[Marxism] O'Hanlon and Pollack refuted
lnp3 at panix.com
Thu Aug 2 09:08:51 MDT 2007
Counterpunch, August 2, 2007
The New York Times and Iraq
Still Getting It Wrong
By ROBERT FANTINA
It is somewhat ironic that on the same day that Mr. Michael E. O’Hanlon
and Mr. Kenneth M. Pollack of the Brookings Institute extol the progress
of President Bush’s ‘surge’ in Iraq, (New York Times, July 30) the
Associated Press reported the following:
“About 8 million Iraqis -- nearly a third of the population -- need
immediate emergency aid because of the humanitarian crisis caused by the
It is not easy to conceptualize the number 8,000,000. One way to look at
it is to consider that that is the approximate population of New York
City. One can imagine the horror that would be felt if the entire
population of the United States’ largest city were in desperate need of
water, sanitation, food and shelter. Does one feel that same sense of
horror for the Iraqi people? Perhaps that dismay should be intensified
one hundredfold because it is the United States that has caused, and
continues to cause, this unspeakable suffering.
When the U.S. government basically told the people of New Orleans,
following Hurricane Katrina, that they were on their own, the world
shuttered in disbelief. Ignoring its own people following a natural
disaster is shocking behavior for any government. In Iraq, the U.S.
ignores the suffering it has intentionally caused. One-third of the
population of the country is in desperate need because of the U.S.
invasion; this does not even include the 2,000,000 who have fled the
country since President Bush’s barbaric ‘Shock and Awe’ war began.
These realities appear to be ignored in the recent article in the New
York Times by Messrs O’Hanlon and Pollack.
Among other things, they state the following: “We are finally getting
somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms.” That an overwhelming
force from the world’s most powerful country will eventually kill enough
Iraqi people to subdue the population is hardly something to be proud
of. Yet they crow about progress in ‘military terms.’
The two gentlemen report their further observations:“Army and Marine
units were focused on securing the Iraqi population….” One wonders what
exactly that statement implies. Are the invading and occupying soldiers
making the Iraqi population free from harm, an oxymoron if ever there
was one, or are they ‘securing’ them in the sense of taking possession
According to Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack, the U.S. military is
“providing basic services -- electricity, fuel, clean water and
sanitation -- to the people.” How long, one wonders, will it be before
those basic services are restored to the 8,000,000 Iraqis deprived of
them by Mr. Bush’s war? How many will die before they ever have those
needs fulfilled? How many grieving parents will bury their children
because of the U.S. invasion and occupation of their nation?
Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack observed a “Marine captain whose company
was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police
company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit.” In their McCainish way,
do they feel that this happy circumstance portends an end to the
centuries-old sectarian rivalry between these groups, a rivalry that was
held in check prior to the U.S. invasion, but has been unleashed with
horrific results since then?
Another interesting observation: “American advisers told us that many of
the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force
have been removed.” In sharp contrast to this rosy assessment, an NBC
news report of July 31 is interesting: “The report, written by U.S.
advisers to Iraq's anti-corruption agency, analyzes corruption in 12
ministries and finds devastating and grim problems. ‘Corruption
protected by senior members of the Iraqi government,’ the report said,
Not all that the writers saw was so encouraging: “we still face huge
hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes
continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when
major steps towards reconciliation -- or at least accommodation -- are
needed.” While U.S. soldiers die trying to achieve whatever it is they
are supposed to be achieving, and making such marvelous progress in
‘military terms,’ the Iraqi parliament has left for its month-long
vacation. No political solution can be achieved when the people needed
to achieve it are not around.
As they close their interesting editorial, the writers ask a few
pertinent questions: “How much longer should American troops keep
fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do
their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this
mission?” They don’t have the answer to these questions, but it appears
that the United States citizens do. The answer seems to be that American
troops should remain in Iraq only as long as it takes to safely evacuate
them. The citizens disagree with Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack, who
recommend continuation of the war at least into 2008.
The United States invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq four years ago.
Since then millions of Iraqi citizens have been displaced, hundreds of
thousands have been killed, the nation’s infrastructure, already badly
damaged from years of sanctions and bombings, has been destroyed. The
death toll for Americans is steadily climbing toward 4,000 and the
number who have sustained life-altering injuries is in the tens of
thousands. Hatred towards the United States has risen dramatically, and
Iraq has become a major recruiting tool for the terrorists that were not
there when Mr. Bush invaded. The negative consequences of that invasion
and the subsequent occupation will be felt for years throughout the world.
It appears that Mr. O’Hanlon and Mr. Pollack see some merit in the
subjugation of Iraq as a U.S. colony. They predict the possibility
within Iraq “of a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis
could live with.” Subjecting a nation by force to do the will of the
U.S. is not acceptable to the Iraqi people. If U.S. polls, and last
November’s election, teach us anything, it is that this violent and
brutal suppression is not acceptable to Americans either.
Robert Fantina is the author of Desertion and the American Soldier.
More information about the Marxism