A01701
Articles : IraqDouble Standards in Iraq
Monday was one of those rare illuminating days. A juxtaposition of events starkly exposed Western double standards and made the Iraqi government’s claims of sovereignty even more nonsensical than it already was.
Anyone who tuned into the BBC’s HARDtalk program during the day would have been subjected to Iraq’s corpulent marionette of a president Jalal Talibani, fresh from groveling around the nether regions of George W.
There he was sporting his omnipresent grin worming his way around Stephen Sackur’s questions over Iraq’s so-called democracy, the inclusiveness of the draft constitution and his own shilly-shallying over signing Saddam’s death warrant.
When the Kurdish politician—whose demeanor is more suited to a shisha-puffing carpet trader than a leader—was faced with a query over his government’s legitimacy at a time foreign soldiers were still stomping all over his land, he nostalgically looked back to June 2004 when the invaders handed back sovereignty to Iraqis. He thought it was a great day.
Talabani must be one of the few who took the handover seriously, as anyone with an IQ over 80 quickly realized it was yet another Pentagon production on the lines of the rigged toppling of Saddam’s statue, the Jessica Lynch fiasco, and ‘Mission Accomplished’.
But wait! I’m being too tough on the old warhorse. His pal Hazem al-Shaalan, who was Iyad Allawi’s defense minister, obviously believed Iraq was sovereign, too, when he allegedly siphoned off US$1 billion from his procurement budget, which translated means every cent. A patriot, indeed, especially when one remembers how a whopping US$9 billion went walkabout under the watch of Paul L. Bremer.
So let’s explore the unlikelihood that HARDtalk viewers were dim enough to swallow Talabani’s sales pitch. Let’s imagine they bought the purple finger garbage or the new holy grail of a constitution. And, let’s suppose they could even dig deep into their hearts to excuse Talabani from his desire to witness Saddam with his neck snapped and his eyes parted from their sockets as long as he wasn’t the one signing the order. I’ll be absent on that day, he said, with a grin, admitting that task would be left to some subordinate unfortunate.
So let’s suppose that after that program we were left with starry eyes and a wellspring of gratitude towards America’s compassionate conservative leader for freeing the poor, oppressed, long suffering Iraqis, who thanks to him, have a glorious future in store (those who haven’t already been carried off by men in white coats, that is)
The remainder, who had switched off their sets and gone fishing, or used their newspapers for shelf-lining, might still be infused with that rosy Talabani glow. But for newshounds, that glow would swiftly fade into a pallor. Just a few hours after Talabani’s schmaltz there came dramatic breaking news.
According to the BBC, two British servicemen dressed like local Shiites drove up to an Iraqi-manned checkpoint near Basra. They were apparently driving a scruffy civilian car and when challenged they opened fire resulting in the deaths of an Iraqi policeman. A confused-looking BBC anchor struggling to make sense of the incident described it as ‘murky’.
Naturally, the sleazy Laurence-emulating pair was carted off to the slammer—along with their eclectic arsenal of weaponry and communication devices—where a rioting crowd soon gathered, furious over the killing.
The Basra police told the British army that the soldiers were due to appear before an Iraqi court, which sounds reasonable to me. Isn’t this exactly what would happen in any so-called civilized country where the rule of law applies?
But this wasn’t good enough for Iraq’s Ramboesque British guests, ostensibly there to set this ‘sovereign’ country on the road to security even when, after heavy diplomatic arm twisting, Iraq’s defense minister ordered their guys’ release.
“Last night, British forces used up to 10 tanks supported by helicopters to smash through the walls of the jail and free the two British servicemen,” reported the Independent, adding, “around 150 prisoners were said to have escaped during the assault, which was condemned as ‘barbaric, savage and irresponsible’ by Mohammed Al-Waili, the provincial governor.
Then after this Hollywood-style blockbuster—thought to have terminally eroded whatever trust there was between the occupation forces in the south and the Iraqi police—the Brits discovered their men had been moved to a private house; the home of a militia-man.
Thank the Lord that the Brits are home and dry and even though a British tank was fired with petrol bombs its occupants have got away with minor injuries. Never mind that three Iraqis lost their lives during those incidents or that 15 were wounded in their own ‘sovereign’ democracy appears to be the attitude of most media outlets.
The British army in Iraq should be ashamed of itself. Its members have behaved like a gang of thugs who wouldn’t look out of place rescuing banditos in a banana republic. But in a way, it’s done us all a favor.
We are surely forced to cast off our rose-colored specs mine are terminally grey and face reality. Iraq is still occupied. And its government is made up of employees of the Bush administration, its ‘jump to it’ allies, and its crony companies. Talabani and crew have clearly sold-out, else they would order yes order—the occupier to sling its hook without delay.
Instead, Talabani told the BBC that the allies are welcome to stay as long as they like. And they will. Don’t worry about that!
After all, there are reconstruction contracts, still to be doled out. There is the privatization of Iraq’s resources to complete. There are four permanent military bases to build and we mustn’t forget that foreign carpet baggers and mercenaries have starving babes of one kind or another to feed back home in London and Los Angeles.
When the Kurdish leader dared ask Mr. Bush how long that might be during his recent visit to the White House he was apparently told “as long as it takes to do the job”. Pity he didn’t enquire to which job the US President was referring. Could it be the paint job which would allow George W. to stick up two fingers instead of the usual one perchance?
I know all about the arguments which defend the presence of allied armies, warning darkly of a full-blown civil war were they to exit. And it is true that there will be bloodshed, but, on the other hand, the cities and streets are running with the red stuff now. And, unfortunately, the sight of Brits trying to pass themselves off as Arabs and taking part in shoot-outs simply feeds into insurgents’ claims that the allies are working on a ‘divide and rule’ ethic.
There is more and more of a consensus that our armies are no longer part of the solution but are the problem. Studies have shown that ordinary Iraqis unable to stomach the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the leveling of Fallujah and the brutal ‘pacification’ of Tal Afar are joining the insurgency.
Others, mostly Sunnis, are outraged over the draft constitution, which they view as either a prelude to an Islamist state or the break-up of Iraq into three segments. Just about all are just sick and tired of the lack of electricity, jobs and opportunity and the abundance of backed-up sewage.
Sure, allied fingers point at foreign fighters as being the insurgency’s fountainhead but the US military has admitted that these make-up only six per cent of insurgents. But this isn’t something they like to dwell upon; not when a low-hanging fruit like Syria is being slowly ripened by accusations that it supports the insurgents by facilitating their entry through its borders.
Put simply, the double standards we impose are nauseating. What if Iraqis had stormed Abu Ghraib to free the prisoners there from sexual abuse, torture, beatings and assaults on their religious beliefs? If they had succeeded bashing down the wall of that jail and plucking their friends from their cells, would that cavalry have been termed “rescuers” or “terrorists”? We already know the answer to that one don’t we?
Get with the rule: The allies are honor-soaked heroes when they drop bombs, fire depleted uranium tank shells, send missiles into heavily-populated areas, use cluster-bombs or napalm and force people into rivers when they cannot swim. But any Iraqi who would dare retaliate is ‘a terrorist’ even if that Iraqi happens to be a policeman at a checkpoint guilty of arresting two trigger-happy drag artist foreign spooks.
Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Mid-East affairs based in Egypt. She can be reached at heardonthegrapevines@yahoo.co.uk.
Posted by anthony
Anthony Lappé is GNN's Executive Editor. He's written for The New York Times, Details, New York, Paper, The Fader and Vice, among many others. He has worked as a producer for MTV and Fuse. He is the co-author of GNN's True Lies and the producer of their Iraq doc,...
RELATED ITEMS
- What is Covert Action?
Posted by ShiftShapers on Wednesday, September 21st 2005 - Fake Terrorism Is a Coalition's Best Friend
Posted by ShiftShapers on Wednesday, September 21st 2005 - The strange case for false flags in Iraq
Posted by alexander on Thursday, September 22nd 2005 - Agents provocateurs in Iraq
Posted by anthony on Wednesday, September 21st 2005
UPDATE:
British Troops Reduce Presence in Basra
Thursday September 22, 2005 12:46 PM
By THOMAS WAGNER, Associated Press Writer
BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) – British troops in the tense southern city of Basra greatly reduced their presence in the streets Thursday, apparently responding to a call from the provincial governor to sever cooperation until London apologized for storming a police station to free two of its soldiers.
For the second day, no British forces were seen with accompanying Iraqi police on patrols of Basra, as they routinely had in the past.
Elsewhere, a roadside bomb hit a U.S. convoy in southern Baghdad, killing one soldier and wounding six others Wednesday. Suspected insurgents gunned down at least eight Iraqis in four separate attacks Thursday, officials said.
In an interview with Associated Press Television News in Baghdad Thursday, Iraqi National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie called Monday’s attack by British forces on a police station in Basra ``a flagrant violation of Iraqi sovereignty.’‘
At least five Iraqis were killed during a day of clashes between British forces and Iraqi police and demonstrators on Monday. British armor crashed into a jail to free the two soldiers who had been arrested by Iraqi police and militiamen. Earlier, a crowd attacked British troops with stones and Molotov cocktails.
The fighting has raised concern over the increasing boldness of Shiite militias in the south of the country and the challenge they pose to the 8,500-strong British force in the region. As recently as Wednesday, Britain vowed to keep its troops in the country until they no longer are needed, but also has leaked information recently about planning for a troop reduction. The Shiite militias complicate the British role no matter which way it moves.
On Wednesday, hundreds of Iraqi civilians and policemen, some waving pistols and AK-47s, rallied in Basra, Iraq’s second largest city, to denounce ``British aggression’‘ in the rescue of the two British soldiers.
Several hours after the protest, Basra’s provincial council held an emergency meeting and voted unanimously ``to stop dealing with the British forces in Basra and not to cooperate with them because of their irresponsible aggression on a government facility.’‘
Basra Gov. Mohammed al-Waili called the attack ``barbaric’‘ and a product of imperial arrogance. He declared an end to all cooperation with British forces unless Prime Minister Tony Blair’s government apologized for the deadly clashes with Iraqi police.
Britain defended the raid.
Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari repeated assurances that the troubles in Basra would not cause a rift between the British contingent and the Iraqi security forces.
``I do not think that this will be an obstacle that cannot be overcome,’‘ al-Jaafari said Thursday at a Baghdad news conference after returning from Britain, where he and British Defense Secretary John Reid sought to defuse tension.
Each side has offered contradictory accounts of the events on Monday, and the Iraqi prime minister said he would be meeting with British Ambassador William Patey to ``look into what has happened.’‘
Iraq’s state minister for national security, Abdul Karim Al-Enizi, told reporters the Iraqi Cabinet has formed a committee to investigate Monday’s violence.
The provisional council demanded that Britain apologize to Basra’s citizens and police and provide compensation for the families of people killed or wounded in the violence. The council also said it would punish employees who had not tried to defend the Basra police station from the British military attack.
Before the recent volatility, the British had prided themselves on their good relations with Iraqi authorities.
In Baghdad on Wednesday, a roadside bomb killed one U.S. soldier and wounded six in the Dora section, said Sgt. 1st Class David Abrams of the U.S. Army. The residential area of the capital has been the site of many attacks by insurgents against American forces and Iraqi police.
The U.S. military also said an American soldier died Wednesday night of injuries sustained in a vehicle accident near Kirkuk.
The two deaths raised the U.S. death toll since the start of the war to 1,909.
Near the northern city of Kirkuk, a bomb damaged an oil pipeline, sending plumes of black smoke and fire up into the air, officials said.
Elsewhere, unidentified men in a speeding car wielding machine guns killed local police commander Col. Fadil Mahmoud Mohammed and his driver Thursday morning near the city of Baquba north of Baghdad, police said.
Six people were killed in the capital, including a man and two of his sons whose home in the New Baghdad area was raided by about 25 gunmen dressed in police uniforms and black masks, said police Col. Ahmed Abod. A second son was kidnapped. Abod said the father, Muhsin Akmosh Al-Timimi, had been working with foreign companies operating in Iraq.
In another drive-by shooting Thursday, two policemen patrolling in northeast Baghdad were killed, said police Col. Ahmed al-Alawi.
——
Associated Press writer Tarek El-Tablawy in Baghdad contributed to this report.
Manipulating Perceptions
The article omits one minor detail. As most of you are probably aware at this point, according to Fattah al-Shaykh, member of the National Assembly and deputy for Basra, the Toyota Cressida they were driving “was booby-trapped and laden with ammunition” and “was meant to explode in the centre of the city of Basra in the popular market.”
The fact that they were wearing traditional Arab dress has also has been expunged from later accounts, although the above article at least gets that right.
“Subsequent accounts vary according to the source but according to the initial story broadcast on the BBC (19/9/05), the two men wore traditional Arab dress but then this changed to “civilian dress” (BBC TV News).”
link
“According to yet another BSBC report, after breaking into the police station, the Brits discovered that they had been moved to a Mehdi Army house for “interrogation”. Yet subsequent accounts revealed that they had in fact, been in the police station all along and, according to a CNN report, were being questioned by an Iraqi judge, not, as the British government alleged, by the ‘insurgents’.”
Other Iraqis confirm the account of a booby trapped car:
Why Basra is in revolt against occupation
An Iraqi resistance leader speaks out
Iraqis have accused British special forces of planning a terrorist attack on Basra.
Sheikh Hassan al-Zarqani, a spokesperson for rebel Shia cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, told Socialist Worker that the two undercover soldiers seized by Iraqi police last Monday were armed with explosives and a remote control detonator.
The soldiers were disguised as members of Sadr’s militia, the Mehdi Army. The arrests sparked protests after British troops backed by tanks attempted to free the soldiers from an Iraqi police station.
Sheikh Hassan said trouble started when a senior Sadr official, Sheikh Ahmad Fartusi, was arrested on Sunday.
“We called a protest outside the mayor’s office on Monday demanding the Sheikh be released,” Sheikh Hassan said. “This protest was peaceful.
“But events in our city took a sinister turn when the police tried to stop two men dressed as members of the Mehdi Army driving near the protest. The men opened fire on the police and passers-by. After a car chase they were arrested.”
“What our police found in their car was very disturbing — weapons, explosives and a remote control detonator,” Sheikh Hassan said.
“These are the weapons of terrorists. We believe these soldiers were planning an attack on a market or other civilian targets, and thanks be to god they were stopped and countless lives were saved.”
“The police refused as they were considered to be planning terrorist attacks, and as they were disguised as members of the Mehdi Army, the police wanted to know who their target was.
“Thousands of people gathered to defend the police station. British troops opened fire and the crowds responded with stones and firebombs.”
Residents in Basra are now demanding the British authorites answer questions about the activities of the two men.
“Why were these men dressed as Mehdi Army?” Sheikh Hassan said. “Why were they carrying explosives and where were they planning to detonate their bomb?
“Were they planing an outrage so that they could create tensions with other communities? Were they going to kill innocent people to put the blame on Al Qaida, who do not have any support in our city.”
link
And a report from Syrian TV:
[Al-Munajjid] In fact, Nidal, this incident gave answers to questions and suspicions that were lacking evidence about the participation of the occupation in some armed operations in Iraq. Many analysts and observers here had suspicions that the occupation was involved in some armed operations against civilians and places of worship and in the killing of scientists. But those were only suspicions that lacked proof. The proof came today through the arrest of the two British soldiers while they were planting explosives in one of the Basra streets. This proves, according to observers, that the occupation is not far from many operations that seek to sow sedition and maintain disorder, as this would give the occupation the justification to stay in Iraq for a longer period.
Aljazeera has this from Iran’s top military commander:
The occupation forces are the real perpetrators of bomb attacks in Iraq?
“If Iraq is to become secure, there will be no room for the occupiers”.
Zolqadr also said that the U.S. forces pursue “important and strategic goals in their continuing occupation of Iraq”.
The U.S. wanted to remain in Iraq to “plunder the country’s wealth, bring the Middle East under its control, and create security for Israel, which is on the verge of annihilation”.
Zolqadr, moreover, noted that dozens of new U.S. military are being built in Iraq “for this reason they are constantly creating insecurity”.
The U.S.-occupation authority has repeatedly claimed that the Iraqi security forces are not ready yet to protect the country against rebel attacks, with the aim of defending the continued heavy presence of U.S. troops there even after an Iraqi government was elected.
link
Xinhaunet in China:
BAGHDAD, Sept. 19 (Xinhuanet) — Iraqi police detained two British soldiers in civilian clothes in the southern city Basra for firing on a police station on Monday, police said. “Two persons wearing Arab uniforms opened fire at a police station in Basra. A police patrol followed the attackers and captured them to discover they were two British soldiers,” an Interior Ministry source told Xinhua. The two soldiers were using a civilian car packed with explosives, the source said. He added that the two were being interrogated in the police headquarters of Basra.
link
At least the bloggers aren’t afraid to speak truth to power:
And of course Globalresearch:
Iraqi MP accuses British Forces in Basra of “Terrorism”
link
Who’s Blowing up Iraq?
New evidence that bombs are being planted by British Commandos
Does this solve the al-Zarqawi mystery? Are the bombs that are killing so many Iraqi civilians are being planted by British and American Intelligence?
link
Middle East Press Reports on the British “Undercover Soldiers”
link
British prison break and blown covert operation, exposes “war on terrorism” lie
What this scandal confirms, in spectacular fashion, is that the “war on terrorism” is a lie. It has been a lie, from the manufactured 9/11 to the present; one huge covert operation spearheaded by the US and the British governments, built upon endless faked intelligence and Downing Paper lies. It further confirms that the lie itself is becoming increasingly difficult to control.
link
British “Undercover Soldiers” Caught driving Booby Trapped Car
“They refused to say what their mission was.”
link
British Special Forces Caught Carrying Out Staged Terror In Iraq?
Media blackout shadows why black op soldiers were arrested
And in 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: “To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it’s Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces.“
link
The Basra spin
link
This story is massive and should be plastered on the front page of every progressive news outlet in the land. Instead, Counterpunch and Commondreams are dutifully towing the official line (when the story is mentioned at all), shamefully complicit in the blackout. In this sense they are little different from the corporate media whores they so often criticize. When it comes to stories that cut to the core of the gangster state and expose the “war on terror” as the fraud it really is, the “left media” is about as enlightening as the NY Times. GNN had a chance to break from the herd and take a leadership role but posted this whitewash instead.
“And, unfortunately, the sight of Brits trying to pass themselves off as Arabs and taking part in shoot-outs simply feeds into insurgents’ claims that the allies are working on a ‘divide and rule’ ethic.”
Why is this “unfortunate”? Would she rather they remained in the dark like herself?
You should have just headlined your blog, Anthony.
- Ras out
fuckin awesome collection of articles ras!! I was honestly shocked that Counterpunch didn’t have more commentary on this…
Its War…
Peace!
WesleyWes
This story is massive and should be plastered on the front page of every progressive news outlet in the land. Instead, Counterpunch and Commondreams are dutifully towing the official line (when the story is mentioned at all), shamefully complicit in the blackout.
did you really think the media would do more than part the curtain a tiny little bit?