BAGHDAD, 1 April 2003 — So it’s a “truly remarkable achievement”, is it? Gen. Tommy Franks says so. Everything is going “according to plan”, according to the British. So it’s an achievement that the British still have not “liberated” Basra. It is “according to plan” that the Iraqis should be able to launch a Scud missile from the Faw Peninsula — supposedly under “British control” for more than a week. It is an achievement — truly remarkable, of course — that the Americans should lose an Apache helicopter to the gun of an Iraqi peasant farmer, should spend four days trying to cross the river bridges at Nassiriyah and are then confronted by their first suicide bomber at Najaf.
One half of the entire US/UK force — still called “the coalition” by journalists who like to pretend it includes 35 armies rather than two and a bit (the “bit” being the Australian Special Forces) — is now guarding and running the supply line through the desert.
And Baghdad is bombed but not besieged. The military “plan” is so secret, according to Gen. Franks, that very few people have seen it all or understand it. But his “plan”, he says, is “highly flexible”; it would have to be, to sustain the chaos of the past 12 days.
And, of course, we hold the moral high ground. The Americans bomb a passenger bus close to the Syrian border and don’t even apologize. An Iraqi soldier kills himself attacking US Marines in his car and it is an act of “terrorism”. And now Secretary of State Colin Powell announces — to the “American -Israeli” Public Affairs Committee, the largest Israeli lobby group in the United States which needless to say supports this God-forsaken, illegal war — that Syria and Iran are “supporting terror groups” and will have to “face the consequences”.
So what’s the “plan”?
Strange, isn’t it, how all that fuss about chemical and biological warfare has been forgotten. The “secret” weapons, the gas masks, the anti-anthrax injections, the pills and chemical suits have now been erased from the story — because bullets and rocket-propelled grenades are now the real danger to British and American forces in Iraq. Even the “siege of Baghdad” — a city which is 30 miles wide and might need a quarter of a million men to surround it — is fading from the diary.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld according to the New Yorker interfered with the ’s “plan”. This was going to be — I quote Rumsfeld — “war of a kind we have never seen before”. He can say that again.
Sitting in Baghdad, listening to the awful propaganda rhetoric of the Iraqis but watching the often promiscuous American and British air attacks — targeting an alleged missile battery near a market place in a capital city at midday during a sandstorm IS going to kill civilians, is it not? — I have a suspicion that what’s gone wrong has nothing to do with plans. Indeed, I suspect there is no real overall plan. Because I rather think that this war’s foundations were based not on military planning but on ideology.
Long ago, as we know, the right-wing pro-Israeli lobbyists around Bush planned the overthrow of Saddam. This would destroy the most powerful Arab state in the Middle East — Israel’s chief of staff, Shoal Mofaz, demanded that the war should start even earlier than it did — and allow the map of the region to be changed forever.
Powell stated just this a month ago. False intelligence information — it would be interesting to know which country the FBI say they are now investigating for the forgery of documents which Powell used at the UN to “prove” the Iraqis were importing equipment for illegal weapons from Africa — was mixed up with the desires of the corrupt and infiltrated Iraqi opposition.
Fantasies and illusions were given credibility by a kind of superpower moral overdrive. Any kind of mendacity could be used to fuel this ideological project. Sept. 11 (oddly unmentioned now), links between Saddam and Osama Bin Laden (unproven), weapons of mass destruction (hitherto unfound), human rights abuses (at which we originally connived when Saddam was our friend) and then, finally, the most heroic project of all — the “liberation” of the people of Iraq.
Oil was not mentioned, although it is the all-important and dominating factor in this illegitimate conflict — no wonder Gen. Franks admitted that his first concern, prior to the war, was the “protection” of the southern Iraqi oil fields.
So it was to be “liberation” and “democracy”. How boldly we crossed the border. With what lordly aims we invaded Iraq.
Yet there is one achievement we should note. The ghastly Saddam, the most revolting dictator in the Arab world who does indeed use heinous torture and has indeed used gas, is now leading a country which is fighting the world’s only superpower and which has done so for almost two weeks without surrendering. Yes, Gen. Tommy Franks has accomplished one “truly remarkable achievement”. He has turned the Monster of Baghdad into the hero of the Arab world, and allowed Iraqis to teach every opponent of America how to fight their enemy.
