Democracy in Iraq? Bush does not want it; it won’t happen!

Democracy in Iraq? Bush does not want it; it won’t happen!

A guerrilla war was planned all along in Iraq against the U.S. and will
continue for decades. It will come home to Americans as well.

Craig B Hulet

Democracy in Iraq? While it is on decline in America? And it is supposed
to be America, which institutionalizes it in Iraq? If they achieve
anything in Iraq, we know they will "call it" democracy even if it "is
not," just as we in America continue to mouth "but we re free."

08/01/03: This analyst argues from a premise that what we are told is
going on in foreign and domestic policies are not necessarily what is,
in reality, going on. That all governments lie; all leaders, at one time
or another, must, in their opinion and for politically sensitive reasons
they are not willing to demonstrate, must lie. It seems rather odd that
this needs to be repeated; since the early 1960s we as a people have
witnessed each President and too many crooks within each administration,
finding themselves caught in some major scandal, some political act
which they of necessity kept quiet on, and so they lied and were caught.
(Since Water-Gate each now has the generic equivalent and are called
"Something-Gate") All governments lie and most get caught at it. We do
not have to quote Lincoln to know why they get caught.

President Bush continues to claim American troops are liberators, not
occupiers. But the only people who can decide this truth is the Iraqi
people, not one American can make this distinction; not one journalist;
not one talk-show host can make the claim one way or the other.

The prospect for democracy rests with how this issue is seen and understood
by the people of Iraq, not Mr. Bush. The prospect for democracy rests
with liberty first, as the means to establish democracy. Democracy is a
process of developing a relationship between the governed and the
governors. There are many democracies; not all of them are free.

Without true liberty democracy is a false dream, or worse, an illusion lived
under. An illusion fought against.

President Bush thinks he can establish democracy by appointment, as he
has done in Afghanistan; where the guerrilla fighting goes on, where
Harmid Karzai controls nothing of the country and only barely Kabul
because US owned DynCorp s 3,000 mercenaries protect him. Al Qiada has
returned along with Usamah bin Laden to Eastern Afghanistan, The Taliban
are back as strong as ever, but this is not reported in the American
press. I stated during November [15], 2001, that the "Taliban withdrawal
was strategy, not a rout," as Bush claimed. That, "an examination of the
Taliban withdrawal suggests the group has intentionally surrendered
territory in the interest of adopting tactics more amenable to its
strength." That is to say guerrilla tactics as used for centuries
against all their enemies inclusive of the Soviets. (Source; The Hydra
of Carnage: An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of Empire, 2002
Page 198) The very same is true in Iraq, we captured few Republican
Guard troops, killed even fewer; so where are these thousands of troops,
as well as thousands more which made up, then, Saddam’s supposedly
500,000 man army, which is now, a well-orchestrted guerrilla army?

There are many handicaps to establishing democracy in Iraq. First the
country must be rebuilt, literally from ashes. This takes enormous sums
of money. The Oil for Food efforts under UN sanction certainly cannot do
this. The new U.N. Resolution 1483 creating the Development Fund for
Iraq will not do this. Even if the US multinational monopoly oil
companies extract the oil, nobody is going to buy it as it stands today
and for a very long time. (See previous article by this author:

"Protecting American Oil Interests in Iraq." July, 28, 2003 Information
Clearing House) There will be little resources from the sale of oil for
some time. Why this a problem was pointed out in a recent discussion
group forum of the elite Council on Foreign Relations. One of the
participants pointed out this unsavory "Oil" fact:

"One example of such a handicap is the question of legal title to
anything that you might want to export from Iraq — oil for instance.
Because buyers and shippers will have real issues buying a product to
which somebody else might assert legal claim. And this is something that
I think people have to be very, very conscious of. Why these are issues
of international law, and not really sort of periphery concerns but the
fundamental ones." (Shashi Tharoor, Under-Secretary-General for
Communications and Public Information, United Nations, April 23, 2003)

Bush thinks he has resolved this issue by protectiing "American" oil
monopolies with Executive Order 13303: Bush signed executive order 13303
and we were told it was simply implementing Resolution 1483, but in
reality, it went much further towards attracting investment and
minimizing risk for U.S. corporations operating in Iraq.

Executive Order 13303 states categorically that "any attachment,
judgment, decree, lien, execution, garnishment, or other
judicial process is prohibited, and shall be deemed null and
void," with respect to the Development Fund for Iraq and "all
Iraqi petroleum and petroleum products, and interests therein."
("Protecting American Oil Interests in Iraq." By Craig B Hulet,
July 28, 2003 Information Clearing House and KC&A Press Release)

But this too will not wash in the international legal community. It will
be challenged, though Mr. Bush may just repress the Iraqi opposition
further as his only real response; he certainly is not going to allow
the Iraqi people to exert ownership of their oil over Exxon/Mobil! Bush
has to keep this pretty hushed-up in the media as well. Only makes
sense, Mr. Bush cannot allow that specter to raise its ugly head in our
U.S. media, so the obedient state-run private media of America will
comply. But the fact remains.

Mr. Bush and the humbled masses in America believe that winning the war
"is" ipso facto winning the peace. That this has always and everywhere
been unfounded in history is ignored in the main stream media also. The
people of Iraq are as capable of democratizing their land as any. Bush s
and Rumsfeld s argument that those of us who do not believe there will
be democracy in Iraq, were asserting that Muslims, or Arabs, or Persians
or any Middle Easterners are "incapable" of democracy is false; this is
sophistry. Bush and Rumsfeld sought to denigrate the holders of such
views by degrading the argument to that despicable level. That is not
why this analyst believes democracy will not come to Iraq. And I am in
good company here even if the reader of this piece does not know who
that company is. I shall name one below who was also a participant in
the discussion group cited above:

"I think we really have to recognize the extent to which we could do in
war what we will not be able to do in the process of reestablishing Iraq
as a viable country. And for that process we will need to work with the
civilian side of the government, with the UN, and with our European
partners in a way that we found unnecessary in the war. (George E. Rupp,
President, International Rescue Committee. April 23, 2003)

There you have it: What we can do in war we cannot necessarily
accomplish for peace. And the first premise is twofold,

1) the Iraqi people are becoming quite informed as to what we, the United
States
that is, wants in Iraq: absolute control, a permanent military presence, a
puppet regime, and their oil, water and infrastructure under U.S.
control. Revenue to accomplish these illiberal destinies shall come from
oil revenues. Whose oil? (See above); and

2) there is no liberty in
Iraq, we are occupiers not liberators in the opinion of now almost all
Iraqis, and most Americans, and without liberty there can be no true
democracy. A guerrilla war was planned all along in Iraq against the
U.S. and will continue for decades. It will come home to Americans as
well, as "that" is what 9/11 really was — international urban guerrilla
warfare, not classical terrorism. And all-roads-did-not-lead-to-bin Laden!

Now there can be an illiberal democracy (a euphemism created by
academics to describe democracies which are only democracies in name and
not in substance), i.e. elections are frauds or deceptions, dissent is
censored, civil liberties (traced in history to the U.S. and French
revolutionary writings) not guaranteed, true free enterprise eliminated
where government grants monopoly status over the industries and the
commodities that matter. (Shoe repair and a local diner remain untouched
though less and less competitive as monopolies continue to raze the free
enterprise sanctuaries just as they do here at home in the cradle of
free enterprise.) To put this in better perspective, one author
responsible for coining the phrase stated it this way,

"...50 percent do better on political liberties than on civil ones. In
other words, half of the "democratizing" countries in the world today
are illiberal democracies ... Around the world, democratically elected
regimes are routinely ignoring limits on their power and depriving
citizens of basic freedoms. From Peru to the Philippines, we see the
rise of a disturbing phenomenon: illiberal democracy. It has been
difficult to recognize because for the last century in the West,
democracy — free and fair elections — has gone hand in hand with
constitutional liberalism — the rule of law and basic human rights.

But in the rest of the world, these two concepts are coming apart.

Democracy without constitutional liberalism is producing centralized regimes,
the erosion of liberty, ethnic competition, conflict, and war. The
international community and the United States must end their obsession
with balloting and promote the gradual liberalization of societies."
(Rise of illiberal democracy, Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/
December 1997)

What little liberty is left here in America is eroding before our eyes
under The Patriot Act I and II, under the new electronic surveillance
organs enlarging daily around us, the rule of law is eroding rapidly.

The U.S. regime is centralized like never before under Homeland
Security. The CIA and the Pentagon ready to operate domestically right
now and they have been authorized to do so. Probable cause is a sad and
noble concept, now lost. Conflict here at home, wars abroad. The utter
lack of dissent allowed in even the most local of media outlets, TV,
Radio and the printed mediums; one is regularly and viciously attacked
for questioning the President s motives; the term treason launched
against the most moderate of critics. (Treason being a legal term
applicable only to its "actual act" in time of war [declared] becomes a
term used by the ignorant to silence someone they cannot possibly
understand semantically; i.e. they are verbicidal.) Mobs were organized
by the media outlets to confront anti-war protestors in support of "the
troops."

Some of us know that 99.9 percent of those that protested the
anti-war protestors have never voted, never gave a thought for the
troops over the decades (Agent Orange victims, Gulf War illnesses, VFW
Hall s rejection of Vietnam Vets because "they lost the war," etc.);
this was true throughout the past and it remains a lie now.

What many were, and remain really about still, is their personal bigotry
and hatred of "liberals." A catchall term those on the far-Right use for
anyone they dislike the views of. These folks are lacking any
understanding that Jefferson and Paine were classical liberals and
America was a liberal free Republic based on liberal democratic ideals.

But these same bigots are, in the main, bigots because they do not or
cannot read. It is these that make-up the mundane masses which will
believe democracy has come to Iraq; truth is they will not even care if
democracy comes to Iraq. These are the same ones that believe the war is
over and we won. So, they are back watching ESPN— ALL DAY LONG! So,
democracy in Iraq? While it is on decline in America? And it is supposed
to be America, which institutionalizes it in Iraq by appointment? At the
point of a gun? Achieve anything in Iraq? We know they will "call it"
democracy even if it "is not," just as we in America continue to mouth
"but we re free."

By Mr. Craig B Hulet; Security, Military Affairs & International
Relations Expert. Hulet was Special Assistant to Congressman Jack
Metcalf (Ret.)

(Author: The Hydra of Carnage: Bush s Imperial War-making
and the Rule of Law: An Analysis of the Objectives and Delusions of
Empire, 2002 The Artful Nuance Press) His new book can be found at
ww.kcandassociates.org

Mr. Hulet can be reached for speaking engagements at
cali@localaccess.com

The Artful Nuance and Craig B Hulet.