By Robert Fisk - The Independent (Britain)
Sunday, August 1, 2004
The Prime Minister has accused some journalists of almost
wanting a disaster to happen in Iraq. Robert Fisk, who has
spent the past five weeks reporting from the deteriorating
and devastated country, says the disaster has already
happened, over and over again.
The war is a fraud. I'm not talking about the weapons of
mass destruction that didn't exist. Nor the links between
Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida which didn't exist. Nor all the
other lies upon which we went to war. I'm talking about the
new lies.
For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of
threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the
threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the
control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are
not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops
every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told.
This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now
reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But
we are not told.
The stage management of this catastrophe in Iraq was all
too evident at Saddam Hussein's "trial". Not only did the US
military censor the tapes of the event. Not only did they
effectively delete all sound of the 11 other defendants. But
the Americans led Saddam Hussein to believe - until he
reached the courtroom - that he was on his way to his
execution. Indeed, when he entered the room he believed that
the judge was there to condemn him to death. This, after
all, was the way Saddam ran his own state security courts.
No wonder he initially looked "disorientated" - CNN's
helpful description - because, of course, he was meant to
look that way. We had made sure of that. Which is why Saddam
asked Judge Juhi: "Are you a lawyer? ... Is this a trial?"
And swiftly, as he realised that this really was an initial
court hearing - not a preliminary to his own hanging - he
quickly adopted an attitude of belligerence.
But don't think we're going to learn much more about
Saddam's future court appearances. Salem Chalabi, the
brother of convicted fraudster Ahmad and the man entrusted
by the Americans with the tribunal, told the Iraqi press two
weeks ago that all media would be excluded from future court
hearings. And I can see why. Because if Saddam does a
Milosevic, he'll want to talk about the real intelligence
and military connections of his regime - which were
primarily with the United States.
Living in Iraq these past few weeks is a weird as well as
dangerous experience. I drive down to Najaf. Highway 8 is
one of the worst in Iraq. Westerners are murdered there. It
is littered with burnt-out police vehicles and American
trucks. Every police post for 70 miles has been abandoned.
Yet a few hours later, I am sitting in my room in Baghdad
watching Tony Blair, grinning in the House of Commons as if
he is the hero of a school debating competition; so much for
the Butler report.
Indeed, watching any Western television station in
Baghdad these days is like tuning in to Planet Mars. Doesn't
Blair realise that Iraq is about to implode? Doesn't Bush
realise this? The American-appointed "government" controls
only parts of Baghdad - and even there its ministers and
civil servants are car-bombed and assassinated. Baquba,
Samara, Kut, Mahmoudiya, Hilla, Fallujah, Ramadi, all are
outside government authority. Iyad Allawi, the "Prime
Minister", is little more than mayor of Baghdad. "Some
journalists," Blair announces, "almost want there to be a
disaster in Iraq." He doesn't get it. The disaster exists
now.
When suicide bombers ram their cars into hundreds of
recruits outside police stations, how on earth can anyone
hold an election next January? Even the National Conference
to appoint those who will arrange elections has been twice
postponed. And looking back through my notebooks over the
past five weeks, I find that not a single Iraqi, not a
single American soldier I have spoken to, not a single
mercenary - be he American, British or South African -
believes that there will be elections in January. All said
that Iraq is deteriorating by the day. And most asked why we
journalists weren't saying so.
But in Baghdad, I turn on my television and watch Bush
telling his Republican supporters that Iraq is improving,
that Iraqis support the "coalition", that they support their
new US-manufactured government, that the "war on terror" is
being won, that Americans are safer. Then I go to an
internet site and watch two hooded men hacking off the head
of an American in Riyadh, tearing at the vertebrae of an
American in Iraq with a knife. Each day, the papers here
list another construction company pulling out of the
country. And I go down to visit the friendly, tragically sad
staff of the Baghdad mortuary and there, each day, are
dozens of those Iraqis we supposedly came to liberate,
screaming and weeping and cursing as they carry their loved
ones on their shoulders in cheap coffins.
I keep re-reading Tony Blair's statement. "I remain
convinced it was right to go to war. It was the most
difficult decision of my life." And I cannot understand it.
It may be a terrible decision to go to war. Even Chamberlain
thought that; but he didn't find it a difficult decision -
because, after the Nazi invasion of Poland, it was the right
thing to do. And driving the streets of Baghdad now,
watching the terrified American patrols, hearing yet another
thunderous explosion shaking my windows and doors after
dawn, I realise what all this means. Going to war in Iraq,
invading Iraq last year, was the most difficult decision
Blair had to take because he thought - correctly - that it
might be the wrong decision. I will always remember his
remark to British troops in Basra, that the sacrifice of
British soldiers was not Hollywood but "real flesh and
blood". Yes, it was real flesh and blood that was shed
- but for weapons of mass destruction that weren't real at
all.
"Deadly force is authorised," it says on checkpoints all
over Baghdad. Authorised by whom? There is no
accountability. Repeatedly, on the great highways out of the
city US soldiers shriek at motorists and open fire at the
least suspicion. "We had some Navy Seals down at our
checkpoint the other day," a 1st Cavalry sergeant says to
me. "They asked if we were having any trouble. I said, yes,
they've been shooting at us from a house over there. One of
them asked: 'That house?' We said yes. So they have these
three SUVs and a lot of weapons made of titanium and they
drive off towards the house. And later they come back and
say 'We've taken care of that'. And we didn't get shot at
any more."
What does this mean? The Americans are now bragging about
their siege of Najaf. Lieutenant Colonel Garry Bishop of the
37th Armoured Division's 1st Battalion believes it was an
"ideal" battle (even though he failed to kill or capture
Muqtada Sadr whose "Mehdi army" were fighting the US
forces). It was "ideal", Bishop explained, because the
Americans avoided damaging the holy shrines of the Imams Ali
and Hussein. What are Iraqis to make of this? What if a
Muslim army occupied Kent and bombarded Canterbury and then
bragged that they hadn't damaged Canterbury Cathedral? Would
we be grateful?
What, indeed, are we to make of a war which is turned
into a fantasy by those who started it? As foreign workers
pour out of Iraq for fear of their lives, US Secretary of
State Colin Powell tells a press conference that
hostage-taking is having an "effect" on reconstruction.
Effect! Oil pipeline explosions are now as regular as power
cuts. In parts of Baghdad now, they have only four hours of
electricity a day; the streets swarm with foreign
mercenaries, guns poking from windows, shouting abusively at
Iraqis who don't clear the way for them. This is the "safer"
Iraq which Mr Blair was boasting of the other day. What
world does the British Government exist in?
Take the Saddam trial. The entire Arab press - including
the Baghdad papers - prints the judge's name. Indeed, the
same judge has given interviews about his charges of murder
against Muqtada Sadr. He has posed for newspaper pictures.
But when I mention his name in The Independent, I was
solemnly censured by the British Government's spokesman.
Salem Chalabi threatened to prosecute me. So let me get this
right. We illegally invade Iraq. We kill up to 11,000
Iraqis. And Mr Chalabi, appointed by the Americans, says I'm
guilty of "incitement to murder". That just about says it
all.
....back to:
....alternative news
American Pictures
....gives Moore
thanks
....gives pizza
.....gives the plane truth
....gives
liberation
.....gives you the
blues
......gives Bush a human face
.....gives billionaires for Bush a free rap
....gives you the
world vote on Bush-Kerry
|