Category Archives: War & Peace

Iraq Report not kind to U.S. Middle East policies

If Congress has some spare change for new investigations available, how about doing something real rather than continually trying to resuscitate one or another version of the GOP’s attempts to demonize their Democratic Party opponents via endless spending of public funds on chasing conspiracy theories and largely discredited allegations.

The British just shamed Congress by comparison with the release of a report on their Iraq Inquiry, being referred to as the Chilcot Report.

The Guardian ran a good summary of “key points from the Iraq inquiry,” which of course reflect back on U.S. policy failures.

There’s one especially relevant these days, critical errors in post-invasion Iraq that led to the rise of ISIS (The Guardian: “UK foreign secretary: US decision on Iraqi army led to rise of Isis“).

Hammond, giving evidence to the Commons foreign affairs committee, said: “Many of the problems we see in Iraq today stem from that disastrous decision to dismantle the Iraqi army and embark on a programme of de-Ba’athification.

“That was the big mistake of post-conflict planning. If we had gone a different way afterwards, we might have been able to see a different outcome.”

The influx of professional soldiers into groups such as al-Qaida in Iraq and later Isis had increased the threat that the organisations posed, he said. “It is clear a significant number of former Ba’athist officers have formed the professional core of Daesh [Isis] in Syria and Iraq, and have given that organisation the military capability it has shown in conducting its operations.”

The Intercept has been digging around in the report and the newly declassified documents that are included.

They track back to warnings given before the second Iraq invasion in 2003 that Western military action would trigger a terror response.

Just as the British did, multiple Western intelligence agencies have long recognized (usually in secret) that at the top of the list of terrorism’s causes is the West’s militarism and interference in predominantly Muslim nations — as a 2004 Pentagon-commissioned report specified in listing the causes of terrorism: “American direct intervention in the Muslim world”; our “one-sided support in favor of Israel”; support for Islamic tyrannies in places like Egypt and Saudi Arabia; and, most of all, “the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.” The report concluded: “Muslims do not ‘hate our freedom,’ but rather, they hate our policies.” Countless individuals who carried out or plotted attacks on the West have said the same.

From another piece in The Intercept:

The Downing Street Memo, sometimes called the “smoking gun” document of the Iraq war, was leaked to the U.K.’s Sunday Times in 2005 (and the original has now been declassified as part of the Chilcot Report).

According to the Downing Street Memo, the British cabinet — including Blair — was informed by Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, that the U.S. government was being consciously deceptive about its case for war. Dearlove, the memo reads, “reported on his recent talks in Washington. … Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”

There’s so much material that it’s hard to map a strategy for digging beyond the surface. I’m just starting with the published accounts of what’s in the report, and looking towards jumping into specific sections of the report later.

Weekend reading, I guess.

Syria: Campaign muddies the view of the rock and hard place

Last night’s PBS Newshour had an informative but depressing segment on Middle East policy (“What should we be doing to defeat the Islamic State?“).

The segment featured two guests.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq James Jeffrey served in the infantry, and he is now a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute (The Washington Institute for Near East Policy). And John Mearsheimer, a West Point graduate and former Air Force officer, he writes extensively on strategic issues and is a political science professor at the University of Chicago.

Surprisingly, it was the West Point grad and former officer who spoke most about the need for diplomacy, while the diplomat advocated an expanded war involving U.S. ground troops. That made it kind of a strangely disturbing dialog.

Jeffrey, the former ambassador, laid out his position early.

In terms of taking down ISIS as a state and as an army, we have to go on the offensive. That requires ground troops.

We have tried for 15 months to create a set of ground troops from the units and entities and forces on the ground that we have. It isn’t working all that well. We don’t have the time to keep trying to do this. Some insertion of U.S. forces, both as advisers, special forces and some ground maneuver units are absolutely necessary to move this forward.

While Mearsheimer, the West Point grad, saw this as folly.

And the principal reason is you would have to put a lot of ground troops in to defeat ISIS. And there is no question that if you put 100,000, 150,000 troops in there, you could defeat ISIS, but then you run into the what-next question. What are we going to do, stay in there and occupy the place? And the end result will be dealing with insurgents, won’t know how to get out and will just make a bad situation worse.

So it’s quite clear to me that there is no way we can defeat ISIS from the air or with ground forces. And, therefore, we have to find some sort of diplomatic solution.

Speaking as a former military officer, his position was clear. There is no military solution available to us, he argued.

There is no simple military solution. There is nothing the Americans or the Russians can do militarily to win this, because we’re not willing to commit ground forces, for good reasons.

He advocated a diplomatic approach involving the U.S. as well as Russia and Iran, along with other regional states and interests.

It all goes to show the complexities of the situation which are wholly absent from the war talk so easily leaving the lips of presidential candidates on both sides of the party divide. We’ve done the full scale military thing in Iraq, and look how well that turned out (sorry for the sarcasm there). And the counterinsurgency approach in Afghanistan hasn’t worked out for us either.

Are we capable of learning?

Anyway, using the link at the top of this post, you can read the Newshour transcript, watch the segment, or listen to the audio.

And while I’m at it, I’ll refer you over to Larry Geller’s Disappeared News for the brief essay by well-known peace researcher, Johan Galling (“Violence In and By Paris: Any Way Out?“)

Terrorism and Hawaii tourism

Larry Geller (DisappearedNews.com) quickly caught the theme behind the recent ISIS attacks–tourism.

He wrote:

Today’s edition of Democracy Now is well worth watching. See the video or read the transcript here.

The segment, after the headlines is the first of a two-part interview with Middle East journalist Abdel Bari Atwan that explains a great deal about ISIS and their current strength and strategies—an explanation that does not appear in the mainstream media. For one thing, the MSM seems not to want to admit that ISIS is in fact a state, with an army, police, borders, oil sales, etc. To describe them as an al-Qaeda on steroids is to mislead readers.

If the observations in the interview are correct, ISIS has moved to a strategy of targeting tourism in the West. If there is a threat to Hawaii from ISIS it could be because our economy is so heavily based on tourism that we might be in terrorists’ crosshairs.

Here’s the comment on the tourism strategy.

And that’s why we see this eight people, eight people, a very organized cell, to attack six positions, six places in Paris in the same time, the same night. It means they are lethal, they are dangerous. And this kind—these attacks is one of four attacks which took place by the Islamic State. The first thing was in Tunisia in a resort, where about 40 people were killed. And then, you know, this—the downing of the Russian tourism aircraft—224 people were killed—to destroy the tourism industry in Egypt and in Tunisia. Now they are attacking the tourism or the jewel of the crown of Europe, which is Paris, where $70 billion, actually, the revenue of the tourism industry for France. So they know what they are doing.

And should the vulnerability of tourism be worrying Hawaii tourism officials? I would hope so. After all, Hawaii was already targeted by plots against planes flying to the islands. We’re not just distant observers of this latest expansion of ISIS.

The Golden Rule Redux

THE GOLDEN RULE SALES AGAIN!

In 1958, four Quakers sailed a 30’ wooden ketch on a voyage from San Pedro, California, to the nuclear test site in the Marshall Islands to protest the nuclear arms race and open air nuclear testing by the United States.

They stopped off in Honolulu on their way to the test site, where they intended to place their boat and their bodies in the way of US atmospheric nuclear tests.

Although they were arrested (twice) and jailed in Honolulu, their mission was largely successful, as their voyage inspired another boat to sail into the nuclear test grounds that year.

You can read more about that historic voyage here.

Now the original Golden Rule is sailing again after being rescued and renovated.

Jim Summers, Quaker and Veterans for Peace activist, will be in Honolulu later this month to tell the story of that voyage and the men who made it, of the remarkable story of the 5 year restoration of the Golden Rule after it was found sunk in Humboldt Bay, and of the Golden Rule’s most recent 2,000 mile voyage.

Summers is scheduled to speak on November 29, 2015 at the Honolulu Friends Meetinghouse, 2426 Oahu Avenue in Manoa, from 11:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

The free session is open to the public.

For more information, contact Ramona Hussey (ramona.hussey(at)gmail.com).