Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Steve Meck: Derailing Democracy

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Derailing Democracy By Steve Meck http://www.dailytargum.com/news/789560.html?mkey=618643 The Daily Targum - Opinions Issue: 11/2/04 To understand American
    Message 1 of 1 , Nov 7 11:14 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      Derailing Democracy
      By Steve Meck


      The Daily Targum - Opinions
      Issue: 11/2/04

      To understand American Middle Eastern policy, it is simplest to turn
      to U.S. declassified documents. In them, the United States complains
      Middle Eastern people view the United States as undermining
      democracy in the Middle East and actively supporting dictatorships.
      Such documents go on to complain this is a tough image to shake
      because it is absolutely correct. National Security Council
      Memorandum 5801/1 states, "Our economic and cultural interests in
      the area have led not unnaturally" to dictatorships that maintain
      the status quo. It is naive to think the United States has had a
      sudden change of heart in the present Iraq war, and an understanding
      of history shows the United States has always been adamantly against
      democracy in Iraq.

      A good place to start examining America's suppression of Iraqi
      democracy is when Saddam Hussein started to rise to power in 1969.
      Declassified U.S. documents describe him as a "presentable young
      man" with an "engaging smile." The only downside was there weren't
      more people like him - "if only one could see more of him, it would
      be possible to do business." As was obvious to U.S. planners,
      democracy is not conducive to business, but a murderous dictator is.
      The United States' dreams came true when Hussein seized control as
      dictator, making Iraq open for business. The United States took Iraq
      off the list of terrorist states in order to supply the "butcher of
      Baghdad" with aid and weapons to - appropriately enough - carry out
      terrorist actions. The military aid included funding to start up
      Hussein's chemical and biological weapons program and even included
      direct biological agents to supplement his almost daily use of
      weapons of mass destruction on the Iranians and his own people. The
      funding continued throughout his worst crimes and actually increased
      after he started using his weapons on his own people.

      Everything was going great for the United States-Hussein
      relationship. The United States supplied weapons to a murderous
      dictator who butchered people who might affect western control. The
      funding continued right up until Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
      The United States had actually been funding dictators in Iraq and
      Iran during the Iraq-Iran war in order to keep both Middle East
      powers under control by having them constantly killing each other.
      Iraq's attempt to gain power by taking over Kuwait proved to be
      unacceptable. Despite America's war against Hussein, America's
      disdain for democracy never changed.

      After the defeat of Saddam, former U.S. President George H. W. Bush
      told the Iraqi people to rise up and take control of their country,
      but to his dismay they actually did. There was a huge rebellion
      involving the Kurds and the Shiites. Rebelling Iraqi generals asked
      for U.S. support to overthrow the monster, but the United States had
      a different plan. American troops disarmed the rebels and allowed
      Saddam to use air power to crush the rebellion. A state department
      spokesman explained, "Bush never supported the Kurdish and Shiite
      rebellions against Mr. Hussein, or for that matter any democracy
      movement in Iraq" because "Washington felt [Hussein] had become
      useful again for maintaining the regional balance."
      Somehow "regional balance" equates to control of the Middle East
      resources by Washington, and death and misery for people in the
      region. "Any democracy movement" would prove to be unacceptable for
      Washington, and would naturally have to be destroyed.

      After the first Gulf war, the United States felt "the best of all
      worlds" would be "an iron-fisted Iraqi junta." But since there was
      none, and the only other option would have been democracy, the
      United States easily chose the former. In the 2003 invasion of Iraq,
      America was prepared with its "iron fisted junta" to replace their
      longtime ally Hussein in the form of Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi
      National Congress. The strings of this puppet government were
      showing so obviously that not too many people outside of Washington
      took it seriously. Not only was it created and funded by the CIA, it
      was actually organized by a public relation firm. Chalabi and the
      INC were selected because they planned to give ChevronTexaco,
      ExxonMobil and BP control of Iraqi oil and adamantly opposed the use
      of oil that was "managed in the interests of the country's various
      communities." To the public relation firm's surprise, the Iraqi
      people were so against Chalabi he was prevented from gaining power.
      But this setback did not deter the United States from finding
      another puppet leader in the form of CIA agent Iyad Allawi. He was
      chosen upon the logic he could stop terrorists because he was one.
      The CIA admits in the early 1990s, as a paid CIA agent, Allawi was
      leader of the Iraqi National Accord, which carried out such heroic
      missions as bombing movie theaters and school buses. To complete its
      collection of murderers controlling Iraq, the United States has been
      very busy recruiting former Baathist members - Hussein's ruling
      party - who carried out Hussein's heinous crimes Bush likes to speak
      so often about.

      As was his purpose, Allawi has surrendered all power to the United
      States. Forget about the illusion of democracy, Iraqi citizens are
      not even granted basic human rights. Any Iraqi can legally be thrown
      in jail, deported, tortured and killed without ever having committed
      a crime. Iraqis have literally lost the right to live. Iraqis have
      been stripped of any chance at a legal response against U.S. and
      British troops. With the legal options nullified, many Iraqis are
      taking the only option left available to them - violence.

      Of course, the chance for change in the form of a possible election
      in January is up to the United States. The Bush administration has
      openly said it would support an election even if half of Iraqis
      cannot vote, and the CIA has already been exposed as planning
      to "put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the
      elections" to favor candidates backed by Washington. This is why no
      one bothers to utter the ridiculous idea of a "sovereign Iraq"
      anymore. There will be no democracy in Iraq as long as America can
      help it. But what would you expect from a government that kept
      Hussein's torture chambers open for decades?

      Steven Meck is a Cook College senior majoring in biology. His
      column, "Humanitarian Intervention," appears on alternating
      Tuesdays. He welcomes comments at smeck@....



      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.