Not one of these crimes has been investigated by the occupation forces or the interim governments. They leave that to international humanitarian groups and anti-war organisations. Among them is the Brussels Tribunal on Iraq, which has compiled a list to persuade the UN special rapporteur on summary executions to investigate the issue; they do so with the help of Iraqi academics, who risk their lives in the process. Their research shows that the victims have been men and women from all over Iraq, from different ethnic, religious and political backgrounds. Most were vocally opposed to the occupation. For the most part, they were killed in a fashion that suggests cold-blooded assassination. No one has claimed responsibility.

Like many Iraqis, I believe these killings are politically motivated and connected to the occupying forces' failure to gain any significant social support in the country. For the occupation's aims to be fulfilled, independent minds have to be eradicated. We feel that we are witnessing a deliberate attempt to destroy intellectual life in Iraq.

Dr al-Na'as was a familiar face on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya TV. He had often condemned the continued presence of US-led troops in Iraq, and criticised the sectarian interim governments and their militias. His case echoes the assassination of the academic Dr Abdullateef al-Mayah. A prominent human rights campaigner and critic of the occupation, Mayah was killed only 12 hours after he had appeared on al-Jazeera denouncing the corruption of the US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council.

Militias have replaced the disbanded Iraqi army, applying their own rule of law. Some units operate under a semblance of "legality" - the "wolf brigade", attached to the interior ministry, is infamous for its terror raids on mosques and the torture of civilians.

Last month the journalist Abdul Hadi al-Zaidi accused the government's militias of targeting intellectuals. He is one of a group of Iraqi journalists who, in the aftermath of al-Na'as's assassination, went on strike, demanding an immediate investigation into the "systematic assassination campaign" against intellectuals opposed to the occupation.

After the July London bombings, Tony Blair promised the British people to "bring those responsible to justice". In Iraq, the British government does exactly the opposite. The law of occupation states that: "All foreign soldiers, diplomats or contractors implicated in the killing of Iraqi civilians are immune from arrest or trial in Iraq." Both the British and US governments turn a blind eye to the systematic violations of human rights and murders committed by their clients in Iraq.

It has become obvious that the occupation forces, with their elite troops and $6bn-a-month budget, cannot hold Iraq. The only honorable and realistic way out is genuine dialogue with the Iraqi resistance over a complete withdrawal of foreign troops and adequate reparations and debt-cancellation to rebuild the country.

· Haifa Zangana is an Iraqi-born novelist and former prisoner of Saddam's regime; a longer version of this article will appear in Not One More Death, published next month by Verso

haifa_zangana@yahoo.co.uk

Introduction

There are people of good will who think the invasion of Iraq was wrong but our country needs to clean up the mess it has created. Pulling U.S. troops out now would be irresponsible, some fear, because it would lead to chaos. The dilemma facing those of us who want to help is that the well-being of Iraqis isn't important to U.S. leaders who invaded and occupy Iraq for other reasons. Meaningful discussions about how to best help Iraqis, or about a realistic exit strategy, or about presumed obstacles to such a strategy, depend on an honest assessment of why the United States invaded and continues to occupy Iraq. Once the real reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are brought to light it is clear that an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops offers the best hope for peace and stability in Iraq.

Manipulating Our Fear and Grief

Politicians and the media tell us almost nothing about why the United States invaded and occupies Iraq. Since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 citizens have been targeted with a sophisticated campaign by the Bush administration to sow fear within the body politic. Fearful people tend to be compliant. Fed a steady diet of rhetoric prior to the war concerning weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) and terror threats, and offered comforting words during the occupation about promoting freedom and democracy we suspend critical reason. Bush administration officials play on post 9/11 fears and our idealism and then invade and occupy Iraq for unrelated reasons. A Republican administration has orchestrated these efforts but far too many Democrats have gone along with this dangerous charade.

Reason may also be suspended when discussing Iraq because many of us have family, friends, or coworkers serving there. Each deployment or return of U.S. troops and each U.S. soldier killed or wounded becomes a human interest story wrapped in rhetorical cloaks of patriotism, nationalism, heroism, and service to country. Our grief is used to fuel rather than challenge the war and the causes of the war and the reasons for the occupation and so many senseless deaths go unexplored. One father of a U.S. soldier killed in Iraq writes that his son's death and other deaths "will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers, may be wasted as well."[6]

Propaganda and Lies in Service to War

Prior to the terror attacks of 9/11, administration officials made it clear that Iraq wasn't a threat to its neighbors or the United States. Secretary of State Collin Powell said on February 24, 2001, "And frankly, [sanctions] have worked. [Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors." Similarly, then National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice said in July, 2001 that "Saddam does not control the northern part of the country. We are able to keep his arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt."[7]

The rhetoric of U.S. leaders and not the situation in Iraq changed following 9/11.[8] Vice President Dick Cheney jump-started a well-developed public relations campaign for war based on false premises on August 26, 2002: "Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." Less than two months later Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld warned that Iraq, an arch enemy of Osama bin Laden, in "a week, or a month" could provide al Qaeda with "weapons of mass destruction" that could potentially kill 100,000 people.[9]

A non-partisan report, "Iraq on the Record," produced by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform dated March 16, 2004 demonstrated that the campaign of lies and fear mongering was extensive, calculated, and coordinated. It documented "237 specific misleading statements" made by President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to justify war with Iraq. A simple definition of a misstatement is a lie. However, for "purposes of the data base," the report noted, "a statement is considered 'misleading' if it conflicted with what intelligence officials knew at the time or involved the selective use of intelligence or the failure to include essential qualifiers or caveats." The misleading statements by the five notables named above, the report said, reflected "a pattern of consistent misrepresentation."[10]

Administration officials invented or exaggerated threats with full knowledge at the time they made their false claims that Iraq had neither weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) nor ties to international terrorists such as al Qaeda. As Anthony Zinni, former commander of the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), noted "we had to create a false rationale for going to war" and so the "books were cooked." "No one in the region felt threatened by Saddam" and his military "didn't have the capabilities that were pumped up, that were supposedly possessed by this military." Zinni said "the rationale that we faced an imminent threat, or a serious threat, was ridiculous."[11]

9-11 offered administration officials an opportunity to sow, cultivate, and harvest the fruits of a politics of fear that would enable them to pursue previously determined objectives, including the invasion of Iraq. As Gwynne Dyer, the well respected political analyst, historian of war, and friend of the United States writes, 9-11 "unleashed forces in Washington that were itching to make a takeover bid [to take charge of the world], and now we live in the middle of a train wreck."[12] "Islamist terrorists," as Dyer notes, "are a very small enemy, though Washington does everything in its power to pump it up." The Bush administration has used the events of 9-11 to "hijack the entire international agenda for years." "How did a relatively limited disaster like 9-11 lead to the huge, system-wide disruption we are now seeing?" Dyer asks. "The best answer is that the terrorist project of the al-Qaeda jihadis has collided with and energized another, far more dangerous project for changing the world: that of the American neo-conservatives."[13]

Why the United States Invaded Iraq

Neoconservatives[14] in the Bush administration who led the country to war with Iraq wrote extensively prior to the war about their broader objectives. Their writings reveal that the war with Iraq was never about Iraq itself and that the invasion had little to do with fears about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), fighting terrorism, or spreading democracy. As Dyer notes, for the foreign policy planners in the Bush administration "Iraq is the lynchpin of a far larger enterprise."[15]

The invasion of Iraq was a key component in what the neoconservatives referred to as "America's grand strategy," an ambitious plan to use U.S. military power to achieve permanent global domination. Equally troubling, the Bush administration cast its aspirations for empire, which included plans for "regime change" in Iraq, in the light of divine mission. Ours is a "chosen nation" and God who watches over sparrows also watches over the emergence of U.S. "empire."

Three documents written by key administration officials before the U.S. invasion of Iraq describe the logic and nuts and bolts of "America's grand strategy", including the importance placed on invading Iraq. These documents are part of the public record but inexcusably they are absent from public debate concerning the reasons for the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq. The first is the Defense Planning Guidance (DPG) report written in 1992. The two notables behind the document were Paul Wolfowitz and Dick Cheney. Wolfowitz was at the time Under Secretary of Defense for Policy for then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. He served as Deputy Secretary of Defense under Donald Rumsfeld during George W. Bush's first term in office.

The second document is "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century" (RAD) published in September 2000 by the neoconservative think tank the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). PNAC supporters dominated the Bush administration's foreign policy team, including Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Elliott Abrams, Lewis Libby, and John R. Bolton.[16] The third document, which institutionalized many of the recommendations made in the DPG and RAD reports, is "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America"(NSS), the official foreign policy statement of the Bush administration released in September 2002.[17]

The DPG draft laid out guidelines for U.S. foreign policy now that U.S. power was no longer constrained by the defunct Soviet Union. It stressed three central themes. "Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival," the DPG draft stated. "This is a dominant consideration underlying the new regional defense strategy and requires that we endeavor to prevent any hostile power from dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power." The world, in other words, had one superpower and no other nation or group of nations need apply. No rival would be tolerated anywhere, not in "Western Europe, East Asia, the territory of the former Soviet Union, [or] Southwest Asia."

As the world's only military superpower, the United States is in a unique and advantageous position, the DPG draft argued. The United States should use its dominant position, including its overwhelming military power, to establish permanent supremacy. The "first objective" of U.S. foreign policy, according to the DPG draft, was to capitalize on its strategic advantage in order to "maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role."

A second theme in the DPG draft is that no nation or group of nations was in a position to stop the United States and so U.S. foreign policy should aggressively promote U.S. interests and so-called American values. The United States should use its dominant position and unstoppable military power to "spread democratic forms of government and open economic systems," and to counter regional threats, including threats from countries such as Iraq and North Korea. According to the DPG draft, U.S. military power was unprecedented in scope and without serious challenge. Its effective use would allow the United States to address a variety of problems, including: "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil; proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, threats to U.S. citizens from terrorism or regional or local conflict, and threats to U.S. society from narcotics trafficking."

A third theme in the DPG draft is unilateralism. In order to turn present military advantages into permanent global supremacy and to use supremacy as a basis for achieving tactical objectives, the United States needed to act alone. It could no longer allow its power to be limited by international agreements, treaties, or laws. The DPG draft made no mention of taking collective action through the United Nations. It noted that although coalitions "hold considerable promise for promoting collective action," the United States "should expect future coalitions to be ad hoc assemblies" to deal with particular crises. It "should be postured to act independently when collective action cannot be orchestrated."

With the election of Bill Clinton the neoconservatives lost their positions within government but their core ideas were promoted in think tanks such as The Project for the New American Century (PNAC). Established in 1997, PNAC's "Statement of Principles" said that as "the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's most preeminent power" but faces a critical question: "Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?" The United States needed "a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges." "If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests" and "it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire."

The central themes of the DPG draft were developed in great detail in PNAC's report, "Rebuilding America's Defenses" (RAD), and nearly all of RAD's recommendations became formal U.S. policy during the Bush administration's first term. RAD, published a year before the terrorist attacks of 9-11, was a sweeping blueprint for U.S. global domination through the unilateral use of military power. In "broad terms, we saw the project as building upon the defense strategy outlined by the Cheney Defense Department…," the authors of RAD wrote. "The Defense Policy Guidance (DPG) drafted in the early months of 1992 provided a blueprint for maintaining preeminence, precluding the rise of a great power rival, and shaping the international security order in line with American principles and interests." The "basic tenets of the DPG, in our judgment, remain sound."

The Soviet Union no longer existed and no nation or group of nations was capable of restraining U.S. power. "The Cold War world was a bipolar world; the 21st century is-for the moment, at least-decidedly unipolar, with America as the world's 'sole superpower,'" the RAD noted. "At no time in history has the international security order been as conducive to American interests and ideals. The challenge for the coming century is to preserve and enhance this 'American peace.'" A fundamental premise of RAD was "that U.S. military capabilities should be sufficient to support an American grand strategy committed to building upon this unprecedented opportunity." Although at "present the United States faced no global rival," RAD warned that "even a global Pax Americana will not preserve itself" and that "unless the United States maintains sufficient military strength, this opportunity will be lost." "America's grand strategy," RAD argued, "should aim to preserve and extend this advantageous position as far into the future as possible."

Many aspects of "America's grand strategy" described in RAD were formalized in the NSS document. Core recommendations that were central to that strategy included:

Dramatic increases in U.S. military spending. Huge budget increases for the military, according to RAD, would enable the United States to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions," to preserve "Pax Americana," and "to maintain the United States as the 'arsenal of democracy' for the 21st century."

Significant expansion of foreign U.S. military bases into areas of strategic interest, including establishment of permanent military bases and permanent positioning of U.S. soldiers in the oil-rich Middle East. The DPG saw U.S. military power as the key to securing "access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil," and RAD notes, "Indeed, the United States has for decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf regional security. While the unresolved conflict with Iraq provides the immediate justification the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein." Although aware that the presence of U.S. troops in the region fueled anti-American hatred, RAD recommended that "a permanent unit [of the U.S. Army] be based in the Persian Gulf region."

The NSS, like RAD, sought dramatic increases in military spending and expansion of U.S. bases worldwide in order to increase interventionist capabilities. In order "to meet the many security challenges we face, the United States will require bases and stations within and beyond Western Europe and Northeast Asia, as well as temporary access arrangements for the long-distance deployment of U.S. forces." "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States."

The DPG, RAD and the NSS reports make clear that U.S. foreign policy is increasingly dominated by a desire to control strategically important resources, including and especially oil. The DPG draft noted, for example, that "In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil." U.S. oil dependency has shocking yet predictable foreign policy implications. The United States has less than 5 percent of the world's people but uses 25 percent of the world's oil.

According to the Cheney Energy Commission report of May 2001, U.S. oil production would decline by 18 percent and consumption would rise 31 percent by 2025 with nearly 70 percent of total supply coming from imports! The Department of Energy painted an even bleaker picture with projections that U.S. consumption would increase by 44 percent.

The U.S. military, according to these and other documents, is assigned the task of securing foreign oil supplies. Michael Klare writes in his important book, Blood and Oil, that "in a top-secret document, dated February 3, 2001, a high ranking official of the National Security Council directed the NSC staff to cooperate with the NEPDG (Cheney Energy Commission) in assessing the military implications of the administration's energy plan." This document "envisioned the 'melding' of two White House priorities: stepped up pressure on 'rogue states," such as Iraq, and 'actions regarding the capture of new and existing oil and gas fields.'"[18]

The Bush administration's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) released several months later named oil producing regions as "critical points" where U.S. forces may need to invade and then noted: "The United States must retain the capability to send well-armed and logistically supported forces to critical points around the globe, even in the face of enemy opposition."[19] Klare states the truth with utter simplicity: "Slowly but surely, the U.S. military is being converted into a global oil-protection service."[20]

Maintain nuclear superiority by developing "useable" nuclear weapons and denying other nations the right to develop nuclear weapons. This recommendation, seeped in double standards, is reinforced in other administration documents. RAD had called on the United States to "maintain nuclear strategic superiority, basing the U.S. nuclear deterrent upon a global, nuclear net assessment that weighs the full range of current and emerging threats, not merely the U.S.-Russia balance." The Nuclear Posture Review submitted to Congress on December 31, 2001 targeted a broad-range of potential adversaries for nuclear attack, including China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Syria, North Korea, and Libya. It called for development of "nuclear offensive forces" as part of a "capabilities approach" to nuclear weapons and raised the possibility of development of a new generation of lower yield systems. It also raised the specter of nuclear weapons deployed in space as part of a multi-tiered missile defense system.[21

Establishment of a Missile Defense System. RAD envisions missile defense as the key to offensive warfare. "Effective ballistic missile defense will be the central element in the exercise of American power and the projection of U.S. military forces abroad. Without it," RAD warned, "weak states operating small arsenals of crude ballistic missiles, armed with basic nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction, will be…in a strong position to deter the United States from using conventional force…America's ability to project power will be deeply compromised." "The failure to build missile defenses" would "compromise the exercise of American power abroad" which would "ensure that the current Pax Americana comes to an early end."

Militarization of space. Militarizing space is a central aspect of "America's grand strategy" even though it is against international law and violates international treaties. RAD argues that "maintaining control of space will inevitably require the application of force both in space and from space, including but not limited to antimissile defenses and defensive systems capable of protecting U.S. and allied satellites; space control cannot be sustained in any other fashion, with conventional land, sea, or airforce, or by electronic warfare." It noted that "space dominance may become so essential to the preservation of American military preeminence that it may require a separate service." According to the authors of RAD:

In short, the unequivocal supremacy in space enjoyed by the United States today will be increasingly at risk…For U.S. armed forces to continue to assert military preeminence, control of space-defined by Space Command as "the ability to assure access to space, freedom of operations within the space medium, and an ability to deny others the use of space"-must be an essential element of our military strategy. If America cannot maintain that control, its ability to conduct global military operations will be severely complicated, far more costly, and potentially fatally compromised.

The RAD recommendation to militarize space is reinforced in other administration documents. According to the "Report of the Commission to Assess United States National Security, Space Management, and Organization" (the Rumsfeld Commission), "Space-related capabilities help national leaders to implement American foreign policy and, when necessary, to use military power in ways never before possible." "In the coming period," the report stated, "the U.S. will conduct operations to, from, in and through space in support of national interests both on earth and in space."[22]

The "Air Force Space Command's Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond" expressed similarly that the "Air Force Space Command has the vision and the people to ensure the United States achieves Space Superiority today and in the future." "We are developing capabilities to control space and maintain our Space Superiority." It was developing "space power options to discourage…any form of coercion against the United States." "Our strategy is to maintain and increase the advantages of our force enabling capabilities while expanding our role as a full-spectrum force provider with new capabilities to deny the advantages of space to our adversaries," the Master Plan said. "Our strategy will enable us to transform space power to provide our Nation with diverse options to globally apply force in, from, and through space with modern ICBMs, offensive counterspace, and new conventional prompt global strike capabilities."[23]

The objectives to be pursued through the militarization and control of space were stated clearly in the United States Space Command report "Vision 2020." The cover of "Vision 2020" featured a laser shot from space destroying a target on earth overlaid with the caption: "US Space Command-dominating the space dimensions of US military operations to protect US interests and investments. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities across the full spectrum of conflict." "Vision 2020" described domination of space as vital to U.S. intervention capabilities in a world that was fracturing due to inequalities resulting from globalization. "Although unlikely to be challenged by a global peer competitor, the United States will continue to be challenged regionally. The globalization of the world economy will also continue, with a widening between the 'haves' and 'have nots.'"[24]

Unilateral Action, Undermining International Law. RAD and the NSS, like the DPG report that preceded them, called on the United States to withdraw from international agreements such as the ABM Treaty and violate others such as the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 that recognized "the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes…"[25] The authors ridiculed and sought to undermine the United Nations and any international agreements that limited the unilateral exercise of U.S. power. Both RAD and the NSS advocated preventive war (they call it preemption), a concept with no legal standing in international law. The United States, according to the NSS, was "prepared to act apart when our interests and unique responsibilities require." It would pursue its interests through "coalitions of the willing." "We will build defenses against ballistic missiles and other means of delivery…And, as a matter of common sense and self-defense, America will act against such emerging threats before they are fully formed. We cannot defend America and our friends," the NSS stated, "by hoping for the best." "While the United States will constantly strive to enlist the support of the international community, we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively…" We will take "anticipatory action to defend ourselves…To forestall or prevent…hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."

The QDR, mentioned above in the context of using the U.S. military to secure oil supplies, foreshadowed a "preemptive" war with Iraq. It called for military capabilities sufficient to "swiftly defeat aggression in overlapping major conflicts while preserving for the President the option to call for a decisive victory in one of these conflicts-including the possibility of regime change or occupation."[26] Arthur Schlesinger, historian and former advisor to the Kennedy administration, wrote at the time of the U.S. invasion of Iraq: "The president has adopted a policy of 'anticipatory self-defense' that is alarmingly similar to the policy that imperial Japan employed at Pearl Harbor…[and] today it is we Americans who live in infamy."[27]

The Bush administration invaded Iraq and implemented its "grand strategy" with impunity and then sought immunity from its illegal actions. By objective standards, U.S. leaders are guilty of war crimes. For example, the 1945 Nuremburg Charter states that "to initiate a war of aggression…is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime, differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." Counts one and two at the Nuremburg trial of Nazi leaders were "conspiracy to wage aggressive war and waging aggressive war" defined as "the planning, preparation, initiation and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements and assurances."[28]

U.S. leaders could be held accountable for crimes against humanity, genocide, or crimes of war as defined by the Nuremburg Principles, the Geneva Conventions, and the 1984 Convention against Torture. Administration officials were aware of this danger and thus argued that the Geneva Conventions weren't binding for the United States in fighting the "war on terror" and they tried to cripple the International Criminal Court (ICC). The NSS said, "We will take the actions necessary to ensure that our efforts to meet our global security commitments and protect Americans are not impaired by the potential investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept." It also expressed the U.S. government's determination to "implement fully the American Servicemembers Protection Act, whose provisions are intended to ensure and enhance the protection of U.S. personnel and officials." Human Rights Watch dubbed this the "Hague Invasion Act" and described it this way:

U.S. President George Bush today [August 3, 2002] signed into law the American Servicemembers Protection Act of 2002, which is intended to intimidate countries that ratify the treaty for the International Criminal Court (ICC). The new law authorizes the use of military force to liberate any American citizen of a U.S. allied country being held by the court, which is located in the Hague…In addition, the law provides for the withdrawal of U.S. military assistance from countries ratifying the ICC treaty, and restricts U.S. participation in United Nations peacekeeping unless the United States obtains immunity from prosecution.[29]

The unilateralism advocated in the DPG and RAD, and formalized in the NSS was born of necessity. Neither allies nor adversaries lent credence or international legitimacy to "America's grand strategy" aimed at establishment of a permanent global empire. The neoconservatives were determined to invade Iraq, establish a compliant government, privatize the Iraqi economy, and control Iraqi oil. They were also eager to free U.S. power from the constraints of international agreements and to establish permanent military bases in Iraq in order to control Middle Eastern oil as part of a broader effort to control global energy supplies and their suppliers.

Assessing the Train Wreck

Any thoughtful discussion of an exit strategy from Iraq must begin with the understanding that the war was not fought to protect us from WMD or terrorism, or to promote democracy, nor was it a "mistake" rooted in faulty intelligence. Publishing their RAD document in September 2000, the architects of the "grand strategy" understood that their proposals would receive a cool reception from U.S. citizens unless, they wrote, there was "some catastrophic and catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor." Using 9/11 as their "catalyzing event" administration officials hyped Iraq's threat, manufactured, manipulated, and falsified intelligence, and deliberately lied to both Congress and the U.S. people in order to create support for an illegal war. In doing so, they violated human decency, the U.S. constitution, and international law. "America's grand strategy" was breathtaking in arrogance and scope, a blueprint to aggressively use U.S. military power to achieve permanent global domination. Iraq was the lynchpin in that strategy. Not surprisingly, the consequences of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have been disastrous by nearly every measure.

Financial Costs

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been wasted and the war continues to cost U.S. taxpayers between $5-6 billion each month.[30] Funds squandered on the war coupled with massive tax breaks for wealthy Americans fuel enormous budget deficits that have grave implications for the U.S. economy. Total costs to the United States in its invasion and occupation of Iraq, according to Joseph Stiglitz, a Colombia University professor who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 2001, could reach $2 Trillion.[31]

Funds for war translate into many unmet social needs at home and abroad, needs that if met could make our communities stronger, our country safer, and the world a more hopeful place. Each dollar spent on the war is a dollar not spent to improve health care, education, or housing. It is a dollar not spent to rebuild Iraq. It is a dollar not spent to address global warming, build windmills, fight aids, or prevent a bird flu pandemic. It is a dollar not spent to help end poverty in Minnesota, the United States, or worldwide. It is a dollar not spent to strengthen our economy and our communities. It is a dollar not spent to spread hope.[32]

Worldwide nearly 3 billion people live on less than $2 a day and according to the United Nations developing countries could achieve and maintain "universal access to basic education for all, basic health care for all, reproductive health care for all women, adequate food for all and safe water and sanitation for all" at a cost of approximately 40 billion additional dollars a year. "This is less than 4 percent of the combined wealth of the 225 richest people in the world."[33] It is also less than the cost of 7 months of war in Iraq.

Human Costs

Direct human costs related to the war continue to escalate. 2235 U.S. soldiers had been killed in Iraq, including at least 30 Minnesotans, and 16,155 wounded as of January 25, 2006.[34] Estimates of Iraqi casualties vary widely. The British medical journal, The Lancet, reported in October 2004 that Iraq suffered 98,000 "excess deaths" from March 2003 to September 2004. The Project on Defense Alternatives estimates the number of Iraqi wounded to be 100,000-120,000.[35] As Gwynne Dyer writes, "Iraqi civilians kept dying from car bombs, crime, and American firepower alike: recorded deaths from gunfire in Baghdad were up ninety-fold from Saddam's time, and many more were unrecorded."[36] Contrary to media images and the rhetoric of U.S. officials, more than four times as many Iraqi civilians are killed by U.S.-led forces than by insurgent violence,[37] and those resisting the U.S. occupation are almost entirely Iraqi.[38]

Many U.S. soldiers returning from Iraq will arrive with deep physical and/or emotional wounds. Vietnam demonstrated that war never ends for soldiers. It is shameful that the Bush administration is using U.S. soldiers as cannon fodder in their "grand strategy" and equally shameful that it is cutting veteran's benefits that will be desperately needed in the coming months and years.

Abuse and Torture of Prisoners Fuel Anti-American Hatred

Thousands of Iraqis have been detained or imprisoned without charges or trials by U.S. and U.S. trained forces. Torture and abuse of prisoners, legitimated by U.S. officials and carried out by U.S. personnel are widespread, and, according to international human rights groups, have far reaching consequences. Human Rights Watch reports that "recent policy shifts in the United States have undermined the global ban on torture."[39] According to Amnesty International, the Bush administration has attempted to redefine what constitutes torture:

US authorities, like those of other states which have practiced torture and ill-treatment, have sought to evade the international prohibition. They have suggested very narrow definitions of torture, described certain forms of ill-treatment as 'stress and duress' techniques, and claimed that certain forms of treatment are not necessarily illegal but can be justified on grounds such as military necessity or self-defense, even though neither legal principle would ever justify the use of torture or ill-treatment. Moreover, torture and ill-treatment do not become permissible by being called something else, and euphemisms cannot be use to evade legal and moral obligations.[40]

It is alarming, but not surprising, that an administration determined to undermine international law and treaties that limit the unilateral exercise of U.S. power, including the Geneva Conventions outlawing torture, is also willing to ignore U.S. law while claiming unlimited power for the Executive branch. The administration has launched a major domestic spying operation in direct violation of U.S. laws. Also, when Congress overwhelmingly passed the McCain amendment that bans the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of prisoners by U.S. personnel anywhere in the world President Bush issued a "signing statement" which asserts that he will "construe the law in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the President…as Commander in Chief." In other words, the McCain amendment makes torture illegal but means nothing because the President is above the law.

U.S. sanctioned abuse of prisoners is not only morally indefensible, it is counterproductive. Testimonies from tortured prisoners are notoriously unreliable. Newsweek, for example, described a case involving the rendition of an al Qaeda leader (he was sent by the United States to Egypt to be tortured) who told his torturers what was clearly false but what they wanted to hear, namely, that al Qaeda terrorists had gone to Iraq to learn about chemical and biological weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell then used this false torture-induced testimony during his much discredited speech at the United Nations to build a case for war.[41] Also, torture fuels rather than foils terror. The Independent Panel to Review Department of Defense Detention Operations chaired by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger concludes, "The U.S. treatment of its prisoners has been a boon rather than a setback for al-Qaeda and has thereby made the world less safe from terror."[42]

U.S. abuse and torture of detainees and the war itself have fueled anti-American hatred within and outside of Iraq. Dyer notes that back "in 2001, popular support for the Islamists was in decline almost everywhere except Saudi Arabia and perhaps Pakistan." However, "ever since 9/11, the Bush administration has been doing exactly what they want, invading Muslim countries and serving as an unpaid but highly effective recruiting agent for extremists across the whole Muslim world."[43] According to Dyer:

The obsession with the sexual humiliation of naked Arab males seemed calculated to confirm all the worst imaginable stereotypes that Muslims hold about American behavior and values, which might just have been an unfortunate coincidence-or might have been an intrinsic part of the process, for humiliating prisoners and photographing the results is a standard part of the packaging of measures for putting pressure on captives…The result was to blacken the already poor reputation of the United States virtually beyond repair, at least for this generation, in the Arab world.[44]

The problem of terrorism is real but relatively minor compared to other global challenges that must be faced, including death through disease and hunger; the threat of a bird-flue pandemic; the ongoing AIDS tragedy; global warming; the need for a rapid transition away from economies based on fossil fuels, and the pressing need to reduce population growth rates. As Dyer notes, the threat of terror "has been inflated mindlessly by the media, but also quite deliberately by powerful people with political agendas."[45] To the degree that terrorism is a legitimate threat it is clear that it is best countered through intelligence and policing and that the "war on terror" is a monumental fiasco. What is also evident is that U.S. foreign policies aimed at global domination and power projection to control resources outside our borders predictably fuel anti-American hatreds which increase threats of terror.

Destruction of Iraq

Iraq itself is in shambles. Production of oil and electricity remain below prewar levels and most citizens do not have access to safe water. Hospitals without medicines, poorly funded schools, sewage filled streets, humiliating roadblocks and searches, gas shortages, sporadic electricity, rising prices, and massive corruption are part of daily life under the U.S. occupation. Crime, unemployment, and violence, like the profits of Halliburton and other U.S. contractors, are high. The International Monetary Fund recently imposed cuts in government subsidies for gasoline, kerosene, cooking gas, and other fuels that led to riots that were met by police violence against protestors.[46] Meanwhile, Iraq is being forced to sign production sharing agreements (PSAs) in which Iraqi oil remains the legal property of the state but nearly all the benefits of oil production go to private companies.[47]

The United Nation's human rights commission in Geneva reported in April, 2005 that Iraqi children were significantly better off under Saddam Hussein's rule. The U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have resulted in a doubling of the number of Iraqi children under the age of five suffering from malnutrition.[48] In May, Iraq's ministry of planning and development made public the results of a survey conducted in collaboration with the U.N. Development program that painted an even bleaker picture. It showed "grave deterioration" in living standards for the people of Iraq with 25 per cent of children suffering malnutrition. Iraq, according to the survey, is "suffering from some of the region's highest rates of joblessness and child malnutrition and continuing severe deficiencies in sewage systems, electric power supplies and other essential public services."[49]

Deformed Democracy

There are deep conflicts and conflicting interests that divide Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. Many Kurds want an independent Kurdistan in the north and control over northern oil fields. Many Shiites want control of vast oil reserves in the south. Both the Kurds and the Shiites, who suffered under Saddam Hussein's rule, seem determined to isolate the Sunnis in the center of the country where there is much desert and little oil. Sunnis are rightfully fearful that their 3rd class citizenship is enshrined in the present constitution.

In the January 11, 2006 issue of The Nation, Tom Hayden describes components of an Iraqi strategy to achieve peace based on "a Baghdad source with intimate knowledge of the insurgents." These components include: "an announced US timetable for troop withdrawals;" immediate "inclusion of more opposition voices in…how to reform the constitution;" "citizen diplomacy;" "a transitional new caretaker government;" "a deadline for 'free and democratic' elections for an inclusive parliament;" "a peacekeeping force under the United Nations;" "renewed economic construction;" participation of former members of the Baath party, rather than blanket exclusion of such members from the political process in Iraq; and, involving more members of "Iraq's half-million formal professional army personnel, rendered jobless by a 2003 US decree" in efforts "to insure stability and protection in Sunni areas."[50]

How Iraqis resolve or deal with their differences is hard to predict. What is clear is that the goals of the United States and the U.S. occupation complicate their many challenges. One serious problem is that Iraqi "democracy" is more illusionary than real. Authentic democracy cannot be imposed by outsiders especially outsiders with interests. The United States prevented early elections in Iraq, not because of technical difficulties, but because an elected Iraqi government would likely have reversed privatization of the Iraqi economy, denied the United States the right to control or construct permanent military bases, and demanded that U.S. soldiers leave.

In spring, 2004 UN special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said that Paul Bremer, U.S. pro-consul who headed the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), "is the dictator of Iraq. He has the money. He has the signatures. Nothing happens without his agreement in this country."[51] A Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) poll taken in May 2004 indicated that only 2% of Arab Iraqis saw the Americans as liberators while 92 percent saw them as occupiers.[52] Tom Hayden offers an example of clear limits imposed on Iraqi democracy under the U.S. occupation:

While recent surveys show 80 percent of Iraqis supporting a US military withdrawal, opposition voices are rarely ever reported in American public discourse. Security conditions do not permit the insurgents to establish an overt political arm, like Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland. Meanwhile, American officials celebrate the large Iraqi voter turnout in the December 15 [2005] elections while not acknowledging that most of those same voters favor a US withdrawal.[53]

The U.S. agenda in Iraq conflicts with authentic democracy. As Dyer notes, democracy may "take root in Iraq, but it has to be left to the Iraqis. It cannot come as part of a package that also involves making Iraq an American client state, because that makes those who are in power collaborators and discredits any project with which they are associated."[54] The disastrous consequences of the U.S. occupation feed a deepening sense of desperation and despair that in turn fuels radical Islam in Iraq. A grave danger to Iraqi democracy, therefore, is the occupation itself. The problem is not that U.S. troops might leave too early so that Iraq descends into chaos (the violence of the occupation triggers the insurgency and contributes to already existing chaos). As Dyer notes, there is no "good reason to despair of a democratic future for Iraq, provided the American troops do not stay so long that power automatically devolves to the men with the guns who finally drive them out."[55]

Undermining the International Rule of Law

Most problematic over the long term, "America's grand strategy", including the invasion of Iraq and the overriding agenda of achieving global domination, sought and required the destruction of international law. Foreign policy leaders in the Bush administration wanted through the invasion, to shred international agreements and weaken and discredit the United Nations in order to remove obstacles to the unilateral exercise of U.S. power. "The real ambition of the neo-conservatives who came to power with George W. Bush, frankly expressed in their speeches and writings," Dyer writes, "was to sweep aside all impediments to the unilateral exercise of American power, starting with the legal authority of the [U.N] Security Council."[56] Richard Perle, who chaired the Defense Policy Board for the Bush administration, wrote an article for The Guardian March 21, 2003 titled , "Thank God for the death of the UN: Its abject failure gave us only anarchy. The world needs order." Perle boasted that "Saddam Hussein's reign of terror is about to end. He will go quickly, but not alone: in a parting irony, he will take the UN down with him."[57]

Not surprisingly, dangerous U.S. unilateralism, has led many people, including friends and allies, to view the United States as a rogue nation that gravely threatens world peace. In a poll taken 6 months after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, 50% of the European Union's citizens saw the United States as a danger to world peace rather than a force for good.[58] Most people in the world do not share Bush and Cheney's view that U.S. Empire reflects God's will. They understand that undermining the international system based on multilateral institutions and the rule of law in favor of unilateral U.S. action has grave implications that reach far beyond Iraq. That is why more than seventeen million people in dozens of countries took to the streets to protest U.S. plans to invade Iraq, why the United Nations refused to back the invasion, and why the "coalition of the willing" is such a sorry lot. "Either we get back to building the international institutions we started working on sixty years ago, or we get used to the idea that we are working our way up to the Third World War," Dyer writes. "So it is important that the United States does not succeed in turning Iraq into a Middle Eastern base for Pax Americana, and that Americans come to see the whole project for global hegemony as an expensive mistake."[59] Dyer explains why an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops is vital:

If the present U.S. strategy of undermining international law and asserting American military hegemony around the planet is quickly abandoned under the pressure of events in Iraq, then normal service will soon be restored internationally and we will get our global project [to replace the rule of force with the rule of law] back with only a few dents in it. If the U.S. adventure in unilateralism continues for another five years, other great powers will start taking steps to protect their interests and the UN will start to die. No other major power wants to abandon the project to outlaw war and start back down the road to alliances, arms races, and all the other old baggage, but if the world's greatest power becomes a rogue state they won't have much choice. If that happens, we have lost a lot.[60]

"Obstacles" to an Exit Strategy

In order to devise an effective exit strategy it is first necessary to understand and reject the Bush administration's objectives for invading and occupying Iraq. For the neoconservatives, the invasion and occupation are part of a "grand strategy" that served and serve multiple objectives both in and outside of Iraq. Their goals relative to Iraq itself include putting an Iraqi government in place that will allow privatization of Iraq's economy, U.S. control of Iraqi oil, and establishment of permanent U.S. military bases on Iraqi soil. The U.S. is presently constructing permanent bases in Iraq not only in an effort to pacify the insurgency but to serve as the foundation for U.S. domination of Middle Eastern oil supplies and suppliers.[61]

Outside goals served by the invasion include an intentional effort to undermine international law, agreements, and norms in favor of a unilateralist and militarized U.S. foreign policy aimed at permanent global domination. In the blunt words of the official foreign policy statement of the Bush administration (NSS), "The United States will not hesitate to strike preemptively against enemies, and will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged."

The Bush administration argues "we" must "stay the course in Iraq" because a premature departure of U.S. troops would lead to chaos and a failed state. The opposite is likely true. Each day of occupation stifles reconstruction, feeds the insurgency, fuels anti-American hatred, and contributes to the chaos. The longer the occupation continues the worse the likely outcome. The administration's major concern is not that U.S. troop withdrawal will prompt a crisis in Iraq but rather that without U.S. military occupation the neoconservatives cannot achieve their principle objectives. Privatization of Iraq's economy would be reversed, oil contracts would be nullified, and plans to project power throughout the Middle East from U.S. military bases in Iraq would have to be abandoned. Equally important, leaving Iraq would signal that the neoconservative's grandiose, arrogant, and destructive "grand strategy" for global domination through the unilateral use of U.S. military power was finished. This one day will be a piece of good news to come out of the Iraq debacle but it is a lesson the neoconservatives themselves aren't yet ready to learn.

Tragically, U.S. troops are being used by administration officials as pawns in their imperial chess game. Unless and until the neocons in charge of U.S. foreign policy abandon goals to plunder Iraqi resources, plans for permanent military bases, and their delusional thrust for empire, Iraqis will rightfully view U.S. troops as an occupying army that fuels violence and blocks any possibility of authentic peace in or outside of Iraq. Conversely, once U.S. leaders are forced by public outrage and the Iraqis themselves to abandon these unstated goals a rapid disengagement of U.S. military forces from Iraq will be possible. This disengagement will allow possibilities for peace among Iraqis.

An Exit Strategy

Once the real reasons for the invasion and occupation of Iraq are brought into focus and rejected then the elements of a realistic exit strategy become clear.

First, the United States should announce immediately a full and complete withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Iraq within four to six months. This timetable will allow an orderly withdrawal. The violence in Iraq may not end when U.S. troops leave but it is absurd to think that an occupying army that is there primarily to achieve U.S. objectives involving oil and bases can fix Iraq. U.S. troops are instruments of and magnets for violence. They fuel the insurgency because they are seen as and act as an occupying army.

A complete withdrawal is essential. U.S. war plans for the coming months and years involve a draw down in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to be accompanied by increased training of Iraqi troops and dramatic increases in deadly aerial bombing.[62] Congressman Sabo and other Democrats are using "draw down" language when criticizing the administration's Iraq policies but this isn't enough. The administration is itself promoting a "draw down" strategy that is meant to pacify U.S. domestic opponents while allowing the war and pursuit of destructive U.S objectives to continue. It will cause more Iraqi civilian casualties, deepen resentments, cripple reconstruction efforts, and fuel the ranks of the insurgents.

A four to six month timeline for a complete U.S. withdrawal would also allow Iraqi leaders to request security assistance from the international community, particularly Muslim nations, if needed. As Dyer writes:

It would be helpful if UN troops, preferably mostly from Muslim countries, were to arrive in Iraq as American troops were leaving, because there is a genuine problem of public security in Iraq. But even if other countries refuse to send their soldiers into Iraq now that things have got so far out of hand, the American troops should still go-and go very fast. The Iraqis may not succeed in composing their differences peacefully and refounding their country as a democratic state, but their chances of doing so are far greater if they do not have to contend with the American occupation and the violent resistance to it.[63]

Second, all economic contracts negotiated during the occupation, including those dealing with development of Iraq's oil reserves, must be nullified and renegotiated. Iraqis need the freedom and power to make decisions about how their economy should be run without pressure and imposition from the United States. They also should decide how and under what conditions to develop their significant oil reserves and how to market their oil. Abrogating all contracts negotiated or imposed during the occupation doesn't mean U.S. businesses will be locked out of the Iraqi economy. It does mean that any contracts between U.S. businesses and Iraqi authorities will be part of a transparent international bidding process controlled by Iraqis.

Third, the United States must abandon plans for and all construction of military bases in Iraq. "Leaving" Iraq while maintaining permanent military bases is a prescription for disaster, and as Gary Hart writes, "leaving" in this context "simply means a reduction of forces and the permanent stationing of US brigades in Iraq."[64]

Fourth, the United States should provide billions of dollars towards Iraqi reconstruction. The United States bears much of the responsibility for destroying Iraq and therefore significant responsibility for Iraq's reconstruction. Substantial funds for reconstruction will be available because the administration's $100 billion request for the latest installment for war will no longer be needed. The reconstruction funds should be administered by the United Nations in conjunction with the Iraqi government and representatives from the Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish communities. Successful reconstruction efforts, including ending lucrative no-bid contracts for friends of the Bush administration, stopping the extensive corruption associated with the U.S. occupation, and fostering local Iraqi businesses and employment for Iraqis, could be significant factors in ending the insurgency.

Finally, in order to support U.S. troops we must bring them home. U.S. leaders should be held accountable for using U.S. soldiers to fight an unjust, illegal war but returning soldiers must receive the support they need to deal with physical and emotional wounds and traumas.

Conclusion

A rapid U.S. disengagement from Iraq is both desirable and possible once we understand and reject the reasons for the U.S. invasion and occupation. Ending the occupation will not insure a happy ending in Iraq, nothing can, but it is a prerequisite to any meaningful prospects for peace. Helping our nation rapidly disengage militarily from Iraq is a central goal for citizens but it is not enough. We must hold U.S. leaders accountable and challenge and propose alternatives to "America's grand strategy" for empire of which the war with Iraq is only the most visible expression. We should encourage U.S. leaders, political and religious, to issue a formal apology to the people of Iraq, the United Nations, and the international community, and a formal statement of commitment to work with others to build an international system based on the rule of law.

[1] This quote was sent to me by an FBI agent.

[2] National Security Strategy of the United States of America, September 2002. This is the Bush administrations official policy statement on foreign policy as required by law.

[3] Quoted in Colman McCarthy, I'd Rather Teach Peace Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis Books, 2002, 71.

[4] Gwynne Dyer, Future Tense: The Coming World Order, Toronto: McClelland & Stewart Ltd, 2004, p 9. Dyer is a great historian of war and served in the British, Australian, and Canadian navies. He is a friendly critic of the United States.

[5] Remarks at the Center for Defense Information Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004.

[6] "A Life, Wasted: Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed," by Paul E. Schroeder, the Canton Repository, January 3, 2006, emphasis added.

[7] See "Iraq, Lies and Foolish, Deadly Pride," by Clay Evans, Boulder Daily Camera, November 27, 2005.

[8] Key members of the Bush administration's foreign policy team advocated overthrow of Saddam Hussein in a public letter to President Clinton in 1998. Administration officials discussed overthrowing the Iraqi government in January, 2001, and discussion of how to use the terror attacks of 9/11/2001 to target Iraq, even though Iraq had no ties to the attacks, took place among administration officials on September 12, 2001.

[9] "Iraq on the Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements on Iraq," prepared for Representative Henry A. Waxman by the United States House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform-Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, March 16, 2004, 7. Available at www.REFORM.HOUSE.GOV/MIN

[10] Ibid, i, 1-2 (emphasis added).

[11] Remarks at the Center for Defense Information Board of Directors Dinner, May 12, 2004.

[12] Future Tense, p. 9.

[13] Ibid, pp 56, 58.

[14] Neoconservative refers to a political ideology and movement among a new kind of conservative that embraces interventionist foreign policies while rejecting traditional conservative views concerning limited government.

[15] Future Tense, p. 35.

[16] For a more exhaustive list see John Feffer, ed., Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Global Strategy after September 11 (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003), 205-209.

[17] You can read extensive quotes from these documents in Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer, Saving Christianity from Empire (New York/London: Continuum Books, 2005). Or you can access these documents at the following websites. The document "Rebuilding America's Defenses" at http://www.newamericancentury.org/
RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf; The National Security Strategy of the United States of America at http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html; and, Information the 1992 Defense Policy Review at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/iraq/etc/wolf.html. Many quotes in the following pages are from these documents. All italicized words are added except references to Pax Americana.

[18] Michael Klare, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependency on Imported Petroleum, New York: Owl Books, 2004, p. 70.

[19] Ibid, p. 71.

[20] Ibid, p. 7.

[21] See "Nuclear Posture Review," excerpts available at http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm. See also, "Military," by William Hartung in John Feffer, ed., Power Trip: U.S. Unilateralism and Global Strategy after September 11 (New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003), 67-70.

[22] Ibid.

[23] "Air Force Space Command's Strategic Master Plan FY04 and Beyond," October 28, 2002.

[24] "The United States Space Command Vision 2020," available at http://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/usspac/visbook.pdf

[25] "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies," Signed at Washington, London, Moscow, January 27, 1967 and entered into force October 10, 1967.

[26] U.S. Department of Defense, Quadrennial Defense Review Report, 30 September 2001, 2.

[27] Quoted in John Ikenberry, Foreign Affairs, September-October, 2002.

[28] See "The Epic Crime That Dares Not Speak It's Name," by John Pilger, ZNet Commentary, October 28, 2005.

[29] "U.S.: 'Hague Invasion Act' Becomes Law," Human Rights News, August 3, 2002 (emphasis added).

[30] As of the beginning of January 2006, the cost of the war was more than $231 billion and the Bush administration was asking for $100 billion more. For updated information on the cost of the war see

http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182

[31] "Iraq War Could Cost US Over $2 Trillion, says Nobel Prize-Winning Economist," by Jamie Wilson, published January 7, 2006 by the Guardian/UK.

[32] As of the end of January, 2006 Minnesota's share of the bill for the Iraq war was approximately $5.7 billion.

[33] Chuck Collins et al, Shifting Fortunes: The Perils of the Growing American Wealth Gap, Boston: United for a Fair Economy, 1999, p. 18.

[34] For updates on U.S. casualties see http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/ or http://icasualties.org/oif/. Estimates of the number of U.S. soldiers wounded range from 15,000 to more than 48,000.

[35](See "The Iraq Quagmire: The Mounting Costs of War and the Case for Bringing Home the Troops," from the Institute for Policy Studies at http://www.ips-dc.org/iraq/quagmire/. ). Other groups put Iraqi deaths as of December 2005 at about 25,000 in the first two years of the war/occupation. See http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php.

[36] Future Tense, p. 23.

[37] See A Dossier of Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003–2005 at http://www.iraqbodycount.net/press/pr12.php

[38] Gwynne Dyer writes that those resisting the U.S. occupation are "overwhelmingly Iraqi despite American propaganda: only 2 per cent of the 8,500 'security detainees' arrested by U.S. troops and held in jails at Abu Ghraib or elsewhere were non-Iraqis, and half of those were Syrians from clans that straddle and habitually ignore the border between the two countries." Future Tense, pp. 22-23.

[39] See Human Rights Watch, "U.S.: Reject Torture as Policy Option," November 1, 2005, http://www.hrw.org/.

[40] See http://web.amnesty.org/pages/stoptorture-arguments-eng

[41] "The Debate Over Torture," by Evan Thomas and Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, November 21, 2005.

[42] Quoted in the Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper "The United States' 'Disappeared' The CIA's Long-Term 'Ghost Detainees'", October, 2004, in the section "Executive Summary." Available at http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/
usa/us1004/1.htm#_Toc84652965.

[43] Future Tense, p. 29 (emphasis added)

[44] Ibid. p. 19.

[45] Ibid, p. 53.

[46] "IMF Occupies Iraq, Riots Follow," by Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive, January 5, 2006.

[47] See for example, "I

We turn now to the War in Iraq. In the latest news at least 31 people have been killed and 75 wounded in three bomb blasts in Baghdad. The attacks come a day after the lifting of a daytime curfew imposed to curb widespread violence over the past few days.

The Washington Post is reporting 1,300 Iraqis have died over the past week making this one of the bloodiest periods since the U.S. invaded the country nearly three years ago. The mass killings began on Wednesday after a bomb destroyed the gold dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra - one of the holiest sites to Shiite Muslims.

While the bloodshed appears to have at least temporarily subsided, the outbreak of violence last week has raised new concerns about where Iraq is headed. Most of those killed in the past week did not die in roadside bombings or suicide attacks but at the hands of militias and death squads including some units working out of the Ministry of the Interior.

The Washington Post published this dispatch out of Baghdad: "Hundreds of unclaimed dead lay at the morgue at midday Monday -- blood-caked men who had been shot, knifed, garroted or apparently suffocated by the plastic bags still over their heads. Many of the bodies were sprawled with their hands still bound." Meanwhile the Independent of London is reporting that hundreds of Iraqis are being tortured to death or summarily executed every month in Baghdad by death squads working out of the Ministry of the Interior.

* John Pace, Former U.N. Human Rights Chief, Iraq. Up until earlier this month he was the human rights chief for the United Nations Assistance Mission in Iraq. He has worked at the United Nations since 1966 and is the former Secretary to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. He joins us on the phone from his home in Sydney Australia.

RUSH TRANSCRIPT

AMY GOODMAN: It is his first broadcast interview since he left Iraq. We welcome you to Democracy Now!

JOHN PACE: Thank you very much Amy.

AMY GOODMAN: It is good to have you with us. First, your reaction to what has taken place in these last few days in Iraq.

JOHN PACE: Well, I'm not surprised at all, as a matter of fact, because we have been trying to explain to the world at large that there has been a generalized deterioration in the situation of protection of people in Iraq. There is a breakdown of law and order which is characterized by, technically by the nonfunctioning of the police, of the judiciary, and of the penitentiary institutions. Not to mention the military intervention and the various other factors that provoke a breakdown in protection in Baghdad and most of the country. So I think it is a problem related to the relay of accurate information on the -- how serious the situation is in regard to the person in the street in Iraq. The ordinary Iraqi. Who has absolutely no protection whatsoever from the state or from the authorities.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the role of militias in Iraq?

JOHN PACE: Well, you know, they first started as a kind of militia, sort of organized armed groups, which were the military wing of various factions. And they have -- they had a considerable role to play in the vacuum that was created by the invasion. With the procedure for the transition of re-integration of the country to more representative forms of government, a number of these militias who were armed wings of political entities found themselves in government. And, therefore, they -- many of them now, are actually acting as official police agents as a part of the Ministry of Interior.

Regrettably, they have not -- they have not assumed technical responsibility on behalf of the state. They have continued to act on behalf of the factions, as it were. And so many or a large number of the – nonofficial armed groups have now become official police persons. With the results that the good policemen-the good technical police people the residue of those that remained after the rest have been fired -- after the invasion are unable to do the job properly. There's only one or two brigades of them. The others are all made up of militias in police uniform. And regrettably the minister of interior, at least up to now, was himself head of one of the main militias. And regrettably he has not led the police force to, at least under his command, in order to assume a more technical police protection. So you have these militias now with police gear and under police insignia basically carrying out an agenda which really is not in the interest of the country as a whole. They have roadblocks in Baghdad and other areas, they would kidnap in other people. They have been very closely linked with numerous mass executions, at least mass arrests of people who later turned up showing signs of some execution. And so they constitute a major destabilizing factor in the sense that they are responsible for a large degree of the lack of protection of Iraqis in their own country.

Another destabilizing factor, if I may, is the continuation of the military intervention in the Anbar region where you have military force applied to civilian areas for the announced purpose of hunting down terrorists or other opponents. Resulting in massive displacement and lack and destruction of civilian infrastructure and arrests of large numbers of mainly males in -- of a certain age group. The role of the militias, as I have described them, the role of the military intervention, are two major factors that are contributing to a current sense of instability in the country as a whole. We have also the-this instability is characterized by the massive degree of-- two other factors. One is the kidnapping. Ranging between 122 and 158 days of persons who range from school kids to very wealthy people being kidnapped. And the other is the fact that nobody really has any alternative except to seek to defend himself or herself by their own means. So that in turn provokes more lawlessness. Because tribes, clans, religious groups, subgroups, take the law into their own hands. There is a vacuum at the level of the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens. That is really the cause of this problem.

AMY GOODMAN: We are talking to --

JOHN PACE: My observation has been certainly there are sectarian aspects to the conflict that's going on. But in my view, at least result from my observation, the sectarian aspect is only a result of the main cause. And main cause is the total breakdown in any kind of law and order. Forget about rule of law. Law and order around the country.

AMY GOODMAN: We have to break stations to identify themselves. We will be back with John Pace in a minute. [break]

To purchase an audio or video copy of this entire program, click here for online ordering or call 1 (888) 999-3877.

Saddam Hussein's trial resumed, meanwhile, with the defendants trying to dispute documents put forward by prosecutors detailing a wave of imprisonments and executions of Shiites in the 1980s.

With violence surging in Baghdad after a curfew was lifted Monday, a spokesman for the powerful Association of Muslim Scholars blasted the Iraqi government for failing to staunch the sectarian attacks that have pushed the country toward civil war.

"It is clear that the government and its security forces are incapable of taking any action," said Abdul-Salam al-Kubaisi, a spokesman for the Sunni clerical group. Government forces, he said, should "do their duty and withdraw to the Green Zone," the secure region in central Baghdad that houses the U.S. Embassy.

Al-Kubaisi denied Sunnis were behind the latest attacks, saying Shiite politicians and religious leaders were trying to inflame sectarian hatred "to make use of these events and everything in this country to achieve one goal - to serve their future interests."

Wednesday's most dramatic attack - a car bomb near a traffic police office in a primarily Shiite neighborhood in southeast Baghdad - killed at least 23 people and wounded 58, according to police Lt. Thaer Mahmoud.

About an hour earlier, a bomb hidden under a car detonated as a police patrol was passing near downtown Tahrir Square, said Interior Ministry Maj. Falah al-Mohammedawi. Police were unharmed but three civilians died and 15 were injured.

Also Wednesday, mortar shells fell on three houses in the mixed Sunni-Shiite town of Mahmoudiya, 20 miles south of Baghdad, killing three civilians, said police Capt. Rashid al-Samaraie. Another house was hit in Qadisiyah, another religiously mixed neighborhood in western Baghdad, killing a woman, police said.

The latest blasts occurred one day after Sunnis and Shiites in Baghdad traded bombings and mortar fire against mainly religious targets, killing at least 68 people following an end to curfews and vehicle restrictions that had briefly calmed a series of sectarian reprisal attacks.

At least six of Tuesday's attacks hit religious targets, concluding with a car bombing after sundown at the Shiite Abdel Hadi Chalabi mosque in the Hurriyah neighborhood that killed 23 and wounded 55. A separate suicide bombing killed 23 people at an east Baghdad gas station, where people had lined up to buy kerosine.

In addition to those known to have been killed Tuesday, police found nine more bullet-riddled bodies, including a Sunni Muslim tribal sheik, off a road southeast of Baghdad. It was unclear when they died.

Late Tuesday, police reported finding the body of Shiite cleric Hani Hadi handcuffed, blindfolded and shot in the head near a Sunni mosque in Baghdad's notorious Dora neighborhood.

In the Saddam trial, the chief prosecutor showed documents on an overhead screen outlining the bureaucracy behind a crackdown that led to the imprisonment of nearly 400 people and the executions of 148 people following a 1982 attempt on Saddam's life in the town of Dujail.

Three of the defendants denied sending handwritten letters to the Interior Ministry informing on Dujail families linked to a Shiite opposition militia accused in the assassination attempt.

"May my hand be cut off if I gave information against anyone," said defendant Ali Dayih, who allegedly wrote one of the letters. "I had no political responsibility. ... It's all a frame-up."

The surge of violence deepened the trauma of residents already shaken by fears the country was teetering on the brink of sectarian civil war, threatened talks among Iraqi politicians struggling to form a government and raised questions about U.S. plans to begin drawing down troop strength this summer.

Iraq began to tilt seriously toward outright civil war after the Feb. 22 bombing of the important Shiite Askariya shrine in the mainly Sunni city of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad.

President Bush decried the latest surge in sectarian violence Tuesday and said that for Iraqis "the choice is chaos or unity."

"The people of Iraq and their leaders must make a choice," Bush said before leaving for a trip to South Asia. "The choice is chaos or unity, the choice is a free society, or a society dictated by evil people who would kill innocents."

Later, Bush said conversations with Iraqi leaders representing Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions helped reassure him that no larger role for the U.S. military is required and that the situation will not turn into all-out civil war.

The sectarian violence has hit Baghdad the hardest because the population in the capital is about evenly divided between Shiites and Sunnis, more so than in any other region of the country.

Before Wednesday's attacks, the government issued a statement declaring that 379 people had been killed and 458 wounded as of 4 p.m. Tuesday in the sectarian violence tied to the Askariya bombing.

"If chaos were to descend upon Iraq or the forces of democracy were to be defeated in that country ... this would have implications for the rest of the Middle East region and, indeed, the world," Negroponte said at a
Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on global threats.

Negroponte served as U.S. ambassador to Baghdad before taking over as the nation's top intelligence official last April.

Iraqis have faced a chain of attacks and reprisals since bombs destroyed the gold dome of a revered Shiite shrine in Samarra last week. Hundreds, if not thousands, have died, including more than 65 who were killed Tuesday by suicide attackers, car bombers and insurgents firing mortars.

President Bush condemned the surge in violence and said Iraqis must make a choice between "a free society or a society dictated ... by evil people who will kill innocents." Later, in an interview with ABC News' "World News Tonight," he said he did not believe the escalation of civil unrest would lead to a general civil war.

Negroponte tried to focus on progress in Iraq, but he acknowledged a civil war would be a "serious setback" to the global war on terror.

"The consequences for the people of Iraq would be catastrophic," he said. "Clearly, it would seriously jeopardize the democratic political process on which they are presently embarked. And one can only begin to imagine what the political outcomes would be."

Saudi Arabia and Jordan could support Iraq's Sunnis, Negroponte said. And
Iran, run by a Shiite Islamic theocracy, "has already got quite close ties with some of the extremist elements" inside Iraq, he added.

While Iraq's neighbors "initially might be reluctant" to get involved in a broader Sunni-Shiite conflict, "that might well be a temptation," Negroponte said.

Still, he told senators he is seeing progress in the overall political and security situation in Iraq. "And if we continue to make that kind of progress, yes, we can win in Iraq," he said.

Democrats noted that Negroponte wouldn't go quite as far as Bush did in his January State of the Union address. "We are winning," Bush said then.

James Jeffrey, the State Department coordinator for Iraq, told reporters Tuesday that Iraqi security forces have managed to establish a normal and calm situation - "by Iraq standards." The level of violence, he said, was about the same as before the shrine bombing.

At the Senate hearing, Lt. Gen. Michael Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, painted a similarly stark picture of
Afghanistan.

While the government has made progress in disarming private militias, Maples said, his agency estimates that violence from the Taliban and other anti-coalition groups in Afghanistan increased 20 percent last year.

"Insurgents now represent a greater threat to the expansion of Afghan government authority than at any point since late 2001, and will be active this spring," Maples said in his written statement.

Afghan insurgents increased their suicide attacks almost fourfold and more than doubled their use of improvised explosive devices, he said.

Also at the hearing:

_Negroponte would not provide an updated assessment of the number of nuclear weapons believed to be in
North Korea's arsenal, although a former DIA head has previously said Pyongyang has one or two.

"We assess that they probably have nuclear weapons, as they claim that they do, but we don't know for a fact that they've got such weapons," Negroponte said. To provide a number "would merely be an extrapolation or a speculation on our part."

_Sen.
Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., was critical of the Bush administration's reliance on the six-party talks aimed at disarming North Korea.

"I worry that the six-party talks have really devolved into the Chinese talks, and the Chinese have their own agenda," she said. "I'm not sure that the six-party talks is the only route we should be following."

_On Venezuela, Negroponte said U.S. intelligence expects President Hugo Chavez to deepen his relationship with Cuban President
Fidel Castro and "seek closer economic, military and diplomatic ties with Iran and North Korea."

Negroponte said the U.S. is concerned about Chavez's arms purchases, using profits from oil production. "I would say that it's clear that he is spending hundreds of millions, if not more, for his very extravagant foreign policy" at the expense of the impoverished Venezuelan population, he said.