Posted September 7, 2003

"Iraq's Mystery Terrorists"

I do enjoy your column and you often have some intelligent things to say. Your fingering of MEK as the culprit in the assassination of al-Hakim was perceptive. Likely they were working together with Mossad. However, your slam of Dennis Kucinich and oblique implication that he is a Communist was entirely uncalled for. He is no more a Communist of any stripe than you are a Fascist, and you know it.

You are as blinded to reality by your own libertarian ideology as the neo-cons are by theirs. Why don't you wake up and look at the real world empirical evidence. Deregulation was the root cause of the August 14 blackout, just as it was the root cause of the California energy crisis. When will you realize that the limited liability corporation is a creature of the state. It is chartered by the state and granted its enormous economic power by the state. Without corporate charters, business enterprises would be limited to common law partnerships and sole proprietorships. Corporate executives, not consumers or the average citizens, are the overwhelming beneficiaries of this state-delegated power. If you really want to be a consistent libertarian, your only choice is to abolish limited liability corporations and throw your lot in with Howard Rourke and John Galt. If you're not willing to undergo the disruption of abolition, then consistency requires the state to exercise its right and its duty to regulate its own creations and insure they benefit the general public and not just their executives. This extends not just to re-regulation, but to balancing the enormous power management has in comparison with non-management employees and consumers. It's inconsistent of you to complain about corporate regulation without at the same time agitating for the abolition of corporations entirely.

Wake up, Justin. We live in a time of tremendous class warfare, but it's not workers who have been waging war on their employers. It's the other way around. Corporate executives have been waging war on their employees by reneging on retirement and other promises, taking advantage of their concentrated economic power to present workers with take it or leave it wages and working conditions, and greedily lobbying Congress to reduce their own taxes so they don't have to pay for the enormous state power that first made their wealth possible and now protects it. Across the board, Dennis Kucinich is an advocate for not only so-called "workers" but also for the relatively powerless small businessman. He is every bit as much a man of integrity and democratic principle as you are. In denigrating him, you denigrate yourself.

~ Bill Rood

Justin Raimondo replies:

I knew this would get the lefties' pants in a bunch. My remark about how the Kucinich slogan ought to be "All power to the Soviets" was a joke. J-o-k-e. You're supposed to laugh. But I guess the humorless Left has forgotten how to do that.

Look, if you think that re-regulation is the Wave of the Future, then you're living in a time warp. I have some big, big news for you: socialism has failed. It was tried, and it went off the rails. Liberty, not State Power, is the source of material (and spiritual) wealth. Learn to live with it, even if you don't love it. The Kucinich platform, as far as domestic policy is concerned, is no more relevant than phrenology is to modern science. One may as well try to revive pre-Copernican cosmology. Look at the guy's poll numbers – and tell me I'm wrong.

It should have been self-evident to any thinking being that the Najaf bombing served some American goals perfectly. The well coordinated media disinformation blitz that followed seems to confirm that it was an influential intelligence agency that planned the operation since no terrorist organization could have orchestrated the aftermath in this fashion.

The old French adage 'voir a qui le crime profite' is the occam razor in detective reasoning. Divide and conquer has been the tool of imperial powers since the dawn of civilization. By conducting such operations and manufacturing or planting evidence that other Iraqi resistance groups might be responsible, you divert their hatred and will to fight the occupiers towards a sectarian war. This is the goal of all the absurd media stories that followed. It is not just a case of bad journalism but rather an attempt to manipulate the Iraqi psyche. By getting the natives to expand their energy in decimating one another, the US can free more of its energy to plunder the natural resources of the country. There is nothing new or original in this stratagem. England used it to subdue and occupy India. It was the only way that a relatively small British force could maintain control over three hundred million people. The sectarian hatred encouraged and incited by the British kept the Indian from uniting and expelling them for a long time.

But what can be said about the bombing of the United Nations offices in Baghdad? There was certainly no deep hatred of the UN by any Iraqi faction. After all, it was UN functionaries that vehemently denounced the decade old embargo and the suffering it caused the people of Iraq. Bush never got UN support for the aggression that was perpetrated. So what possible reason would Saddam loyalists or any other group have in attacking the UN? Syria and Iran need the UN as the only check on American and Israeli ambitions in the area now that there is only one superpower in this world. Attacking the UN would be tantamount to shooting themselves in the foot. And this is precisely why an Israeli connection is viable. As you well know, there is no love lost between the Israeli regime and the UN that has hindered the consolidation of their expansionist policies. Iraq's borders are porous to most anyone these days let alone the dreaded Mossad which has proved time and again its ability to carry out operations far and wide. As an armchair detective, Israel would be my prime suspect.

~ Stanley Laham

Antiwar.com has done a great service by examining in detail the possibility that the Mujahideen-e-Khalq should be considered a suspect in the Najaf massacre. As Justin Raimondo noted, this Marxist terrorist organization had the motive and the opportunity to use their signature bombing technique against enemies.

While Justin Raimondo noted that a January 15, 2003 full-page advertisement in the New York Times claimed the support of 150 members of Congress for this Marxist terrorist organization, he did not name the members of Congress listed in the advertisement:

Lincoln Diaz-Balart (Republican—Florida)
Bob Filner (Democrat—California)
Sheila Jackson Lee (Democrat—Texas)
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican—Florida)
Tom Tancredo (Republican—Colorado)
Edolphus Towns (Democrat—New York)

Those who are truly antiwar will refuse to vote for these members of Congress in future elections and the 144 other members of Congress who are hoping you do not learn their names.

~ Paul Sheldon Foote, Professor of Accounting, California State University, Fullerton

I enjoy your articles. But, you keep complaining about the costs of Iraq war while ignoring its benefits. Liberty does not come cheap. It is one thing sitting there talking about the virtues of private enterprise, and another thing actually doing something about it. The Bush administration that you are so vehemently criticizing is taking practical steps to privatize the Iraqi economy. KPMG and JP Morgan are seeing into that. You could try to argue that the costs outweigh the benefit, instead of taking the easy way out and just ignoring the benefits. The oil revenue alone should more than cover the military costs. As for the Iraqis, they are gaining the best of both worlds, a market economy and religious freedom (Shariat law).

~ FJ

I am an Iranian and a Solicitor practicing in London. I must say that I read the article by Mr Raimondo with absolute amazement. How can a single individual make so many uncorroborated, unsubstantiated and deeply offensive allegations against an organization, the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran, in a single article?

Untrue allegations are easy to make, but in my view an individual that writes an article about an organization should ensure that their facts are correct before they write about it. Repeating rubbish that has been disseminated by the Iranian regime and its agents over the years is no achievement, whereas finding out the truth is. For your information, the PMOI is an organization who's aim is to return Iran to a free, democratic and secular state. In contrast, the Iranian regime want to keep Iran in the dark ages through their exploitation of Islam.

It is interesting that you say nothing about the barbaric regime in Iran, which has proved time and again over the past 20 years that it has no intention of complying with internationally accepted standards of human rights. This is the same regime that has in the past 20 years executed well over 120,000 political prisoners, 30,000 of whom were executed in the latter 6 months of 1988. These are nothing short of crimes against humanity. To this day the people of Iran face regular arbitrary and extra judicial arrests, inhumane Court sentences such as stoning to death and flogging, censorship and suppression of freedom of speech, and severe discrimination against women and religious minorities. Then of course there is its sponsorship of terrorism, which I am sure you will not doubt be aware of. It has the proud label of being the most active international state sponsor of terrorism. I am sure you will remember the bombing of a US army barracks in Beirut in the early 1980s, killing over 250 US marines. That was the handy work of the Mullahs. Another example that has recently been in the news is the bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1984, killing a further 80 people. Another bit of the Mullahs' handy work.

I could go on for pages and pages and unlike you I can produce documentary evidence to prove everything that I say. Everything that was stated in the above referred to article about the PMOI is completely false. I can provide you with documents proving that to be so.

Being antiwar is honorable, but not at the cost of appearing to support the most evil regime on earth, whilst making false statements about its main democratic opposition. ...

~ Masoud Zabeti, London, England

Justin's analysis does pinpoint one other group than the Mossad who would clearly – not just possibly – benefit from the hit on Hakim – the MEK.

Personally I'm still betting on Mossad – possibly working through agent provocateurs within MEK.

The MEK may not like Iran, but they're still Muslims. So I doubt they'd hit Hakim at one of the most revered mosques in the Middle East. Not impossible, but unlikely. Since they seem to be a personality cult, according to some reports nearly as bad as the Moonies, anything is possible, I suppose.

While Saddam wouldn't mind trashing the Shia or blowing up a mosque, even that mosque, all his tapes so far have tried to get the Shia and the Sunni to join the resistance together. Blowing up a leading Shia cleric simply is not in his current interests – whatever his previous or future interests might be. Even though the Shia have taken it out on the US, they are likely to take it out on Saddam's people first – and in fact, already have, according to some reports. So I believe the latest tape in which he denies involvement.

Shia radicals like al-Sadr would commit religious suicide if caught attacking that mosque, so that pretty much lets them out.

But Mossad would have no qualms about blowing up a mosque. It also would love to see the Shia and the Sunni Iraqis killing each other, even if that made things hard for the US occupation. In fact, it probably would like to see things get harder for the US, because then the US might respond with an even heavier hand on the Iraqi population. Certainly Israel has no problem with a heavy hand on a Muslim people. As for capability, they have intelligence units in the country, and probably could find people to provide them with the explosives from the available Iraqi military excess to pull off such a mission.

My money is on Mossad – but Justin's analysis places MEK as the number two possibility. And MEK means the neocons. But so does Mossad. So the best possibility is exactly as the Iranians have suggested – Mossad and MEK working together. We should remember that the Iranians have their intelligence people in Iraq, too – and they may know (or suspect) something.

~ Richard Steven Hack

"Balkans Online"

Ben Cosin: An important website for students and critics – and opponents – of imperialism in the Balkans is the British Helsinki Rights Organization (www.bhhrg.org). Although the Balkans are only part of its remit – there are not yet 35 countries in the Balkans! – their analyses of imperial media and state 'beatups' of countries and states with any desire for independence, and of the dire social, economic and political consequences of surrender, are a model. Usually based on personal visits, they are rich resources.

Nebojsa Malic: I knew I was forgetting something when I sent in the article! I am still kicking myself in the head for omitting the BHHRG – especially since I've been reading their reports for several years now. Truly a great resource, yes, and relying on firsthand observation, rather than pontificating from afar. I hope to remedy this injustice in the near future. Thank you.

BC: If Justin thinks it would be unfair to mulct US (and UK?) taxpayers to remedy the gross injustices inflicted on the Iraqi people by 12 years of sanctions, two invasions etc., just how should the appropriate libertarian remedy for wrongs – restoration of the status quo at the expense of the aggressor – be applied?

NM: Make Halliburton and others who profited from corporate welfare cough up the money, while the rest should go directly from the Pentagon's budget. Needless to say, no new taxes, debt, inflation or expropriations of any kind should be allowed to make up for the loss of government loot. Once the debt is repaid, perhaps the US public can see how much of their money the government a) steals and b) wastes, so they'd be less willing to fork it over. Worth trying, anyway.

Martha Koester's backtalk

Martha Koester related a very interesting anecdote on "Backtalk" (3 Sept. 2003) about the ridiculously expensive costs of rebuilding Iraqi bridges by US companies compared to local Iraqi architects. It was almost as interesting as a near identical (word-for-word) anecdote I read a couple of days ago, from a female Iraqi computer science graduate resident in Baghdad, who publishes her weblog "Baghdad Burning" under the pseudonym "Riverbend".

(See "The Promise and the Threat." The anecdote is 6 paragraphs down.)

Not that I have any problem with the anecdote, but let's give credit where credit's due.

~ Michael James

Dean

Much appreciate reading the pro-Dean letters, which are as fun as their neo-con complements for tortured logic, gaga enthusiasm and pathetic hypocrisy.

Appreciate Raimondo too. For all one's disagreements with his peripheral views, he never blinks before the war machine, whether it's folk pretending to be liberal, or pretending to be conservative, that want to feed it.

~ Guido Silvana

I agree with John Purdy that the US has the moral obligation to restore the electricity and water infrastructure in Iraq because the Coalition Forces destroyed it. It is not even a political issue whether you are libertarian, republican or whatever you want to be called. It is about decency. You break something you fix it. Justin, unless you decide to change your nationality or move to another country, the US is still a democratic government. Therefore, there is a moral responsibility among all the Americans for the action carried by the US government even if you personally opposed to the Iraq invasion.

~ Ed Kamisato

Raimondo's answer: "No."

All right, so what say you in response to Eric Garris, who, just a little further down on the very same page, said that the US might possibly owe "a large cash payment" to Iraq?

Additionally, my talk about "repairing the damage" basically meant paying some amount of money to the Iraqis so they can repair their infrastructure, and withdrawing the occupation entirely. That probably doesn't influence Justin's response anyway, but just in case it caused any confusion.

~ Steven Small

Just a possible second or third thought about Howard Dean. Though you've made some legitimate criticisms of his recent comments on the war, I'm taking a more wait-and-see approach, especially given his reported comment in tonight's debate. Rather than calling for more US troops, as you claim, according to Reuters,

"Dean, whose campaign has benefited from his stance against the war, said more international troops were needed and 'ours need to come home.'"

I have no problem with that. If "internationalization" is not just a figleaf for the empire, but means that the road home for American troops is through the UN, then I say let's go for it.

~ Peter Abbott, Wauwatosa, Wisconsin

"Imperial Eye for the Republican Guy"

I am not clear on what you think should be done at this point with the given situation in Iraq. I favor getting our troops out quickly, preferably within a year, and we should announce our intentions to do so. Yet we are still obligated to take responsibility for what we've done. We've destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and it is going to cost billions to fix it. That's tough, but that's the price we'll have to pay.

I read the Ivins article you linked and didn't see anything objectionable. She argued very sensibly for allowing the Iraqis to begin ruling themselves, starting at the local level and building from there. Handing off greater responsibility to the UN removes the imperial taint of the transition and allows us to begin our exit.

The goal should not be to create an Iraq in our image, but to fix the physical damage we've done (and, as Ivins argued, employ the Iraqis to do as much of that work as possible), let the Iraqis take over responsibility for themselves in whatever form they choose (though civil war is probably inevitable), and get ourselves the hell out. Perhaps you should read the Ivins article again and without prejudice.

~ Wayne Grabert

Justin Raimondo replies:

Ms. Ivins wants more troops, more tax dollars sent to Iraq, i.e. and more "benevolent" intervention. The antiwar movement, on the other hand, wants zero troops, and no tax dollars sent to Iraq, i.e. nonintervention. Big difference.

Photo Op

When Antiwar.com cites the ratio of our troops being wounded at a ratio of nine-to-one over those being killed I wonder why our mainstream news media has not suggest, even demanded, Bush make an appearance at Walter Reed Hospital give a flag-waving pep-talk to a blinded or legless veteran of the war he got them into at the behest of Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. And Walter Reed is much nearer to the White House than was the carrier in San Diego.

I would also like to compliment you upon your adding Ivan Eland to your staff. When with the Cato Institute he wrote the most prescient article which, if it had been official U.S. policy, would have avoided the tragedy we experienced on 9-11, "The Best Defense Is No Offense" dated Feb. 2, 1998.

~ SB

$60,000,000,000?

Perhaps California should go to war with the US You think $60-70 billion might help our economy?

~ Will J., California

"Benito Strikes Out"

Your attack on Ledeen is baseless. David Frum's offhand quip about Ledeen's $25 million reward was just that – a quip. Frum explains more today: http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/diary090303.asp.

Also, I've read Ledeen for a few years now, and he has made it clear that he does not think military action is required to take out the Iranian mullahs. Yes, he wants the Iranian tyranny gone, but no, he doesn't think a war is necessary to accomplish that. ...

~ Eric Christ, Phoenix, Arizona

Thank You

Thank you very much for Antiwar.com. It is an excellent site. I passed your links to several of my family and friends. Antiwar.com is the only place where the truth is (really) being told about Bush's debacle in Iraq. The (bullsh*t) propaganda being dished out on second rate news outfits like FOX and CNN have brainwashed millions of Americans. For the cold, honest truth, I turn to Antiwar.com.

~ Eric Elzey, Pennsauken, New Jersey

Asylum

With so much of the world opposing this Middle Eastern conflict, is asylum being offered to those coalition troops or future troops for moral, humanitarian or religious reasons, by any country? I personally know of enlistees that feel the war is a lie and that they would prefer not to participate but have no known alternative. They too are victims.

~ D. Inda

Out of the Military

I recently received a conscientious objection discharge from the Air Force and am glad to find many other groups supporting such motives. I'm now looking for a job, but it's much better than knowingly contributing to America's wars. Thanks for publishing!

~ Stephen Potts

Ten Point Program

It is time for the world to act to correct the situation in Iraq. The following is a ten point program to bring the Iraqi nation back to a condition where it can choose its own future, and ensure a world where power and aggression can be controlled and harnessed to the greatest benefit of the whole world of which mankind is only one tenant.

1. The UN should reconstitute itself, abandoning the powers of veto within the Security Council, and formulating member voting powers according to a balanced system fairly reflecting the member states’ population, cultural, religious and economic distributions vis a vis world cultural diversity. By proportions, minorities should be heard slightly louder, and majorities less loud.
2. Thereafter, the United States of America must be condemned by the United Nations for the illegal act of an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation in violation of the UN Charter to which it is signatory and therefore legally responsible to uphold.
3. The UN should expel the illegal occupying forces in Iraq, and replace them with an international force of UN peacekeepers to oversee the reconstruction made necessary after the infrastructure destruction by the US-led war effort.
4. The US and other aggressors should be assessed war reparations to the full extent of the reconstruction of Iraq, to the full extent of the costs of the UN peacekeeping requirements, and to the full extent of compensation to the Iraqi civilians and military personnel that it maimed and murdered during the illegal attack and occupation.
5. War crimes tribunals should be set up to find the guilty parties, both in aggressor administrations and aggressor militaries, and assess appropriate punishment.
6. Nations contributing to the American-led war effort should be required to pay reparations to the extent of their involvement in the unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation. Since it will be the citizens of complicit nations who will bear the burden of the reparations, prewar polls should be used to apportion responsibility for various national involvements. Nations such as the US, whose citizenry strongly supported the unprovoked attacks, should bear the greater share of the burden. Nations such as Britain and Spain, whose citizenry were against the war, should bear a far lesser amount of the burden.
7. The UN should move to disarm the US of its weapons of mass destruction, and establish inspection sites within the US to ensure that no such future programs are developed.
8. The UN should move to demilitarize the US of all non-defensive weapons on the grounds that that country has perpetrated grave violations of international laws, and must be disarmed for the security of the rest of the world.
9. The UN should ensure that the US and its partners bear the full costs of the tribunals needed to bring to light the war crimes resulting from the American-led unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, and the costs of the resulting necessary inspections and disarmament of the US military.
10. Until the entire process laid out above is completed to the satisfaction of the majority of UN members, the US should be subject to economic sanctions similar to the sanctions it enforced on Iraq over the past decade.

~ Garth Woodworth, Victoria, BC, Canada