So much for inferential imperialism. The U.S. is making plans with itself via its new puppet government in Iraq for access to military bases in Iraq for the indefinite future. The Empire wears no clothes:

The United States is planning a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to military bases and project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region, senior Bush administration officials say.

American military officials, in interviews this week, spoke of maintaining perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north. The military is already using these bases to support continuing operations against the remnants of the old government, to deliver supplies and relief aid, and for reconnaissance patrols. But as the invasion force withdraws in the months ahead, turning over control to a new Iraqi government, Pentagon officials expect to gain access to the bases in the event of some future crisis. ...

A military foothold in Iraq would be felt across the border in Syria, and, in combination with the continuing United States presence in Afghanistan, it would virtually surround Iran with a new web of American influence. "There will be some kind of a long-term defense relationship with a new Iraq, similar to Afghanistan," said one senior administration official. "The scope of that has yet to be defined — whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access."

These goals do not contradict the administration's official policy of rapid withdrawal from Iraq, and the United States is acutely aware that the growing American presence in the Middle East and Southwest Asia invites charges of empire-building and might create new targets for terrorists. ...

In a particularly important development, officials said the United States was likely to reduce American forces in Saudi Arabia, as well. The main reason for that presence, after all, was to protect the Saudi government from the threat Iraq has posed since its invasion of Kuwait in 1990.

Regardless of how quickly the Americans reverse the buildup of the last several months, it is plain that since Sept. 11, 2001, there has been a concerted diplomatic and military effort to win permission for United States forces to operate from the formerly Communist nations of Eastern Europe, across the Mediterranean, throughout the Middle East and the Horn of Africa, and across Central Asia, from the periphery of Russia to Pakistan's ports on the Indian Ocean. It is a swath of Western influence not seen for generations. These bases and access agreements have established an expanded American presence, or deepened alliance ties, throughout one of the world's most strategic regions. ...

The newest security agreements will come in Iraq. Col. John Dobbins, commander of Tallil Forward Air Base, said the Air Force plan envisioned "probably two bases that will stay in Iraq for an amount of time." "That amount of time, obviously, is an unknown," he added. In addition to Tallil, the other base for the Air Force is at Bashur, in the north, Pentagon officials said. The Army currently holds the Baghdad airport. The H-1 base in the west has allowed Special Operations forces to move out of their secret bases in Jordan and Saudi Arabia and set up a forward headquarters. ...

Not permanent basing, but permanent access is all that is required, officials say. ... Although the new bases in Iraq are primarily for mounting comprehensive postwar security operations, senior administration officials make no secret that the American presence at those bases near Syria and Iran and long-term access to them "will make them nervous."

Bahrain and especially Kuwait, the staging area for the ground invasion, provided essential bases for the Iraq war. But with Iraq occupied, the Pentagon will now review its long-term force and access requirements in the gulf states. "The subject of a footprint for the United States post-Iraq is something that we're discussing and considering," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said this week. "But that will take some time to sort through."

New York Times, "Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq" by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt, April 20, 2003

Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt tell us, in a strangely authoritative tone for journalists, that the goals of establishing either full-operational bases or access to bases in Iraq "do not contradict the administration's official policy of rapid withdrawal from Iraq." No explanation as to how maintaining a military presence in Iraq is not contradictory to rapidly withdrawing a military presence from Iraq is apparently required. I suppose it is assumed we are already to know that by "rapid withdrawal from Iraq," the government does not mean it sincerely.

Later, we learn that "officials said the United States was likely to reduce American forces in Saudi Arabia, as well." As well? Last I checked, the maintenance of American military bases in Iraq was an increase of American forces there. Unless Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt are greater conspiracy theorists than I and assume we've had military bases in Iraq all along.

A military presence is an obvious expression of a desire for control. Guns do kill people, after all. And when you can point a bunch of them at people, they tend to do what you ask of them. But this clearly isn't only about controlling Iraq. As the article points out: "Although the new bases in Iraq are primarily for mounting comprehensive postwar security operations, senior administration officials make no secret that the American presence at those bases near Syria and Iran and long-term access to them 'will make them nervous.'"

And apparently permanent access, as opposed to permanent basing is all that is "required." Required for what? Liberation? Elimination of weapons of mass destruction? "Postwar security operations"? Maybe postwar "security" operations, in the same sense that Hussein himself would employ the term. But it's also precisely for the reasons the administration openly admits: to "project American influence into the heart of the unsettled region." And by "influence," the U.S. government means "control."

The Iraqi resistance: Shiites and Sunnis uniting against Americans:

The struggle for power in postwar Iraq came sharply into focus today as Shiite and Sunni Muslims united in a demonstration that railed against both the United States and Saddam Hussein, while an Iraqi exile backed by the Pentagon emerged from well-guarded seclusion in an exclusive club to stake a claim to a role in Iraq's future.

At overflow Friday prayer services at the huge Abu Hanafi Mosque, a Sunni religious center that opened its doors to members of the rival Shiite sect in a rare demonstration of solidarity, hostility toward the Americans and the desire for an Islamic Iraq were on display. "No to sectarianism, one Islamic state," read a banner on the mosque, with the legend "No to America" emblazoned on top. "You are the masters today," Ahmed al-Kubeisy, the prayer leader, said of the Americans as he addressed a congregation that spilled out onto the sidewalks. "But I warn you against thinking of staying. Get out before we kick you out."

A very different tone was struck at the news conference of Ahmad Chalabi, the 58-year-old scion of a wealthy Shiite clan who returned to his native Baghdad this week for the first time in 45 years. Mr. Chalabi is protected by American soldiers on a mansion-lined street in Baghdad's richest neighborhood. One of his supporters, Muhammad Zobaidi, was installed as city administrator at a chaotic meeting called by American officers on Sunday. Despite this American backing, the level of their support — or even recognition — in a country still struggling for normalcy is unknown. ...

At the prayer meeting in central Baghdad today, a Marine foot patrol that came by, and quickly left, stirred a frisson of anger in the street. The apartment building opposite the mosque is shell-pocked and burned from American attacks. A nearby telephone exchange was flattened by American bombing, and the mosque's clock tower has a gaping hole from the war. The prayer service ended with a demonstration filled with banners denouncing the United States and Israel. "Muslims unite against the infidels!" one man shouted, jumping up and down in fury. "Get them out of our country."

Elsewhere in the capital, in the vast Shiite slum once known as Saddam City but now renamed Al Sadr City in honor of a Shiite cleric reportedly assassinated on Mr. Hussein's orders in 1999, more than 100 Shiite clerics met today inside a heavily guarded mosque to discuss security and aid for the more than one million Shiites in Baghdad. The gathering quickly became a power play by a radical faction that hopes to gain control over the often divided Shiites, who make up 60 percent of Iraq's population.

At the prayer meeting in Baghdad, Sheik Kubeisy had little good to say about anyone, from Mongol conquerors in 1258 to Mr. Hussein and the looters who sacked buildings in recent days, but he reserved much of his wrath for America. "The United States is the enemy of mankind, we all know why they are here," he said, alluding to the widespread belief among Iraqis that the Americans only covet the country's oil.

A somewhat similar economic view — although from an entirely different poltical perspective — was voiced this morning by Mr. Zobeidi in the third-floor suite of the Palestine Hotel, which has become the American military headquarters. In the Arab style of government, he was surrounded by rows of assistants and hangers-on, many of them ranking uniformed members of the old police and military. "I invite all U.S. companies to come here to work in Baghdad and make business in this country," he said. "We are a rich country. Now we are considered the first country in oil."

Mr. Chalabi repeatedly declared today, in the well-worn tradition of political power brokers, that he was not a candidate for president. "I am not a candidate for any position in the interim government," he said. "My role is to rebuild Iraq." Although some Americans inside and outside the State Department are more skeptical of Mr. Chalabi than his backers at the Pentagon are, his appearance was counted as an important event, given his support by the only real power here, American armed might.

The Iraqi National Congress and Mr. Chalabi have been the principal beneficiary of the millions of American dollars provided by the Congressional Iraqi Freedom Act passed under the Clinton administration, and have been favored by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz. Their militia — recruited in recent months inside and outside Iraq and trained by the American military in Hungary, in northern Iraq and around the southern town of Nasiriya — are dressed in surplus American-style desert fatigues. Some are said to have deployed with American units.

Mr. Chalabi's reputation in the region, however, is not unsullied. He is accused by the Jordanian authorities of absconding with the proceeds of Petra Bank more than a decade ago. The disappearance of hundreds of millions of dollars — along with Mr. Chalabi himself, who Jordanians say was smuggled out of the country in a Mercedes — wreaked havoc with the Jordanian economy, bankrupting many small investors.

A retired American lieutenant general, Jay Garner, is to be a civil administrator of Iraq, a nation of competing ethnic, religious and tribal groups drawn on a map by the European powers after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I. The provisional plan is to split Iraq into three sectors: a mostly Kurdish north, a mostly Sunni Muslim center and a mostly Shiite Muslim south, with American officials in charge.

Mr. Chalabi has set himself up in the Hunting Club, an enclave in the wealthy Mansur district, where — in contrast to the threadbare concrete streets of most of the city — gaudy villas lie behind walls, amid well-watered hedges and gardens. Inside the compound, American soldiers with the shoulder patch of the Special Operations Command and older, hard-looking men in unconventional camouflage with no military insignia were visible several hours before the news conference. Before most of the reporters arrived, they had been sent out of sight. American Bradley fighting vehicles still dominated the compound. Mr. Chalabi strode into the news conference, smiling broadly, and took up a position under a new green, yellow and blue flag. That same flag flew at his base in Nasiriya, where Mr. Chalabi and some 600 of his fighters were flown from northern Iraq this month. ...

New York Times, "Sunnis and Shiites Unite to Protest U.S. and Hussein" by John Kifner and Craig Smith, April 19, 2003

Confirming:

1) Chalabi as American puppet:

• "...while an Iraqi exile backed by the Pentagon emerged from well-guarded seclusion in an exclusive club to stake a claim to a role in Iraq's future."


• "Mr. Chalabi is protected by American soldiers on a mansion-lined street in Baghdad's richest neighborhood. One of his supporters, Muhammad Zobaidi, was installed as city administrator at a chaotic meeting called by American officers on Sunday."


• "Although some Americans inside and outside the State Department are more skeptical of Mr. Chalabi than his backers at the Pentagon are, his appearance was counted as an important event, given his support by the only real power here, American armed might." (State and Colin Powell will get no say in essential U.S. policy in post-Hussein Iraq, as evidenced by Chalabi's presence in Iraq alone.)


• "The Iraqi National Congress and Mr. Chalabi have been the principal beneficiary of the millions of American dollars provided by the Congressional Iraqi Freedom Act passed under the Clinton administration, and have been favored by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul D. Wolfowitz."


• "Inside [Chalabi's] compound, American soldiers with the shoulder patch of the Special Operations Command and older, hard-looking men in unconventional camouflage with no military insignia were visible several hours before the news conference. Before most of the reporters arrived, they had been sent out of sight. American Bradley fighting vehicles still dominated the compound."

2) Chalabi's national Iraqi army is an American proxy army:

• "[That American funded INC's] militia — recruited in recent months inside and outside Iraq and trained by the American military in Hungary, in northern Iraq and around the southern town of Nasiriya — are dressed in surplus American-style desert fatigues. Some are said to have deployed with American units."

3) Iraqi resistance to the American presence and control is broad and deep:

• "At overflow Friday prayer services at the huge Abu Hanafi Mosque, a Sunni religious center that opened its doors to members of the rival Shiite sect in a rare demonstration of solidarity, hostility toward the Americans and the desire for an Islamic Iraq were on display. "No to sectarianism, one Islamic state," read a banner on the mosque, with the legend "No to America" emblazoned on top. 'You are the masters today,' Ahmed al-Kubeisy, the prayer leader, said of the Americans as he addressed a congregation that spilled out onto the sidewalks. 'But I warn you against thinking of staying. Get out before we kick you out.'"


• "At the prayer meeting in central Baghdad today, a Marine foot patrol that came by, and quickly left, stirred a frisson of anger in the street."


• "The prayer service ended with a demonstration filled with banners denouncing the United States and Israel. 'Muslims unite against the infidels!' one man shouted, jumping up and down in fury. 'Get them out of our country.'"


• "At the prayer meeting in Baghdad, Sheik Kubeisy had little good to say about anyone, from Mongol conquerors in 1258 to Mr. Hussein and the looters who sacked buildings in recent days, but he reserved much of his wrath for America."

4) Those Iraqis with American support are not supported by the Iraqi people:

• "One of [Chalabi's] supporters, Muhammad Zobaidi, was installed as city administrator at a chaotic meeting called by American officers on Sunday. Despite this American backing, the level of their support — or even recognition — in a country still struggling for normalcy is unknown."


• "Mr. Chalabi's reputation in the region...is not unsullied."

5) Those Iraqis who have American support are those who are willing to open up Iraq to foreign investment and exploitation:

• "A somewhat similar economic view — although from an entirely different poltical perspective — was voiced this morning by Mr. Zobeidi in the third-floor suite of the Palestine Hotel, which has become the American military headquarters. ... 'I invite all U.S. companies to come here to work in Baghdad and make business in this country,' he said. 'We are a rich country. Now we are considered the first country in oil.'"

Notice who among the Iraqi establishment under Hussein is considered worthy of American support. Despite the fact that Mr. Zobeidi "was surrounded by rows of assistants and hangers-on, many of them ranking uniformed members of the old police and military," he is welcome into the Palestine Hotel "which has become the American military headquarters" because he "invite[s] all U.S. companies to come here to work in Baghdad and make business in this country."

The United Nations, the United States, and oil:

The Bush administration plans to ask the United Nations to lift international penalties against Iraq in phases, retaining United Nations supervision of Iraq's oil sales for now but transferring other parts of its economy to a new Iraqi authority in coming months, administration officials said today. The officials said that instead of a single Security Council resolution to lift sanctions on Iraq, the United States would seek three or four resolutions over several months, gradually turning over parts of the economy to an Iraqi authority assembled with American guidance.

The step-by-step approach was described as the latest American tactic to counter assertions by France, Russia and other Security Council members that they would oppose lifting sanctions without a broader role for the United Nations than the one envisioned by Washington. At least in theory, France and Russia could veto the lifting of sanctions, giving them considerable leverage even though they opposed the war. Some in the Bush administration say they fear a messy situation in which lawsuits would be filed by those arguing that any oil sales in defiance of the United Nations measures would be a violation of international law.

"Nobody wants to have litigation on this," an administration official said. "But the sanctions have to be modified or you can't have a reconstruction of Iraq." This official, like others interviewed today, requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject and the fact that many aspects are unresolved. ...

Another source of contention within the administration, and with others at the United Nations, is over whether Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors have any role to play in the future. There is a consensus in the administration, State Department officials said, that Mr. Blix should be sent into retirement. Many officials remain angry over his performance during the inspections phase in Iraq this winter, believing that he was too eager to please Iraqi authorities. On the other hand, some American officials admit that they have not been able to find the chemical, biological and other unconventional weapons that not too long ago they blamed Mr. Blix for not finding.

But a new element is the fact that the Arab news media — most notably, Al Jazeera, the influential television network — have begun suggesting that if chemical, biological or nuclear weapons are found in Iraq, it will be because the American military planted them there. Thus there is a growing feeling, however reluctant, that Mr. Blix and the United Nations may be needed if the United States is ever to convince the world that its fears of Iraqi weapons programs were justified.

New York Times, "Bush Plans to Ask U.N. to Lift Penalties Against Iraq in Phases" by Steven Weisman, April 19, 2003

Why is "the reconstruction of Iraq" dependent upon the "modification" of sanctions, in the view of American officials? There is no real reason why this must be the case, and so the U.S. is using the destruction it wreaked on Iraq as a political lever at the United Nations. When American officials say that "Iraq's oil is for the people of Iraq," I guess that it meant it was for the Iraqi people to pay for the destruction that the American military caused, since the U.S. has no intention of paying for it. In fact, there is no reason why the oil for food program couldn't continue (at least for a good while into the future), since that program is the quintessential embodiment of the notion that Iraq's oil should be used for the Iraqi people. But what the U.S. is doing here is trying to clear the path for its new puppet government to privatize Iraqi oil, just as it was clearing a path for it at the IMF and World Bank by asking for cancellation of Iraq's large debt (and also by foreshadowing its intent to cancel debt obligations to Russia). There's no sense in burdening your own puppet government with debt or United Nations restrictions on the use to which oil revenues can be put. The U.S. certainly doesn't intend for Iraq's oil to provide food for the Iraqi people, to be sure.

The weapons of mass destruction issue is dismissed easily enough. It was a blatant pretext, and in this regard it is irrelevant whether or not Hussein's Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction except for its PR value. There will be pressure on the U.S. to find these weapons, but if they do not, the American media will not make much of it. Some have suggested, including former CIA agents, that if the U.S. does not find any weapons, they will have to be planted. The article above suggests that UN involvement may be necessary for credibility, but the U.S. intends to use its own weapons inspectors to better control the process (whether of hunting or planting, nobody knows). Also likely (perhaps more likely than planting), however, will be the U.S. just making unsubstantiated claims that it has found weapons, a little post-Hussein Iraq Gulf of Tonkin. But this issue isn't really relevant to American imperial ambitions in Iraq except insofar as it discredits the expressed rationale for the invasion and demonstrates it pretextual nature.

A more descriptive account of the meeting of the future American puppet government in Iraq:

Protected by barbed wire and armed Marines, about 100 U.S.-chosen Iraqi community leaders and exile activists gathered today under a tent at an abandoned military air base to take the first step in planning a new government for Iraq. Outside the air base, near the biblical birthplace of Abraham, dozens of uninvited political figures denounced the gathering as illegitimate and unrepresentative of long-established Iraqi groups that had opposed the rule of Saddam Hussein.

Thousands of Iraqi Shiites shouting "No to occupation!" staged a noisy protest against the U.S.-sponsored talks in the nearby town of Nasiriyah. They said they were upset because key Shiite groups and their leaders were not in on the U.S.-sponsored meeting at Ur.

Zalmay Khalilzad, President Bush's special envoy, sought to assure delegates inside the air-conditioned tent that the United States had no intention of turning the current military occupation of Iraq into a long-term tutelage. "We have no intention of ruling Iraq," he said, adding, "We want you to establish your own democratic system based on Iraqi traditions and values." ...

Perhaps no group poses a greater challenge to U.S. aims than the Shiites, who make up about 60 percent of Iraq's 24 million people. Long sidelined by the secular Baath Party, whose leadership was Sunni Muslim, many of Iraq's often conservative Shiite clergy seem eager to exercise political influence now that Hussein is gone.

As Iraq begins trying to find its political future, further splits appear to be developing between those who remained inside the country for the past 30 years -- and who say they suffered the most under Hussein's rule -- and the Iraqi exile leaders returning from abroad, many of whom are viewed with suspicion by the internal opposition.

Many of those factions converged outside the entrance to the Tallil air base. Without official invitations, they engaged in an impromptu, disorganized and noisy version of street democracy outside as U.S. Marines and military police kept a close watch.

"I came here at 8 in the morning, and nobody will let me in," said Mohammed Yasser, 49, a member of the outlawed Communist Party for the past 27 years. Criticizing the U.S.-sponsored meeting, he said, "It can't represent the political and social parties and movements inside the country, and I can prove it because nobody from the inside opposition is attending this conference."

"Just imagine that," he said, pointing to the base. "An American flag, and American forces, and they say this is the opposition of Iraq. You can judge the picture yourself. . . . The people in Iraq know very well the Communist Party, which is not like the other parties supported from the outside. Or the new parties that no one knows anything about."

Representing the small Al-Najin tribe at the conference -- but not allowed in -- was Sheik Mehdi Abdulhussein.

"We came here to attend, but they won't allow us to attend," the black-robed tribal leader said. In comments directed at those inside, he said: "All of them are agents of the Americans. All of them are working for the American interest. They have to hear our voice. I refuse such treatment! All the Iraqi people will resist such a government that is formed under the American umbrella!"

Much of the anger was focused on Ahmed Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group backed by the United States. Chalabi has come to be seen as the Bush administration's favorite political figure because he was ferried here in a U.S. military helicopter. Chalabi did not attend the meeting but sent a lower-level representative. He has been reported to be on the way to Baghdad.

Asked whether Chalabi could be a future leader, Nasri replied, "No -- absolutely not." ...

Outside the gates, and also uninvited, were representatives of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, an Iranian-based exile group headed by Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir Hakim. One of the group's members denounced today's meeting as "rubbish."

"Iraq needs an Iraqi interim government," said the official, Abdul Aziz Hakim. "Anything other than this tramples on the rights of the Iraqi people and would be a return to the era of colonization."

Also vying for influence are the followers of Iraq's leading Shiite scholar, Ali Sistani, who is based in the holy city of Najaf 125 miles northwest of here, and those who proclaim allegiance to the slain Islamic cleric Mohammed Baqr Sadr, who was killed after a 1980 assassination attempt against now-deposed deputy prime minister Tariq Aziz. In an interview in Basra, Aeyed Maihi, a representative of the Sadr faction, also expressed misgivings about the U.S. role in the future Iraq.

"The people here in this city are very doubtful of the Americans, and they are suspicious," he said. ...

Asked whether the heavy security keeping Iraqis outside was sending the wrong message, Anderson replied: "I can't believe you asked that question. . . . We're in a combat zone. This city has just been liberated. We're trying to make it safer. We're trying to make it conducive to democracy."

Washington Post, "Iraqi Leaders Gather Under U.S. Tent" by Keith B. Richburg, April 16, 2003

"100 U.S.-chosen community leaders and exiles." And yet barbed wire and Marines were still required. It's not surprising after the assasination of one "U.S.-chosen" cleric and the stoning of another:

Seyyed Abdul Majid Al-Khoe'i

A prominent Shiite Muslim cleric who recently returned to Iraq from exile in Britain to preach reconciliation and acceptance of the U.S. invasion was killed by a mob today inside one of Islam's holiest shrines...

Washington Post, "Mob Kills 2 Clerics at Shiite Shrine" by Glenn Frankel and Nora Boustany, April 11, 2003

The U.S. State Department has this to say about him:

Seyyed Abdul Majid Al-Khoe'i was an active participant in the Civil Society and Local Government working groups of the Future of Iraq project...He was known as an advocate for the reconstruction of Iraq and as one of Iraq’s great advocates for democracy, freedom, reconciliation, tolerance, and the rule of law.

"Democracy," "freedom," "reconciliation," "tolerance," and "rule of law" should all be in quotation marks to designate that in American-government speak they mean "subservience to Washington."

Mishaan Al-Jabouri

Wounded Iraqis in the city's general hospital today gave a starkly different version of events [than the American military]. They said a controversial Iraqi opposition leader, Mishaan Al-Jabouri, started speaking to the crowd and hailing the arrival of American forces in Mosul.

"They began throwing stones," said Fateh Tata Abed, a 32-year-old man shot in the chest and upper arm. "And the American forces started shooting at us."

A second man, 39-year-old Sadullah Ghanal, gave roughly the same version of events. "After we threw stones at Mishaan Jabouri," he said, "the Americans started to fire on us."

New York Times, "Clash in Mosul Complicates Already Troubled U.S. Arrival" by David Rohde, April 15, 2003

So what does all this mean? The specific ideology of these folks is largely irrelevant except in one respect: they are openly pro-U.S. Avowedly pro-American Iraqi "leaders" are being killed and stoned. In the latter incident, the American army opened fire on the Iraqi crowd, killing 7. The repression, it appears, has begun (despite the self-serving claims of the American military that they were fired upon which, even if true, does not justify recklessly opening fire into an unarmed crowd). The U.S. is now defending it's hand-picked "democratic" government from the Iraqi people themselves. It has become Iraq's new Saddam Hussein, and this is the fundamental basis of the anti-war position. Iraq can never be liberated by people who are not themselves Iraqis.

But since people like Seyyed Abdul Majid Al-Khoe'i advocate "for democracy, freedom, reconciliation, tolerance, and the rule of law" in the words of the U.S. State Department, it necessarily follows that anybody who opposes him must be anti-democracy, anti-freedom, and anti-rule-of-law. They become by definition a terrorist, who the United States has a duty to destroy in order to protect "democracy, freedom, reconciliation, tolerance, and the rule of law" represented by the new "U.S.-chosen" Iraqi government. Nevermind the fact that when used by government bureaucrats, words such as "democracy" and "freedom" have no relation to what ordinary people understand them to mean but instead mean anything that benefits the elite for whom the government bureaucrat works.

Iraqi resistance to an American-backed government in Iraq loyal to the United States government is beginning. The Iraqis have put their newly won liberation to use by protesting the meeting to help the U.S. government determine which Iraqis are "qualified" to run the country:

Around 20,000 demonstrators converged on the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah to protest US-brokered talks aimed at sketching out a post-Saddam Hussein administration. ... The meeting in Nasiriyah was the first since the launch of the war on March 20 and was billed as a major step forward in the search for a new Iraqi leadership. ... Iraq's leading Shiite Muslim opposition group was ... boycotting the talks, amid distrust over the US role and division over who should lead Iraq.

The New York Times quoted Garner as saying his mission to rebuild Iraq's political structures would be messy and contentious. His fears appeared justified as the talks in the Shiite bastion sparked a demonstration estimated by journalists to number around 20,000 people, led by religious figures. "Yes to freedom ... Yes to Islam ... No to America, No to Saddam," the crowd chanted in the centre of the city. ...

And US forces tried Tuesday to prevent the media from covering a third day of anti-US protests by Iraqis outside the hotel housing a US operations base in central Baghdad. Some 200-300 Iraqis gathered outside the Palestine Hotel to express their rage at what they said was the US failure to restore order after the fall of Saddam's regime. For the first time, visibly-angered US military officials sought to distance the media from the protest.

Agence France Presse, "Large Protests Greet US-Backed Talks on Post-Saddam Iraq," April 15, 2003

So this is pretty significant. A protest of 20,000 is quite large and is roughly equivalent in size to the largest of pro-war rallies held in America during the invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately, the only information revealed about it here is that it was led by "religious figures." This is not to be unexpected, since "the people" usually receive short shrift in mainstream media outlets. This is essentially the voice of Iraq that will be excluded from any government set up by the American government, demonstrated literally by the event of a closed door meeting between the American government and select Iraqis (some of whom have not lived in Iraq in decades).

These demonstrators are the Iraqi people that our military, and in a few years time our proxy Iraqi military funded by the American government, will likely be violently repressing in much the same manner as Hussein himself did. And I must admit, the Iraqi chant is rather clever.

Also disturbing is the report that protests outside the Palestine Hotel are being shielded from the media. I wonder if the new Iraqi government will have a First Amendment press freedom? It doesn't bode well.

Values inevitably find their expression in the physical world. Witness, in empirical form, the values of the United States government:

Hospitals

Dr. Frederick M. Burkle, a deputy assistant administrator at the United States Agency for International Development, and George Havens, a pharmacist from the Public Health Service, plan to assess the needs at the hospitals in Baghdad and then order more medical supplies to be flown in from Kuwait, Michael Marx, an official for the agency said here. The arrival of the Americans came after the International Committee for the Red Cross said the health system in Baghdad was on the verge of collapse after many of the hospitals were looted or closed by fearful staff members.

In an unusual appeal, the Red Cross called on the American military to protect the hospitals. A senior official at the Agency for International Development in Washington said his agency had been pushing the military to place soldiers outside hospitals. Today, 3 medical facilities of the nearly 40 hospitals in the city were guarded by marines, according to reports from the capital. ...

"We are trying to avoid a humanitarian health crisis, and we want to respond sooner rather than later," Mr. Marx said. But securing Baghdad's hospitals from further destruction was the first priority. "If the security of the hospitals is not accomplished, it could degenerate into a major crisis, including an epidemic," he said. Mr. Marx said that until the hospitals were safe from looters, the agency would not provide new supplies. "Until security of hospitals is assured, it's useless to put equipment in there," he said.

In the citywide looting rampage, hospitals have been popular targets, with medical equipment, from surgical implements to baby incubators, ripped from wards and operating theaters. Some hospitals have closed because their staffs stayed home to safeguard their own property. At one hospital, workers were issued AK-47's to keep the looters at bay. At another, a surgeon brandished a rifle inside the wards. Mr. Marx said civilian casualties from sporadic fighting were still being brought to the hospitals.

The Red Cross said patients with chronic illnesses were too scared to go to hospitals where they received regular care. "Because of the chaos many people, especially the most vulnerable, are simply too afraid to attempt to reach hospitals for medical care," the Red Cross said.

New York Times, "As Chaos Continues, U.S. Sends Aid to Iraq" by Jane Perlez, April 15, 2003

Museums

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Tuesday rejected charges that the U.S. military was to blame for the looting by Iraqis of priceless treasures from the antiquities museum in Baghdad. Rumsfeld expressed sympathy over the plunder of the Iraqi National Museum last week, when U.S. troops stood by as looters walked off with antiquities or smashed what they could not steal. ... The museum housed key artifacts of ancient Mesopotamia, one of the earliest civilizations. It was ransacked and its contents taken or destroyed in looting that swept the Iraqi capital after the collapse of President Saddam Hussein's rule last week.

Reuters, "Rumsfeld Denies U.S. Blame for Iraq Museum Plunder" by Charles Aldinger, April 15, 2003

In marked contrast to the rampant looting of hospitals and the secreting away of priceless historic artifacts by newly liberated Iraqis stands the comments of this Iraqi civilian, quoted in the New York Times by John Burns and speaking with reference to the purpose of the American invasion:

Abdul Malik, a 36-year-old antiques merchant who is cousin of the dead brothers, drew murmurs of assent from the crowd when he said that America had come to Iraq not to liberate Iraqis from Saddam Hussein, but for oil. "The cause is not Saddam, the cause is oil," he said. To press home his point, he contended that American troops who have taken control of much of the city have made no attempt to protect any government building from looters except the Ministry of Oil. "They won't let the looters go anywhere near it."

And to confirm the account of the Iraqi:

US forces had the training and numbers to conquer Baghdad but lack both those things when it comes to fighting the looting and civil unrest that were this week tarnishing their victory, analysts said. ... There were scenes of looting in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities broadcast across the world as well as shots of angry crowds taking the law into their own hands and lynching real and suspected looters.

In Baghdad, people were wondering, some with great exasperation and bitterness, why American tanks were protecting the oil ministry, for instance, and not hospitals, shops and museums which were being pillaged.

Agence France Presse, "US forces lack numbers, training to deal with Baghdad looting," by Michael Adler, April 13, 2003

A little background on the man who will be in charge of installing the new Iraqi government:

The retired American general [Lt. Gen. Jay Garner] who will run post-war Iraq for the Bush administration flew to Iraq today on a mission to remake the country's politics, a process he predicted would be messy and contentious. ... The general will preside over a meeting of Iraqis and Iraqi exiles in Nasiriya on Tuesday, the first of many meetings that the Pentagon says are intended to form the basis of a representative government for Iraq. The invitations to about 70 to 80 people, including prominent exiles like Ahmad Chalabi and Iraqis unknown to the outside world, were issued in the name of the war commander, Gen. Tommy R. Franks, to whom General Garner reports. ...

General Garner, appointed by President Bush in January to oversee aid, reconstruction and civil government in Iraq, will be the most visible American face on what many in the Middle East and Europe view as a singularly American enterprise which, in their opinion, should be more international in scope and sensibility. Many European governments believe that the United Nations should play a more central role. ...

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld chose General Garner for his position. The two men know each other well from the late 1990's when the general served on a missile defense commission headed by Mr. Rumsfeld. They now talk every other night by video teleconference, and sometimes Mr. Rumsfeld calls directly, the general said. ...

The general retired from the military in 1997 after serving from 1994 to 1996 as commander of the Army Space and Strategic Defense Command. He joined SYColeman, a missile systems contractor that gives technical advice on a variety of systems, including the Patriot, which was deployed in Iraq. It was bought by L-3 Communications last year. He enjoyed his business career, he said, because "most of the guys are former military, and you make a lot of money."

New York Times, "U.S. Overseer Set to Remake Iraq" by Jane Perlez, April 15, 2003

So Rumsfeld and Garner are close and they've invited Chalabi, a man who hasn't seen Iraq in over 40 years, to participate in the meeting to determine how Iraq will be ruled. Robert Jensen, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas, puts the matter of the American building of Iraqi "democracy" thusly:

What will democracy mean in Iraq? When Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked Sunday whether the United States would accept in Iraqi elections a victory by candidates opposed to U.S. policy, he waffled. The lack of a history of political freedom in Iraq meant that sometimes "people end up not understanding what really are the facts," he said. How long does it take to reverse that? "It takes some time."

Will Iraqis be allowed to choose their own government only when their understanding of the facts matches Rumsfeld's? Will U.S. occupation continue until Rumsfeld is satisfied with the pace and direction of Iraqi learning?

An ongoing U.S. occupation will not be embraced by most Iraqis, with the exception of figures such as Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress exile group -- a "reliable" leader (defined as willingness to accept U.S. orders) preferred by many in this administration.

"What the facts really are." It's an interesting way to phrase the American government's policy of refusing to allow any independent entity to govern Iraq. Clearly, such a person who does not wish to do what Rumsfeld and the neoliberal establishment in Washington thinks needs to be done "has got the facts wrong." Should the Iraqis elect such a person, it must be because they have been misled or because they, too, "have the facts wrong." I think we can probably guess at a couple of the "facts" which must be observed by any government acceptable to Washington: 1) Israel should be recognized and accepted as legitimate; 2) privatization of industry, especially the oil industry, is the most appropriate means by which to distribute Iraq's vast oil reserves; 3) contracts entered into by Saddam Hussein's regime, especially those in relation to its oil reserves, should be null and void. Until the Iraqi people understand these "facts," they will not be allowed to choose their government. That these "facts" end up serving the interests of powerful people on the North American continent only serves to prove that they, too, "understand the facts."

More on Ahmad Chalabi, the potential American puppet ruler of Iraq:

Ahmad Chalabi, a well-born, well-heeled and well-connected former banker who had not seen his native Iraq in 45 years, was huddled with tribal leaders, plotting his political rise in the post-Saddam Hussein era. Nearby, gunfire echoed as some 600 Iraqis Mr. Chalabi had recruited were being trained by United States Special Forces. Mr. Chalabi, 58, is perhaps the most controversial member of the deeply divided Iraqi exile community, a man smiled upon in the Pentagon, and treated far more warily by the State Department and others who say he has no following — and thus no future — in an Iraq rebuilt under American auspices.

Whatever the outcome, Mr. Chalabi has gone to work fast since he was airlifted to an air base near this southern Iraqi town this week. He had arrived in Kurdish-held regions of northern Iraq in February, and moved here, courtesy of the United States Special Forces and C-17 transport planes, with hundreds of Iraqi supporters. The Iraqis were required to leave the AK-47's Mr. Chalabi had purchased for them in northern Iraq, but are now freshly armed with Kalashnikovs taken from Iraqi arms caches that were found by American troops in Nasiriya.

In the person of Col. Ted Seel, a United States Special Forces officer with a 9-millimeter Beretta pistol in a shoulder holster under his arm, the United States military has brought Mr. Chalabi under its umbrella, maybe to promote his cause, maybe to neutralize it.

Mr. Chalabi seems to harbor no doubt that all is for the good. Talking between meetings and telephone calls that kept him busy late into the night, he emphasized how important it was for him to be seen to control an armed force. "This is important to maintain political credibility with the people," he said of his 600 fighters, recruited in northern Iraq and also abroad. "Having a disciplined force will go a long way toward assuring the population in the towns and cities that things are settling down." Colonel Seel said Mr. Chalabi's troops were a credible fighting force that would be ready to conduct operations soon, apparently with the United States forces here. "They can be used in infantry missions where there might be a pocket of resistance in an urban area and it would be to everyone's advantage that Americans not be seen engaging in lethal activity," said the 53-year-old colonel.

But the significance of the small force is more political than military. Mr. Chalabi, wearing a brown United States Army-issue T-shirt, said its mission "is to help liberate the country and to do de-Baathification," referring to the dismantling of the top echelons of the party that ran Mr. Hussein's Iraq. The new flag of the Free Iraqi Fighters is flown around the camp. Mr. Chalabi's aides say it is a flag for the fighters, not a new Iraqi government. The effect is either of a state in waiting, or a warlord in the making. ...

While in the north in February, Mr. Chalabi began recruiting a militia, which he outfitted. Former Iraqi officers on his staff started training about 200 of the fighters. Many of the initial recruits were people Mr. Chalabi had solicited for participation in an American-sponsored force that was to have been trained in Hungary, where only about 100 exiles were trained before the war started and the program was suspended. Dozens of United States Army Special Forces troops have been assigned to oversee Mr. Chalabi's fledgling force, which has some rocket-propelled grenades, but no vehicles. ...

Sitting in a white Nissan Patrol, beside his large Bedouin tent woven of black camel hair, where he had entertained Mr. Chalabi earlier in the week, Sheik Ali Muhammad Manshed al-Ghazi called the opposition figure a "very smart, decent man who put his life in danger for the Iraqi people and lived in exile because of his ideas." The sheik, Nasariya's most powerful tribal leader, said his father and Mr. Chalabi's father had been friends and colleagues in the Iraqi Parliament under the monarchy, which was overthrown in 1958. But Sheik Ali acknowledged that he was also being courted by other opposition figures with backing from other parts of the American government, including the Central Intelligence Agency, which favors former Baath Party members and retired Iraqi generals over Mr. Chalabi. ...

Mr. Chalabi is not yet well known in Iraq, but some local residents say they have heard his name on the British Broadcasting Corporation and on Voice of America's Arabic-language broadcasts. They add that the apparent American backing he displays has won him some credibility here. ... [Haidar Khalaf Hashim, 36, a vegetable and fruit merchant in Nasiriya, said] there was stronger local allegiance to Ahmed Bakr al-Hakim, the Tehran-based leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. "If Hakim is shut out, the Iraqi people, especially in the south, will not accept this."

New York Times, "Iraqi Exile Moves Fast to Establish a Presence" by Craig S. Smith, April 12, 2003

There appears to be a dispute between State plus the CIA and the Pentagon over who the U.S. government should install in Iraq, with the CIA and State supporting Baath party officials and current Iraqi generals and the Pentagon supporting Chalabi. I cannot yet discern the source of the disagreement. It is often reported that State and the CIA don't "trust" Chalabi, though just what this means is unclear (if it means anything at all). Notice that the article states that the purpose of the U.S. military's collaboration with Chalabi's force might be "neutralization." This is almost certainly not true, since it is the Pentagon and Defense Department that supports Chalabi (so far as I can discern from the media at least). It is clear, to be sure, that the U.S. is planning to use the army as a proxy to do its dirty work so that, as Colonel Seel puts it, the Americans will "not be seen engaging in lethal activity." This is in "everyone's advantage," he says, though one must wonder precisely who is included in the pronoun "everyone."

It will be interesting to see what happens to Ahmed Bakr al-Hakim, the Tehran-based leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. He's an ayatollah and will likely be opposed by the United States out of a fear of an allied Iraq and Iran. Although at this time I know little about him, I suspect he is less interested in serving elite interests in Washington and this will be why he is opposed. Given that he does have support in Southern Iraq, if he is shut out, he may in the future be the impetus of Iraqi resistance to the American puppet government and the cause of American resort to staged elections and/or violence through its proxy Iraqi military force.