Left In Lowell

A must-read book this summer if you are so inclined is Greg Palast’s Armed Madhouse. I’m only 83 pages (less than a quarter in) and I’ve learned more here then in five years of mainstream media consumption.

Palast illuminations with astounding clarity and levity, through his investigative reporting over the years, the origins of the current Iraq war and the motives of the people who perpetrated it. It was indeed not a war for oil. No, in fact, Palast tells us right in the front cover, there were two wars for oil - two competing war plans, one from the State Department which favored oil companies, and the other created by the neo-conservatives in the Pentagon. The State Department planned a quick toppling of Saddam and return to the status quo afterwards; the neo-cons wanted to topple Saddam, privatize everything in the new US-occupied Iraq, especially the oil and oil infrastructure, and break the back of OPEC by increasing production beyond the OPEC quota.

Oh, then after the irreversible laws were made and everything Iraqi was sold to non-Iraqis, you could allow elections, whatever. Afterthought. It was never about supporting democracy in the Middle East.

The reason this is all very important to understand is that the neo-cons partly won - everything was privatized. However, oil companies blocked the sale of Iraqi oil fields because they favor OPEC quotas - which keep prices high and profits rolling in.

The neo-cons aren’t interested in stopping there, however. They want to eliminate the growing influence of Iran in the region, break the Saudi oil-garchy, and have a free market free-for-all.

Keep in mind, the majority ethnicity in Iraq who is now largely in charge (and whose militias are committing atrocities against Sunnis) is the same ethnicity (Shi’ia) as Hezbollah. And Iran.

The US seemed to have taken a lackadaisical view of this new Israeli incursion into Lebanon. It took two weeks to send Condi to the region at all. In fact, there’s evidence that secretly, US and Israeli officials agreed to this bombing beforehand, Israel acting, as it often does, as the United State’s proxy in the Middle East. We’re speeding up delivery of bombs to Israel to that effort. We all know, the neo-cons included, that precision bombing is worthless against an enemy that slips into the hills or villages of its home terrain when confronted. (Ask our GIs still stuck in Iraq about that.) Neo-cons in the media are calling for attacks on Syria and even Iran “to deal with Hezbollah.” Is it really about Hezbollah, though?

Now, what could we have done to be more effective against Hezbollah for all these years they’ve been rearming under all our noses? If, just as a thought experiment, we truly wanted stability in the Middle East? We could have, say, supported the fledgling democracy in Lebanon…give them the resources they needed to strengthen the state’s army in South Lebanon. The main reason Hezbollah has not been disarmed is that the Lebanese politicians do not have the political capital to do what it appears many of them want to do - break the back of the terrorists in South Lebanon. If we helped out the Lebanese economy, and their position as politicians became stronger as a result (and they had the money to increase the loyal segments of their army)…maybe Hezbollah wouldn’t have had the chance to bring in rockets and missiles through the ports and airports.

Just like 9/11 was cynically and wrongly used to justify a war of choice in Iraq, the kidnapped Israeli soldiers were used to invade South Lebanon. It will have as much success as it ever has - that is, none. Hezbollah is only strengthened as civilians suffer and die under bombardment. Even the Lebanese government reluctantly admitted it might have to join Hezbollah against Israel if they didn’t stop raining destruction on their country.

But Lebanon could well be used as an excuse to attack Damascus and maybe even parts of Iran. All because the neo-cons have this idea that they can transform the Middle East with military might. Never mind the lessons of history; Russians in Afghanistan, Great Britain in Iraq; or even our recent disastrous occupation of the same country. As Juan Cole says:

Because of their fetish for states, the Neoconservatives of the Bush administration are unable to see that the Levant and points east are now the province of militia-parties that dominate localities and wield asymmetrical paramilitary force in such a way as to stymie states, whether local host states, local adversaries, or imperial Powers.
…
By its assault on Middle Eastern states, whether it takes the form of military confrontation or of “pressure” to “democratize, Neoconservatism in Washington and Tel Aviv has increased the power and saliency of militia rule throughout the region. The transition under American auspices of Iraq from a strong if odious central state to equally odious militia rule and chaotic violence is only the most obvious example of this process.

Given our history of meddling in the Levant, South and Central America, and many other places, against those peoples’ will, I don’t see how we’re ever going to learn the lesson which is being given every day in the violent streets of Iraq, Palestine, or south Lebanon.