with Vietnam, but one of the analogies which
does apply are the lies you are fed by the politicians and generals
there who have to tell lies to justify the occupation. Yes, there are
a few problems, but send us a few more troops, and it will get better.
The white head among you will recall general Westmoreland standing in
Saigon year after year and say the war would be over this Christmas.
Now, no one in Iraq wants this occupation. No one wants innocent
American soldiers to die. They are perfectly aware of this. They know
that the bulk of the army is an army of the poor. That's what it is.
It's an army from some of the poorest people in this country who join
in order to get a job, in order to get an education in many cases as
you know full well. Many join because they feel this is the way they
will get to college; they will get an education after they did that.
They didn't know they were going to be sent to occupy Militarily. If
this government believes it has the support of the American people,
then let's make it a democratic war. Let's have a draft so that every
single person has to face exactly the same threat. I know it's not
popular, but why? If you're fighting for enduring freedom, if this is
the great cause of democracy, then go and fight for it, don't send the
poorest people in your country to fight for it. Why should they
suffer? They won't do that because it will be unpopular and it will
begin to boost the size of the anti-war movement in this country so
that it will become irresistible.
Now, people say, how do we resist the American empire? Those who are
directly occupied will resist it as they do, what other means is left
open to them? People say what if there's an election in Iraq? The
British organized an election when they occupied Iraq, where 2/3 of
the seats were not contested. You can have elections like that. But if
you have a proper election in Iraq to elect a Constituent assembly,
I'm prepared to bet anything that amongst the first two demands of
this elected constituent assembly, one-all Foreign troops all
occupying troops out of Iraq and second Iraqi control of Iraqi oil.
And countries, which have oil, -that's not the exclusive or even major
reason for this war-, but countries with oil, just look at their
history. The West prefers these countries to be ruled by dictatorships
or oligarchies that can safeguard the oil. That's why they toppled the
democratic regime in Iran in 1953 and Brought the Shah back because
they wanted someone they could rely on, and they wiped out all secular
alternatives. They tortured them, drove them out of the country, so
the only doors that were left open were the doors of the mosque, and
then they have the nerve to attack the Iranians to make a Clerical
revolution. What other hope did you leave there when you put the Shah
back on the throne? And that's what they did in most of the Middle
East during the Cold war in order to wipe out secular nationalists,
inflict defeat on them. They used Israel as the battering ram and the
clericals in Saudi Arabia as the ideological weapon to defeat the
enemy within. Destroy them. They did it in Indonesia. A million and a
half people were killed in Indonesia, and many of the vigilantes who
participated in the killings are now people leading the Islammist
organizations. Every single case, Osama bin Laden you know full well.
And it's not going to work like that. For either side. You have to
have movements in that region, which have a social vision. And in
Iraq, you will have such movement. So people know instinctively in the
state department that any talk of immediately privatizing the Iraqi
oil will offend every section of Iraqi society. So if you look at
their web site, they're saying, go easy on it, don't raise the
question of oil just yet.
I'll give you another example if you really need to be convinced that
this is about democracy. Look at the other oil-producing country in
the South American continent, Venezuela. They tried to topple Hugo
Chavez, who has been elected in different capacities six different
times by the people of Venezuela. They tried to organize a coup. They
organized a coup to defeat him. The coup succeeded for 48 hours, and
the fraudster, the corrupt businessmen they were swearing in as
president of Venezuela was going to be introduced as the new freedom
fighter, the guy who was going to fight for freedom and who had
defeated the forces of evil. That's what the New York Times said.
After Chavez was removed, a coup had taken place; the New York Times
said democracy in Venezuela has been enhanced. Well, yes. In a way, it
has. The sort of democracy they believe, a sort of democracy which
only protects the interest of Capital. That's what they believe in.
But Chavez came back, because half a million of the poor in Caracas
marched outside the Mira Flores palace. And the soldiers told their
officers, "We will not support the coup". There were threats of mutiny
inside the army, and I want to give you an example of this. Outside of
palace, there is a band, which plays the national anthem. There is a
17-year-old soldier, boy soldier, whose only job is to play the bugle.
He's the bugler. Every time the president comes out, he plays the
bugle. The general who made the coup came and told the band the new
President is coming out, you get ready to play the national anthem,
and he told the bugler, you play the bugle. And these rank-and-file
soldiers said why do we have a new president, we've got an elected
one, Hugo Chavez. What's happened to him? And the general said, it's
not your business to ask me that question, so he told the bugler, the
minute I bring the new President out, you will play the bugle, and the
bugler said, but my president is Hugo Chavez. And the general said,
you will obey orders, and the 17-year-old kid said to the general,
you seem to be really keen on playing the bugle, here, play it
yourself.
Now, that's a spirit which can exist in different parts of the World.
And that's a spirit now, which is coming up in Iraq. There are 44
different resistance organizations, small, big, Composing every
political current. The next stage for this resistance will be to try
and create a nationwide organization, a national organization to
resist the occupation. And I'll tell you something else, just think
and ask yourself, what would have happened in the world and the
political situation in this country if there had been no resistance at
all? It's the resistance in Iraq, whether they admit it or not, which
gave some democratic politicians the courage to find their tongues
again and to say perhaps there was something wrong in the war. They
wouldn't have done it if nothing had happened in Iraq. They wouldn't
have done it without that.
So we have a situation in the Middle East today, which is a mess. A
complete mess. We have a dual occupation of that region. Iraq is now
occupied by western armies led by the United States, and Palestine
continues to be occupied. And every single day I get emails from the
Israeli peace movement and people working with them and human Rights
monitors of episodes which take place in some part of Palestine,
people Being shot, people being killed, children dying every single
day. Children dying in many cases not shot in the arm or the leg by
accident, but shot in the head. And the world stays silent and
watches. In Europe, at least there's some reporting of this. But the
media, the official media in this country, not Democracy Now!, the
official media in this country is totally blind to the suffering of
the Palestinian people. Why? I advise them sometimes when I debate
them; Why don't you just publish in the New York Times and The
Washington Post and the L.A. Times just a few articles which are
already being published in the Israeli press and which show exactly
what's going on, then no one will accuse you, just reprint these
articles from the Israeli press. But they don't do it. They don't do
it because the interests of the American empire have got very badly
entangled with the operation of Zionism in Israel. That's what's
happened. But I'll tell you something, even decent, honest Zionists
are now upset. Recently, I don't know whether this article was
published in the United States, probably not, it was published in
European newspapers, an article by Abraham Berg, a former chairman of
the Israeli parliament, saying, I am ashamed to be a Zionist because
of what is being done in our name to the Palestinians, and this man
asks, if you make the Palestinians totally despair, if you crush all
their national aspirations, if you go to shoot and kill them every
day, how else do you expect them to behave? Basically what he's saying
is that when the daily life of a people becomes so awful that they
sometimes feel it might be easier to die than to live, then they are
prepared to risk their lives and take others with them. That's the
reality of what is going on in Palestine.
AMY GOODMAN: You're listening to Tariq Ali, author of Bush in Babylon:
The recolonization of Iraq. We'll be back with him in a minute.
[Back to original message]
|