December 29, 2004

Osama bin Laden, dead and buried, and al-Qaeda is the best thing that ever happened to the Bushcons. Earlier this week a voice "purported" to be Osama promoted Abu Musab al-Zarqawi to the position of "emir" over the resistance in Iraq, prompting the corporate media to include the al-Qaeda angle into stories about the resistance. "Attacks this week on police and other Iraqi security forces have left dozens dead in a sign that the Sunni insurgency, freshly endorsed by Osama bin Laden, remains potent despite U.S. offensives intended to protect the election on Jan.30," writes Reuters. ( http://olympics.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&s
toryID=7200512 ) Of course, these attacks would occur if Osama—or rather the manufactured voice of Osama—had never said a word about the resistance.

According to Bush and the corporate media, the purpose of attacks launched against occupation forces are designed to prevent Iraqis from "voting" in stage managed "elections" because the resistance—now firmly connected to al-Qaeda—hate democracy and share Osama’s "dark vision," as Bush would have it. "The timing of the various attacks and the broadcast of bin Laden’s tape seemed coincidental, but together they racked up the pressure on Iraqi voters to stay at home on Jan. 30, and seemed designed to instill fear in Iraq’s new security forces." Never mind that these "new security forces" are doing the bidding of the Bushcons and are rightly viewed by the resistance as legitimate military targets.

For the corporate media, the "linkage" between al-Qaeda, the "Islamist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi," and "Sunni nationalist Saddam loyalists" (as the resistance is typically characterized) is now de facto. As well, the inexorable influence of al-Qaeda has reached into Syria and Iraq. "Earlier this month, Iraq’s Defense Minister Hazem Shaalan accused Syria and Iran of supporting an al-Qaida-linked group in Iraq and insurgents linked to Saddam Hussein’s former security forces," the Associated Press reported. ( http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArti
cle/ShowFull&cid=1104035116708 ). "The situation is difficult in Iraq. The (American) occupation faces a big problem there and the easiest thing is always to try and export the problem, to try and blame others," Syrian Information Minister Mahdi Dakhlallah responded.

Such "blame," of course, has a political objective: the Bushcons are itching to attack Syria (and Iran). As the Strausscon William Kristol tells us ( http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/00
0/005/020udbsz.asp?pg=2 ), we have "an Iran problem, and a Saudi problem, and lots of other problems. The Iran and Saudi problems may ultimately be more serious than the Syria problem. But the Syria problem is urgent: It is Bashar Assad’s regime that seems to be doing more than any other, right now, to help Baathists and terrorists kill Americans in the central front of the war on terror." For Kristol and the Strausscons, the United States needs to "use the assets" it has and "bomb Syrian military facilities" and "occupy the town of Abu Kamal in eastern Syria," both clearly provocative acts of war. For Kristol and the Strausscons, "dealing" with Syria—that is killing a whole lot of Syrians as Bush killed a whole lot of Iraqis (around 100,000 so far)—is "part of winning in Iraq, and in the broader Middle East." Kristol, of course, does not define what he means by "winning," since the United States is clearly losing in Iraq.

It is not about "winning" democracy for Iraqis, Syrians, or Iranians, as the Bushcons claim, ad nauseam. It’s about defeating Arab nationalism (and the political and cultural cohesion of Iran). As usual, it’s all about Israel. "Sharon’s 'Greater Israel’ crusade represents the fascist side of Israeli colonialism, masquerading as a 'defense’ of the 'Jewish homeland’. And it has suited US imperialist ambitions since the founding of Israel in 1948, to go along with this vision because the creation of Israel acted as a block to Arab nationalism and of course, as long as the Arab nations remain divided, gives free access to the vast oil reserves so crucial to the US economy," notes William Bowles. ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2963.htm ) I’d say, however, that the oil angle is a minor concern—after all, the Arabs will sell their oil regardless (as it now stands, the U.S. only imports 17.8% of its oil from Saudi Arabia ( http://api-ec.api.org/filelibrary/May03imp.pdf ), although multinational oil corporations make a fortune selling this oil elsewhere)—and Israel’s "security" is the primary objective (Israel’s "security" = decimating Arab countries and destroying Arab nationalism).

William Kristol will never admit this, of course. However, it is no secret that Israeli "loyalists are in top positions within the government making strategic decisions about US global policy and providing their Israeli handlers with secret documents pertaining to top level discussions in the White House on questions of war and peace," as James Petras writes. ( http://www.rebelion.org/noticia.php?id=4298 ) "It is clear that Israeli agents, not simply Zionists ideologues, infest the top echelon of the Pentagon. The question is not merely a question of taking this or that policy position in favor of Israel but of working systematically on a whole range of issues to further Israeli power over and against US imperial interests."

For the Bushcons, the trick is to window dress Israel’s policy of territorial expansion and undermining Arab nationalism as a uniquely American effort, i.e., as an integral part of the "war on terrorism," and that is why the corporate media is now telling us that the Iraqi resistance is a branch office of al-Qaeda. "The neocons have excelled in linking 9-11 to a broad array of projects; the establishment of these links is for them a kind of Straussian game in which the Noble Lie is argued through the most creatively effective stringing of links," notes Gary Leupp ( http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp03102004.html )

Of course, it is irrelevant to the Iraqi resistance how the United States portrays them—they will continue to resist the occupation regardless of what William Kristol or any number of talking heads over at Fox News have to say. Rumsfeld may be shown the door in the weeks ahead, and more troops rushed to Iraq, but this will not stop the attacks on the Green Zone, on U.S. convoys on Iraqi roads, or the suicide bombings and the murder of Iraqi police and national guard. Regardless of what the United States does—short of leveling the entire country will nukes—the resistance in Iraq will ultimately win. For the Americans, the question is: will they learn from this defeat or will they simply blunder into further "adventures" devised by neocons, neoliberals, and the ruling elite who have an insatiable appetite for stealing natural resources and enslaving millions of people in labor gulags around the world?