Pambazuka.org: Bush, Blair, Obama and the blood of the innocents

From: Berhane Habtemariam <Berhane.Habtemariam_at_gmx.de_at_dehai.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2014 19:34:57 +0200

Bush, Blair, Obama and the blood of the innocents


The human rights crisis in Iraq


Ajamu Baraka


2014-07-08


The people of Iraq are once again on the receiving end of a 'humanitarian'
war to save them from a situation that the U.S. created with the invasion in
2003 and the ill-fated attempt to dislodge al-Assad from power in Syria.

"The civilized have created the wretched, quite coldly and deliberately, and
do not intend to change the status quo; are responsible for their slaughter
and enslavement; rain down bombs on defenseless children whenever and
wherever they decide that their "vital interests" are menaced, and think
nothing of torturing a man to death; these people are not to be taken
seriously when they speak of the "sanctity" of human life, or the conscience
of civilized world."
- James Baldwin

The human costs of the adventures of the U.S., EU/NATO and Gulf Cooperation
Council (GCC) axis of evil over the last decade have been enormous. In an
all-too-familiar spectacle the other week, the 500,000 human beings - men,
women and children - who fled the war torn city of Mosul, joined the
millions throughout the Middle East and worldwide whose lives have been
turned into a living hell by the policies of a moribund Western elite who
still believe that the world is their personal chess board and people and
nations are disposable pawns to be used and discarded at will.

When Zbigniew Brzezinski, national security advisor under President Carter,
formulated the plan to draw the Soviet Union into becoming more directly
involved in Afghanistan by arming a force of anti-communist Islamic
fundamentalists who would wage war on the secular and progressive
nationalist government in that country, there was no consideration for the
consequences of that decision for the people of Afghanistan or even for what
would happen to those glorious anti-communist warriors once they were no
longer needed. For Carter, Brzezinski, Reagan, the Bushes, Clinton and all
of the servants of the capitalist elite, the value attached to the lives of
non-Westerners has always had a utilitarian quality that was based on the
degree to which they served or were in alignment with Western interests. And
even when that was the case, those lives were only considered so long as
they advanced the longer term interests of the West.

It is only as a result of the callous manipulations of the elites when they
experience 'blowback' in the form of a 9/11 attack or the uprising in Iraq
that the reality of the 'other' is recognized, but then only in the Fanonian
sense that it is through the violent expressions of the 'others' that the
reality of their existence is acknowledged, though not their fundamental
humanity.

Unfortunately, for the people of Iraq, the racist, colonialist fantasies of
Bush, Rumsfeld and Cheney - who convinced themselves that the dignity of the
Iraqi people was so thin that they would welcome foreign invaders as
liberators - are once again being conjured with bizarre theories that U.S.
airpower will somehow accomplish what thousands of ground forces were unable
to do - defeat what is turning out to be a broad-based uprising among
Sunnis, that includes the U.S. and GCC supported Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIS) - that has now evolved into a force with a significant
degree of autonomy - against what they see as a neocolonial Shia dominated
government put in place by U.S. occupation forces.

Republicans, many Democrats, and (once again) some confused segments of the
U.S. left are calling for some kind of intervention to block what is being
widely reported in the Western media as a foreign invasion by ISIS. While
U.S. authorities make plans for some form of direct intervention, the people
of Iraq are preparing themselves to once again be on the receiving end of a
'humanitarian' war to save them from a situation that the U.S. created
itself with the invasion in 2003 and the ill-fated attempt to dislodge
al-Assad from the presidency in Syria.

The corporate capitalist airways are filled with the talking heads of empire
who are disingenuously framing the rapid deterioration of the Iraqi
government as the result of two factors: the decision not to force the Iraqi
entity to enter into a status-of-forces agreement that would have allowed
10,000 soldiers to remain in the country; and the ineptitude of the
al-Maliki government to properly manage the distorted state and obliterated
society that the U.S. bestowed on the new government.

These private spokespersons, many of whom were the very same incompetents
who developed and operationalized the criminal invasion in 2003, to a person
have not discussed the three elements that really explain the current
situation in Iraq - the 2003 invasion, the fact that the U.S. lost the war
and was forced to retreat, and the predictable destabilization of Iraq as a
consequence of arming Sunni extremists in Syria to overthrow the government
of Bashir al-Assad.

On those first two elements, responsibility clearly rests with the war
criminals of the Tony Blair and George W. Bush regimes. But on the last
issue, the illegal arming and training of an insurgent force to undermine
the sovereignty of an established state - that crime rests with President
Barack Obama and his administration.

Democrats, including what is referred to as the "progressive" caucus, the
Congressional Black Caucus and other caucus groups, along with the
unprincipled and opportunist collection of Democratic party hacks at the
Center for American Progress, the New American Foundation, Human Rights
Watch and the other liberal and mainstream institutions and publications who
gave direct or tacit support to the foolish Bush era strategy to destroy
Syria, all place the blame for the "debacle" in Iraq on al-Maliki. And while
many of these elements opposed the Bush attack on Iraq, the moral basis for
their opposition to direct war by the U.S. in Iraq under a Republican
president failed them in response to the indirect war waged on Syria by a
Democrat president. In both cases, it was war that was unleashed, and in
both cases outside the parameters of international law and in opposition to
the wishes and interests of the vast majorities of the peoples of those
nations.

The delusional declaration that the foreign armies of the U.S. would be
greeted as liberators in Iraq has been as devastating as the equally
delusional support for a "moderate" opposition that would collaborate with
foreign sources to wage war on their fellow citizens. All of this was
predicted. Many of us who opposed the arrogant and illegal destabilization
plan for Syria did so from the perspective that not only would the plan
result in massive loss of life in Syria, but that its effect would inflame
the entire region, especially since it was clear that the strategy was to
sectarianize the battle in Syria. Even reports and analyses from
publications on the right to more moderate and centrist publications like
The National Interest recognized that the dangerous and incoherent policies
in Syria were going to destabilize the entire region.

And even though for many of us the strategic necessity for opposing the
machinations of the U.S., NATO and their GCC client-states in Syria was
clear, the confused liberal left faced an ideological and political
conundrum: While most opposed the illegal war on Iraq, they nevertheless
surrendered to national and racial chauvinism and gave ideological and
political support to the illegal war waged against Syria. But now, with the
predictable result that the war in Syria has created conditions and a
political argument for the militarists in favor of a military return to
Iraq, the liberal/left is finding it hard to formulate a coherent let alone
morally and politically consistent position on the issue of U.S. military
involvement in Iraq.

And in light of the fact that policies operationalized over the last six
year are responsible for the increased violence and destabilization in the
region, the blame Bush position expressed by the defenders' of Obama's
policy options in Iraq and the ongoing violence and chaos in the Middle-East
is unconvincing.
These defenders of Obama are unable to accept that historically when
reference is made to the criminal activities associated with the last gasps
of empire in the Middle East, Obama's policies and Obama himself will be
linked to the infamous cast of war criminals alongside Tony Blair and George
W. Bush - company that he has earned along with a legacy that will forever
tarnish his presidency. But he will not be alone, with the blood that is
flowing and will flow in Iraq and Syria, the hands of Democratic party
operatives and their supporters who collaborated with U.S. power will also
be stained with the blood of innocents.

* Ajamu Baraka is a human rights activist, organizer and geo-political
analyst. His latest publications include contributions to two recently
published books "Imagine: Living in a Socialist USA" and "Claim No Easy
Victories: The Legacy of Amilcar Cabral." He can be reached at
<mailto:info.abaraka_at_gmail.com> info.abaraka_at_gmail.com and
<http://www.AjamuBaraka.com> www.AjamuBaraka.com

 
Received on Tue Jul 08 2014 - 13:35:31 EDT

Dehai Admin
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2013
All rights reserved