Increasing insecurity is leading to the failure of the monthly food
rationing system on which five million Iraqis depend. Up to eight
million people require immediate emergency aid, with nearly half this
number living in “absolute poverty”. (
IRIN, ‘Food rationing system failing as Ramadan approaches’, September 9, 2007)
In October 2006, a study in the Lancet journal estimated that 655,000 Iraqis had died as a result of the invasion.
These facts rarely make headlines. Instead, corporate news coverage is
focused on wrangles in Washington over the Petraeus report, and on
whether the Bush administration will be able to maintain its military
strategy until Spring 2008 - when the extended 15-month US troop
postings end. It is claimed that Bush is desperate to stave off
Democrat demands for “rapid withdrawal” of US forces.
The stated aims of the surge have been sold by US-UK government and
military sources, and by faithful corporate news media, as ‘stability’
and ‘reconstruction’ allowing an Iraqi ‘democracy’ to take root. Take,
for example, the Independent’s political editor, Andrew Grice, who
quoted Major-General Tim Cross, the most senior British officer
involved in post-war planning in Iraq. Cross, said Grice, had “raised
concerns over the numbers of troops on the ground available to maintain
security and aid reconstruction in Iraq.” (Grice, The Independent,
September 3, 2007)
Likewise, BBC business reporter Robert Plummer wrote:
“The US troop surge in Iraq has been accompanied by a similar surge in
the amount of US funds devoted to Iraqi reconstruction.”
adding:
(After we challenged Plummer, he changed the wording to: "Now the US
wants Iraq to pass an oil law, as what it says is a means of promoting
reconciliation among different religious and ethnic groups.")
The rhetoric was echoed by another BBC report which claimed:
“The surge was designed to allow space for political reconciliation.” (BBC news online, ‘US surge “failure” says Iraq poll,’ September 10, 2007)
As ever, the BBC is presenting US pronouncements as fact.
Burning Astronomical Sums
The Financial Times reports that the war in Iraq and “efforts to
rebuild the country” have cost British taxpayers around £6.6 billion to
date. (Alex Barker, ‘Total cost of conflict in Iraq hits Pounds 6.6bn,’
Financial Times, August 27, 2007). This is a third more than funds set
aside by Gordon Brown when he was chancellor of the exchequer. The FT
noted that the figure is likely an underestimate because hidden costs,
such as salaries, are excluded.
In addition, truly astronomical sums of US public money are being
consumed by the war; journalist Ed Harriman reports a “burn rate” of
$10 billion every month. A fraction of that – a still considerable
figure – has gone to Iraqi ‘reconstruction’.
But according to the most recent quarterly report to Congress of the US
Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (Sigir), almost all
the American money set aside to rebuild Iraq – more than $21 billion
appropriated by Congress four years ago – has already been spent. So,
too, has $20 billion of Iraqi money handed over by Paul Bremer, Bush’s
proconsul in Baghdad in the first year of the occupation. Harriman
reports:
“Much of the money was used to pay for American goods and services and
never reached Iraq. Much of the rest disappeared and has never been
properly accounted for.” (Ed Harriman, ‘Burn Rate,’ London Review of Books, Vol 29, No 17, September 6, 2007)
Last year, Congress approved $2.2 billion for “Iraqi relief and
reconstruction“. Much of this money is for so-called Provincial
Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Ten of these “civilian-military” teams are
“embedded within brigade combat teams“, with a “primary mission of
supporting counterinsurgency operations“. As Sigir explains, “though
referred to under the umbrella term, +reconstruction+, the PRT mission
includes ‘counterinsurgency and stability operations’.”
Thus, considerable sums of money for ‘reconstruction‘ are actually being used to attack and kill Iraqis.
About $700 million of the $2.2 billion fund has been devoted to
something called the Commanders Emergency Response Program (CERP). A
report by the Congressional Research Service explains that the money is
“available to pacify the local population where PRTs reside“. The ‘US
Army and Marine Corps Counterinsurgency Field Manual’, co-authored by
General Petraeus himself, describes this as “Money as a Weapons
System“. Few people know exactly where the money goes; Congress has not
asked for detailed accounts, and Sigir found that “there is no
mechanism in place to specifically measure the outputs and outcomes of
CERP-funded projects.” Harriman notes that these US funds are
“functionally very similar to the slush funds used to buy local support
during the Vietnam War.” (Ibid.)
As ever, media observers would be hard pressed to find any of this discussed in mainstream news reports.
‘Reconstruction’ = Preparation For Permanent Occupation
The rhetoric of ‘reconstruction’ bears further investigation. Consider
that a new BBC poll of 23,000 people across 22 countries reveals that
most (67%) believe US troops should withdraw within one year. (
BBC news online, ‘Most people "want Iraq pull-out",' September 7, 2007) Half of those polled (49%) “believed the US would have bases in Iraq permanently”.
But, quite apart from public belief, there is substantial +evidence+
that the US plans a permanent presence in Iraq. 'The Bases Are Loaded',
a powerful documentary made by Alternate Focus (
www.alternatefocus.org), an independent US-based film company, sums up the reality:
"Will the US ever leave Iraq? Official policy promises an eventual
departure, while warning of the dire consequences of a 'premature'
withdrawal. But while Washington equivocates, facts on the ground tell
another story. Independent journalist Dahr Jamail, and author Chalmers
Johnson, are discovering that military bases in Iraq are being
consolidated from over a hundred to a handful of 'megabases' with
lavish amenities. Much of what is taking place is obscured by denials
and quibbles over the definition of 'permanent.'" (
The Bases Are Loaded)
The documentary begins with President Bush’s address to the Iraqi people on the eve of the invasion in March 2003:
“The goals of our coalition are clear and limited. We will end a brutal
regime, whose aggression and weapons of mass destruction make it a
unique threat to the world. Coalition forces will help maintain law and
order, so that Iraqis can live in security. We will respect your great
religious traditions, whose principles of equality and compassion are
essential to Iraq’s future. We will help you build a peaceful and
representative government that protects the rights of all citizens. And
then our military forces will leave.”
(Bush, address to the Iraqi people, March 2003)
Journalist James Goldsborough responds:
“I don’t think the Bush government has any intention of leaving Iraq.
They want permanent US bases there.” (‘The Bases Are Loaded,’ op. cit.)
Dahr Jamail, who has bravely reported as an unembedded journalist from Iraq, fills out the picture:
“There were over a hundred bases and forward operating bases in Iraq at
one point but they’re slowly consolidating them over time and so now
the number’s under 55 – I think it’s 53 or 54. But they’re
consolidating them down to, it looks now like a minimum number of 6 of
these megabases, and a maximum of probably 12.” (‘The Bases Are
Loaded,’ op. cit.)
Indeed, confirmation comes from Major Joseph Breasseale, a senior
spokesman for the coalition forces' headquarters in Iraq, who told The
Independent on Sunday last year:
"The current plan is to reduce the coalition footprint into six
consolidation bases." (Andrew Buncombe, 'US and UK establish "enduring
bases" in Iraq,' Independent on Sunday, April 2, 2006)
Chalmers Johnson, author of the 'Blowback' trilogy on American
Imperialism, points out that the vast amounts of money being spent on
these megabases “are just simply unbelievable. These supplementary
appropriations every year [are] in the $75-$100 billion range, at least
half of it is going for base-building in Iraq, and is almost totally
unsupervised by anybody.” (‘The Bases Are Loaded,’ op. cit.)
One of the biggest sites under construction is the US embassy in
Baghdad. The massive $592-million compound, due to be completed this
month, “may be the most lasting monument to the U.S. occupation in the
war-torn nation”, according to David Phinney, a researcher with
CorpWatch. Much of the construction work is being done by Asian
migrants who work 12 hours a day, often seven days a week, and earn as
little as $500 a month performing tasks considered unsuitable for US
personnel.
Phinney reports:
“The 1,000 or more U.S. government officials calling the new compound
home will have access to a gym, swimming pool, barber and beauty shops,
a food court and a commissary. In addition to the main embassy
buildings, there will be a large-scale US Marine barracks, a school,
locker rooms, a warehouse, a vehicle maintenance garage, and six
apartment buildings with a total of 619 one-bedroom units. Water,
electricity and sewage treatment plants will all be independent from
Baghdad's city utilities. The total site will be two-thirds the area of
the National Mall in Washington, DC.” (Phinney, ‘Baghdad Embassy Bonanza. Kuwait Company’s Secret Contract & Low-Wage Labor,’ CorpWatch, February 12, 2006)
Jamail points out that the megabases, including the huge Balad air
base, are "very similar as far as amenities, and infrastructure of the
base, and the size, and the number of people there as you would see in,
for example, [permanent] American bases in Germany, American bases in
Okinawa, American bases in South Korea, American bases in other parts
of the Middle East. [...] these are the same types of bases that are
being built in Iraq." (‘The Bases Are Loaded,’ op. cit.)
An Associated Press (AP) news report explains the importance of the Balad air base:
“Carriers don’t have the punch,” according to Gordon Adams of
Washington’s George Washington University. “There’s a huge advantage to
land-based infrastructure. At the level of strategy it makes total
sense to have Iraq bases.”
As AP noted, one US congressional study cited another - less discussed
- use for Iraq bases: to install anti-ballistic ‘defenses’ against
Iran. (Ibid.) Needless to say, the intention is to strengthen the grip
of the US on the Middle East.
Chalmers Johnson emphasises that the number of US military bases in the
Middle East and around the world is huge and, indeed, unknown:
“In the past, empires used to be noted in terms of colonies. Today it’s
military bases and the current number is 737. That’s the Pentagon’s
number; it’s not accurate. There’s any number of bases that they don’t
include in the Base Structure Report every year. [...] the Report is an
annual inventory, and it is not classified. But they do not include any
of the espionage bases. They do not include any of the bases that are
deeply embarrassing to us or to the regime that allowed us to build a
base there. [...] for example, our headquarters in the Middle East
today is in Qatar. We don’t list any of the bases in Qatar in the Base
Structure Report.” (‘The Bases Are Loaded,’ op. cit.)
As researcher Jules Defour notes, this global network of military bases
enables US “control of humanity's economic, social and political
activities.” Two major elements of this global domination are US
control of the world economy and its financial markets, and control of
primary resources and nonrenewable sources of energy. The latter
control mechanism constitutes “the cornerstone of US power through the
activities of its multinational corporations”. (
Defour, ‘The worldwide network of US military bases,’ July 1, 2007)
Iraq, in particular, is of crucial importance as it has the third
largest oil reserves on the planet. As Nadia Keilani, an Iraqi-American
attorney, says:
“When Saudi oil has long run out, when all Gulf nations are without any
more petroleum resources, Iraq would still sit on a sea of oil. The
country that controls Iraq is the country that will essentially get to
dictate the world economy for the next generation and possibly more.”
(‘The Bases Are Loaded,’ op. cit.)
SUGGESTED ACTION
The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and
respect for others. If you decide to write to journalists, we strongly
urge you to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.
Write to Robert Plummer, BBC business reporter
Email: robert.plummer@bbc.co.uk
Write to Steve Herrmann, BBC news online editor
Email: steve.herrmann@bbc.co.uk
Write to Andrew Grice at the Independent
Email: a.grice@independent.co.uk
Please send a copy of your emails to us
Email: editor@medialens.org
Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert originated. Please instead email us at
Email: editor@medialens.org
This media alert will shortly be archived here:
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/09/070912_loaded_words_surge.php
Media Lens is to be awarded The Gandhi Foundation International Peace Award 2007: http://www.gandhifoundation.org/peaceaward.html
The Media Lens book 'Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media'
by David Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London) was published
in 2006. John Pilger described it as "The most important book about
journalism I can remember."
For further details, including reviews, interviews and extracts, please click here:
http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php
Writings 
Subscribe to this comment's feed
