Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Top Ten Myths about Iraq, 2008

1. Iraqis are safer because of Bush's War. In fact, conditions of insecurity have helped created both an internal and external refugee problem:

' At least 4.2 million Iraqis were displaced. These included 2.2 million who were displaced within Iraq and some 2 million refugees, mostly in Syria (around 1.4 million) and Jordan (around half a million). In the last months of the year both these neighbouring states, struggling to meet the health, education and other needs of the Iraqi refugees already present, introduced visa requirements that impeded the entry of Iraqis seeking refuge. Within Iraq, most governorates barred entry to Iraqis fleeing sectarian violence elsewhere.'

Am reprinting because people were off last Friday. This post continues: Click below


2. Large numbers of Iraqis in exile abroad have returned. In fact, no great number have returned, and more Iraqis may still be leaving to Syria than returning.

3. Iraqis are materially better off because of Bush's war. In fact, A million Iraqis are "food insecure" and another 6 million need UN food rations to survive. Oxfam estimated in summer, 2007, that 28% of Iraqi children are malnourished.

4. The Bush administration scored a major victory with its Status of Forces Agreement. In fact, The Iraqis forced on Bush an agreement that the US would withdraw combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, 2009,and would completely withdraw from the Country by the end of 2011. The Bush administration had wanted 58 long-term bases, and the authority to arrest Iraqis at will and to launch military operations unilaterally.

5. Minorities in Iraq are safer since Bush's invasion. In fact, there have in 2008 been significant attacks on and displacement of Iraqi Christians from Mosul. In early January of 2008, guerrillas bombed churches in Mosul, wounding a number of persons. More recently, some 13,000 Christians have had to flee Mosul because of violence.

6. The sole explanation for the fall in the monthly death rate for Iraqi civilians was the troop excalation or surge of 30,000 extra US troops in 2007. In fact, troop levels had been that high before without major effect. The US military did good counter-insurgency in 2007. The major reason for the fall in the death toll, however, was that the Shiites won the war for Baghdad, ethnically cleansing hundreds of thousands of Sunnis from the capital, and turning it into a city with a Shiite majority of 75 to 80 percent. (When Bush invaded, Baghdad was about 50/50 Sunni and Shiite). The high death tolls in 2006 and 2007 were a by-product of this massive ethnic cleansing campaign. Now, a Shiite militiaman in Baghdad would have to drive for a while to find a Sunni Arab to kill.

7. John McCain alleged that if the US left Iraq, it would be promptly taken over by al-Qaeda. In fact, there are few followers of Usamah Bin Laden in Iraq. The fundamentalist extremists, if that is what McCain meant, are not supported by most Sunni Arabs. They are supported by no Shiites (60% of Iraq) or Kurds (20% of Iraq), and are hated by Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Jordan, who would never allow such a takeover.

8. The Iraq War made the world safer from terrorism. In fact, Iraq has become a major training ground for extremists and is implicated in the major bombings in Madrid, London, and Glasgow.

9. Bush went to war in Iraq because he was given bad intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction capabilities. In fact, the State Department's Intelligence & Research (I & R) division cast doubt on the alarmist WMD stories that Bush/Cheney put about. The CIA refused to sign off on the inclusion of the Niger uranium lie in the State of the Union address, which made Bush source it to the British MI6 instead. The Downing Street Memo revealed that Bush fixed the intelligence around the policy. Bush sought to get up a provocation such as a false flag attack on UN planes so as to blame it on Iraq. And UN weapons inspectors in Feb.-Mar. of 2003 examined 100 of 600 suspected weapons sites and found nothing; Bush's response was to pull them out and go to war.

10. Douglas Feith and other Neoconservatives didn't really want a war with Iraq (!). Yeah, that was why they demanded war on Iraq with their 1996 white paper for Bibi Netanyahu and again in their 1998 Project for a New American Century letter to Clinton, where they explicitly called for military action. The Neoconservatives are notorious liars and by the time they get through with rewriting history, they will be a combination of Gandhi and Mother Teresa and the Iraq War will be Bill Clinton's fault. The only thing is, I think people are wise to them by now. Being a liar can actually get you somewhere. Being a notorious liar is a disadvantage if what you want to is get people to listen to you and act on your advice. I say, Never AGain.


See also my article in The Nation, "Iraq: The Necessary Withdrawal," and this piece in the Toronto Star.

14 Comments:

At 3:11 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

well said

 
At 8:33 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As an American who doesn't have "a dual loyalty problem" I have had my fill of my neocon "compatriots" and their gamesmanship.

See this paragraph from Jacob Heilbrunn's article, "Where Have All the Neocons Gone?"

"When it comes to the Iraq War, the followers of orthodoxy maintain, liberals deserve a pasting. Peter Wehner, a former Bush adviser and a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, condemns opponents of the surge as congenitally hostile to the American creed: 'Is it not fair to say that what was at work in them was an ideological antipathy not just to an American President, but to America’s cause?'”

How dare these double dealers accuse people like me of being "congenitally hostile to the American creed".

You want to see where the pea really is in Wehner's shell game simply substitute the word Zionist for the words American and America's.

Further down the article we get this:

"Albright, together with former Clinton defense secretary William S. Cohen, has headed a U.S. Institute for Peace and Holocaust Museum task force on genocide. Its new report, released on Dec. 8, is called 'Preventing Genocide.' It could prove almost as influential for the Obama administration as the neocon-inspired 'Defense Planning Guidance' of 1992, which called for American unilateral domination of the world, was for George W. Bush’s presidency. Albright and Cohen’s document calls for the creation of an Atrocities Prevention Committee that would work with key national security officials. It further states that the director of national intelligence should 'initiate the preparation of a National Intelligence Estimate on worldwide risks of genocide and mass atrocities'.”

I think we can safely assume that for the "task force" Iraq wasn't - and will never be - in the club. After all, by what perverted calculus could a million dead sons and daughters of Ham possibly constitute "genocide"? Get real. What's a million dead hewers of wood and drawers of water?

In short, why not just spell it out: Muslim Nations Need Not Apply. You hear that Iran? Syria? Etc.

 
At 12:24 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Iraqi refugees have also been barred from voting in the January election, and presumably in the general election too.

The Iraqi "constitution" states that all citizens have the right to vote! It also states that Iraqi oil wealth belongs to all Iraqi citizens! But, obviously, by being made a refugee by state terrorism you also lose your constitutional rights, as well as your home, income, and even living in your country. It is only fair.

Thank you Boosh.

 
At 12:39 PM, Blogger Dilapidus said...

A great job here. Very useful.

I'd like to see a lot of people read this, but perhaps a bit of html reformatting would make the separation of Q&A more clear.

I'm happy to bust that out if you want, you just have to figure out how to get it into the page.

 
At 1:20 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

About point 9

Gandhi said something like that his non-violent resistance succeeded, because the public opinion was already there. He only needed to make a move. These Bush and his cronies were like anti-Gandhis. Their war-propaganda worked, because the casus belli was already there (Saddam Hussein was a mass murderer). They only needed to make a move towards war. It is silly to argue about the "reasons" for this war. Casus belli was there, all they needed to do was to destroy all the other options (Mid-est OSCE, South African truth comissions, UN, Saddam Hussein's offer to resign etc.) and they succeeded. We should be very careful with these people. If there is a casus belli somewhere, they will use it. Even if UN charter forbids aggression, non-war solutions are difficult to defend in political reality, if someone really wants to attack (for whatever reasons).

 
At 1:27 PM, Blogger Steven Maimes said...

Thank you for sharing this with us.

 
At 8:11 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Although I agree with most of these, number 3 doesn't make sense. You need to make a before/after comparison.

 
At 8:22 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Cole,

Thank you for the list. Can you please help me to distinguish points #7 and #8?

It seems to me that the strongest case for remaining in Iraq (not for going there in the first place, of course), is your point #8... that it has indeed become a breeding ground for terrorism.

I understand the argument that the US presence exacerbates this, rather than mitigates it. I also understand that there is an orders-of-magnitude difference between a "breeding ground for terrorism" we see now and the imagined "Al-Qaeda state" which you carefully explain is exceedingly unlikely.

However, reading point #8 right after point #7 highlighted for me some of the (at least perceived) incoherence of the "get out completely and quickly" argument, which argument it is my inclination to support.... Regardless of how we got to this disastrous point, as it stands today: Iraq is or is not a dangerous state that must be controlled and monitored? In other words, to the degree that they contradict one another, which is "more true," or at least which is more relevant to the United States: Point #7 or point #8?

Thanks always for your important and indispensable blog.

 
At 6:16 AM, Blogger Kuni said...

About that alleged flawed pre-war intelligence the Right loves to lie about.

The following is what the Intelligence said and when:

Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January Through 30 June 1999, Unclassified Report to Congress from the Director of Central Intelligence, February 2000
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_feb_2000.htm
. . . We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs . . .


Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 July Through 31 December 1999, Unclassified Report to Congress from the Director of Central Intelligence, August 2000
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_aug2000.htm
. . . We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs . . .


Acquisition of Technology Relating to Weapons of Mass Destruction and Advanced Conventional Munitions, 1 January Through 30 June 2000, Unclassified Report to Congress from the Director of Central Intelligence, February 2001
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/bian_feb_2001.htm
. . . We do not have any direct evidence that Iraq has used the period since Desert Fox to reconstitute its WMD programs . . .


Only AFTER 9-11 when Bush restricted the Intelligence that Congress got to see, and started feeding them the lies coming from his political appointees in the OSP over at the Pentagon; did the Intelligence become faulty.

When one examines the comments Democrats in Congress said about WMD’s, one will notice that all the comments are either pre Desert Fox when the Inspectors confirmed that Saddam had a bit of VX left over. Or after when Bush restricted the Intelligence that Congress got to see, and started feeding them the lies coming from his political appointees in the OSP over at the Pentagon.

 
At 6:56 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Daniel, before asking "Iraq is or is not a dangerous state that must be controlled and monitored?" why are you not asking whether USA is such? WHO told you that USA could or should or has right to deside what state "must be" invided, raped and pillaged? If there is a state that should be "controlled" it is USA!

 
At 7:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

One of the good professor's myths requires further exploding: the SOFA is not necessarily an impediment to the bases remaining filled by tens of thousands of US troops way beyond 2011 or 2012.

To begin with, America's recent record in abiding by international agreements is, well, spotty (and several Obama administration officials - most notably, Gates - have indicated that the US won't be abiding by its terms).

Secondly, there is nothing to prevent a further re-negotiation around the time the current Agreement is due to expire.

Thirdly, "conditions on the ground" can change, necessitating further change to the status of US forces.

While it is true that the SOFA appears to contain less advantageous terms than American propaganda is making out, this does not mean American forces will be leaving Iraq anytime soon. And by "soon", I mean, during the first Obama administration.

 
At 11:11 AM, Blogger steve said...

Professor Cole - The Nation link seems to lead to a 404.

Here is a working link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090112/cole

 
At 12:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are you aware, Dr.Cole, that the Air America publishing of your article doesn't allow for more comments than the first five that were allowed to be posted?

Here's one I would have added:

The media always talk about the 4000+ U.S. DEAD casualties. How about the Iraqi casualties? The reports range from "100,000" [the myth] to "1,300,000" + DEAD casualties. Even at half the high number, the carnage is ... mindboggling. What was the reason for so many people dying? Why are we in this "war"? For the vain-glory of George W Bush? So he can be compared to Napoleon? or Stalin?

 
At 4:12 AM, Blogger John Rohan said...

For another point of view, you might want to contrast this list of 10 myths with another one, written by someone who actually served in Iraq:


http://www.shieldofachilles.net/2007/05/common-myths-about-iraq-war.html

It's over a year old now (just pre-surge) but still relevant.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home