Leaving Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan: our education by collateral murder
Wikileaks video shows US helicopter gunships murdering 12 Iraqis,
including two Reuters journalists
Christopher King considers the evidence which indicate that murder of civilians and state-sponsored terrorism are tools of US policy in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, and argues that unless Britain leaves Afghanistan immediately, it will not recover morally or economically and will not be on the path to control its destiny.
You have probably seen the Wikileaks collateral murder video of an American helicopter gunship crew killing 12 Iraqis, including two Reuters journalists, the details of which had been concealed by the Pentagon. It’s something that everyone should see, particularly those British politicians who voted for the Iraq war and are now, before an election, attempting to persuade us that they are fit to govern our country.
Gordon Brown in particular is trading our soldiers’ lives for the sort of multi-million dollar payoff that Tony Blair got by backing America’s adventures in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Like most of our Members of Parliament, he also voted to invade Iraq and enthusiastically supported Barack Obama in Afghanistan. What our politicians call “re-engaging” with the public, something they only attempt at election time, is futile because we know them to be self-serving liars without morality. Incompetent too, but what else would one expect? Enough of them for the moment.
We should note that the occasional cross-border US drone attack into Pakistan has gradually escalated to regular attacks, and a respectable-sized local war, US ground involvement and a CIA presence in Pakistan. Surely the Pakistanis have wondered what the US plans are for their country and nuclear stockpile?
We can see why the US needs Europe to back its war crimes. The US public doesn’t like troop casualties so if they’re shared with Europe and then spread over a dozen European countries they’re not so noticable. Involvement of other countries also makes criticism from them very difficult and gives a kind of legitimacy. And the wars are spreading. Pakistan and its nuclear weapons next I imagine, then Iran. So when will they leave Iraq or more to the point, will the US ever leave Iraq? I’ve said years ago that there’s no chance until the oil is gone. Look at what’s happening.
The level of bombing in Baghdad has been increasing recently, just as the Americans are supposed to be getting ready to leave Iraq. Three bombs in civilian areas killed about 47 persons a few days ago. Bombs explode every day but we only hear about the worst cases. Violence is such that the US has developed contingency plans to keep a high level of troops in Iraq to “maintain security”. The Washington Post regularly worries about the welfare of Iraqis after the US leaves. Leaves? Even when the US nominally leaves Iraq, 50,000 “trainers” will remain as well as 4,500 special forces and tens of thousands of para-military “contractors”. Barack Obama’s pledge to leave Iraq was really a fraud to get elected.
Let’s pause to think about the continuing violence and bombing in Iraq that is providing the excuse for the US to remain. Attacks against Americans are now very rare. Most of the bombs have been in Shi’i areas against Shi’i civilians or police. This doesn’t make sense for two reasons. Firstly, it gives the Americans an excuse to stay when everyone wants them to leave. Secondly, they serve no useful purpose to any Iraqi group. It can do the Sunnis no good whatever to provoke the majority Shi’ah into open civil conflict that they will lose. Al-Qaeda? Why should they attack Sunni civilians when the hated Americans are conveniently at hand to kill? There aren’t many Al-Qaeda in either Iraq or Afghanistan anyway. That’s official. And if Al-Qaeda or anyone else should have a plan to forment trouble as a prelude to taking over the country it would be best to let the Americans leave first. In short, there’s no advantage to be had by any Iraqi faction in bombing Shi’i areas.
| "The question is always 'To whose advantage is it?' There’s only one group that could further its ends by continued violence in Iraq. The United States." |
The question is always “To whose advantage is it?” There’s only one group that could further its ends by continued violence in Iraq. The United States. “Unbelieveable!” you say. Not at all.
Let us recall that the US Congress made USD 400 million available for black operations intended to destabilize the Iranian government (we know nothing of its budgets for subversion of other countries). Although it claims not to support terrorism, Adolmalek Rigi, the leader of the terrorist organization Jundallah, captured by the Iranians, says that the US Central Intelligence Agency has been supporting him. The CIA of course is the black operations arm of the United States. Let’s review what we know about them.
It’s undeniable public knowledge that among other things, the CIA:
● Kidnaps thousands of non-Americans
olor="#712F26">● Transports kidnapped persons to third party countries and own secret prisons for the purpose of torture
● Without legal process, imprisons, tortures, tortures to death, disappears and assassinates thousands of non-Americans
● Subverts sovereign governments and supports coups, revolutions and dictatorial regimes that are sympathetic to the US
● Arms and funds rebel and terrorist organizations such as Jundallah in order to destabilize sovereign governments
● Interferes in other countries’ politics by bribes and funding opposition organizations
● Is part of the drone assassination scheme in Afghanistan and Pakistan
● Recently has approval to assassinate Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen
In short, the CIA is undoubtedly the worst criminal and terrorist organization on the planet. It is the means by which the United States government achieves its ends when normal, legitimate means fail.
To return to Iraq: The US has no intention of leaving Iraq and its oil, so continued instability is needed as a public excuse for remaining. Providing instability is what the CIA does.
I suggest, therefore, that the CIA is arranging most, if not all, the bombing and attacks in Iraq by supporting local terrorist groups that it has probably created itself. Suitable candidates could easily have been identified from past army operations that had local groups such as the “Awakening Councils” on the US payroll. The CIA demonstrably places no value on human life nor does it accept any moral or legal constraints. That is its nature by intent.
“But bombing innocent people intentionally would be too much even for the CIA!” you protest. That is what I thought a week ago. It was while watching the Wikileaks video in full that it occurred to me that the CIA was intentionally bombing civilians in Iraq. Try the idea while watching the video. Call me naïve, but until then I did not believe that people could do such things, even knowing what I do about the CIA.
A letter has been published from two US soldiers who belonged to the ground unit that was on the site at the time of the collateral murder shooting. One of them carried two children from the scene. They apologise to the Iraqi people and those who lost loved ones. They also say, “From our own experiences, and the experiences of other veterans we have talked to, we know that the acts depicted in this video are everyday occurrences of this war: this is the nature of how US-led wars are carried out in this region”.
| "How can one adequately express one's revulsion -that the US presumes to issue human rights reports on every other country in the world, while in its own dealings with other countries it outrageously violates almost every criterion by which it judges them." |
The US is not engaged in a defensive war. It is furthering its economic and geopolitical aims by murder and the UK and Europe are colluding with it. In fact, UK personnel have been trained in drone assassinations, killing on suspicion, as in the collateral murder video. The Royal Air Force is now using lower-grade staff with basic training to operate drones rather than expensive fighter pilots. The best operators are considered to be young video-game players. A video-game format now enables extra-judicial murder-on-suspicion.
The US now trains more drone operators than pilots because it is cheaper, safer and killing is easier than using conventional aircraft. No-one is safe in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan now. United States crimes have no boundaries. How can one adequately express one's revulsion -that the US presumes to issue human rights reports on every other country in the world, while in its own dealings with other countries it outrageously violates almost every criterion by which it judges them.
Talk, therefore, of the US leaving Iraq and Afghanistan is nonsense. I believe that CIA operatives have the same mentality shown in the collateral murder video that enables them to murder Iraqi civilians in order to create instability and stay. Until I saw that video I thought that such a state of mind was possible only in cases of criminal insanity. Perhaps that is what is needed to be a CIA operative, or perhaps it is induced. Of 30,000 US suicides per year, 20 per cent – 6,000 or 16 per day – are veterans. This undoubtedly says something about America’s wars.
In the current UK elections, we need the opportunity to vote to leave these murderous endeavours that show no sign of ending. There are several good reasons:
● Simply, morally, it is wrong to invade other countries, murder their people and steal their wealth. The rule of law derives from morality. Our present government seeks to circumvent law, not keep it.
olor="#712F26">● The military looting of foreigners and domestic over-taxation as the basis of an economy is bound to fail. We have a militarized government of well-demonstrated incompetence. It has a robber-baron culture rather than one of research and industrial and trading development.
● Holding onto the illusory economic and defence benefits offered by the United States has not only led the UK into its present moral and economic disaster, it has paralysed the UK, preventing it from following its own path of development.
The assertion by Prime Minister Gordon Brown that our participation in the US’s invasions of the Middle East “protects our way of life” is a lie. He and most of our politicians voted for the Iraq war and can only attempt to justify their untenable positions by lies or, as my own Member of Parlament Richard Ottoway does, by blaming Anthony Blair for deceiving him. It would be a joke it were not so serious. Anthony Blair, Gordon Brown and the Joint Chiefs of Defence Staff are war criminals by the criteria of the Nuremberg Principles.
The first step in UK moral and economic recovery is to leave Afghanistan immediately. We need to take that step because until we do and we disengage from America’s murderous policies, we will not be on the path to control of our own country and future.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Christopher King is a retired consultant and lecturer in management and marketing. He lives in London, UK.
___________________________________________________________________________________
Source: http://www.redress.cc/global/cking20100420
