Electronic iraq News Opinion/Editorial Rahul Mahajan and Robert Jensen, Electronic Iraq 25 March 2003

Last night, our president announced a war to the nation and the world. Let us be clear about what this war is and what it is not.

This war is not the result of a failure of diplomacy. This war is not a pre-emptive war. This war is not about weapons of mass destruction. This war is not about terrorism. This war is not about the liberation of the Iraqi people.

Diplomacy: Nations typically engage in diplomacy to avoid having to go to war. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, numerous attempts at diplomacy were made by France, the Soviet Union, and the Arab League. They all foundered, primarily on the intransigence of the first Bush administration. In this case, the second Bush administration tried to use "diplomacy" to create a war out of whole cloth, making no attempt to negotiate with Iraq. In fact, as Iraq made concession after concession -- as it became increasingly clear that whatever pitiful arsenal Iraq had could be found and dismantled if inspections were allowed to continue -- U.S. attempts to strong-arm other countries into supporting the war became increasingly crude and coercive. Although those attempts mostly failed, they were hardly aimed at preventing the war.

Pre-emption: In order to pre-empt a threat with war, there must be some credible reason to believe that the threat exists and that no other strategies will address it. A threat involves capability and intent. In this case, the Bush administration was not able to show that Iraq has the capability, and no attempt was made to show that it had the intent to attack.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: As time passed, the administration's lies, half-truths, and distortions became increasingly ridiculous. From scare stories about an "unmanned aerial vehicle" that turned out to be a glider held together with spit and baling wire, to forged documents claiming that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger, nothing has held water. Claims of mobile biological laboratories were refuted by weapons inspectors, as were claims that Iraq had or was about to get nuclear weapons. And, of course, ongoing inspections would have ensured that no arsenal could be built.

Terrorism: This claim is even more absurd. The best the Bush administration could come up with was a Jordanian militant, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a member of Ansar al-Islam whose ties to either al-Qaeda or the Iraqi government are completely unsubstantiated. A recent British intelligence assessment concluded that there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda.

Liberation: The United States does not care about true democracy for Iraq. In 1991, when a popular uprising after the Gulf War threatened to oust Hussein's government, the United States intervened to keep Hussein in power. The reason, as officials explained later, was that the United States wanted a military coup to preserve what Richard Haas of the National Security Council called "Saddam's regime without Saddam." Since 9/11, the Bush administration has funded a coup attempt in Venezuela, installed a puppet regime in Afghanistan, and cracked down on basic democratic protections in the United States. It would be ironic if the administration wanted democracy for Iraqis but not for Americans. U.S. plans for Iraq clearly involve establishing yet another puppet regime

So, what is this war? It is an act of premeditated aggression. It is part of an attempt to put the tremendous energy reserves of the Middle East more tightly under American control. It is the key stage in the building of a new empire. It is part of a long-term attempt to establish more clearly than ever the rule of force in international affairs and sweep away any role for international law or institutions beyond those in service to the empire.

Another fact we must remember: This war did not begin last night.

March 19, 2003, was simply the start of a new, more intense phase of the U.S. attack on Iraq that has been going on since the end of the 1991 Gulf War, through the harshest economic embargo in modern history and through more than four years of regular bombing.

Already, hundreds of thousands -- possibly more than a million  -- innocent Iraqis have died in this ongoing assault. As we count the civilian casualities from this newest phase, they must be added to this roster of the dead so that the costs of the U.S. war will not be obscured.

This is crucial to understand, because when U.S. military forces topple the government of Saddam Hussein, we shouldn't be surprised if ordinary Iraqis cheer. Their celebrations will not be about only the demise of a dictator but about the hoped-for end of a regime of fear and deprivation imposed by the United States, in which parents have been forced to watch children die of malnutrition and disease caused by the enforced poverty created by the embargo.

And, finally: Just as the war against Iraq did not begin last night, the larger war for empire will not end with Iraq. Other nations, notably Iran, are already on the target list. Bush administration officials talk of remaking the map of the Middle East. Beyond that is the desire to counter the rising power of China.

The American takeover of Iraq likely cannot be stopped. But just as there has been a time for war, there can come a time for justice if we -- the citizens of the empire -- recognize  that this battle may be lost, but there is still a world to win.

Rahul Mahajan's latest book is the forthcoming "The U.S. War Against Iraq: Myths, Facts, and Lies." Robert Jensen, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of "Writing Dissent: Taking Radical Ideas from the Margins to the Mainstream. Both are members of the Nowar Collective.

Page last updated: 25 March 2003, 16:02 CST

URL

BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP)--European Union regulators may relax EU competition rules to help airlines cope with the Iraq war, which the industry fears will lead to $10 billion in losses, officials said Tuesday.

Proposals under discussion would allow governments to cover costs of extra security measures and loosen rules that oblige airlines to give under-used routes to rivals.

EU spokesman Gilles Gantelet said regulators may cast a ``favorable eye'' on airline alliances on particularly cluttered routes.

However the Iraq crisis does not yet merit any direct compensation payments to airlines, nor will EU members be allowed to cover airlines' insurance costs.

Such measures were adopted to help airlines through the crisis that followed the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.

The International Air Transport Association last week warned that the Iraq war could cost airlines $10 billion on top of $30 billion in estimated losses they have already accumulated since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The EU's head office is expected to approve the proposals Wednesday and recommend them to transport ministers from the 15 EU nations meeting Thursday in Brussels.

Meanwhile, Europe's second largest airline, Germany's Lufthansa, said Tuesday it was cutting flights to the United States and Asia, blaming a sharp fall in bookings since the start of war in Iraq.

Lufthansa said it was putting off plans to expand its long-distance flights starting March 30, saying demand on trans-Atlantic routes had fallen ``particularly sharply.''

It said it would cut one flight a day on routes between Frankfurt and New York, Boston and Los Angeles. Flights to Dallas and Phoenix will also be reduced and smaller planes will be used for services to Philadelphia.

In Asia, Lufthansa said it was dropping plans to add flights to Nagoya in Japan and would use smaller planes to fly to Osaka and the South Korean capital Seoul.

It also announced cuts on services to Caracas, Venezuela and Johannesburg, South Africa.

South China Morning Post

War casualities: US troops from the 3rd Infantry Division carry a wounded Iraqi prisoner for treatment at a battalion aid centre on a captured airfield in southern Iraq after heavy fighting in Nasiriyah.

Pentagon says 300 Iraqis may be dead after battle

Up to 300 Iraqis may have been killed overnight (HK time) when they attacked the US Seventh Calvary near the town of Najaf, about 160km south of Baghdad, the Pentagon said.

Sandstorms hit Baghdad advance

Blinding sandstorms threaten to achieve what Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard have so far failed to do - hold up the march of coalition forces into Baghdad.

British forces plan to support any Basra uprising

The British military said overnight (HK time) it believed citizens of Basra were rising up against President Saddam Hussein, but an Iraqi minister denied a revolt was underway in Iraq's southern city.

Two British soldiers killed by 'friendly fire'

Two British tank crew members were killed by ''friendly fire'' from another British tank near Iraq's southern city of Basra, officials said overnight (HK time).

US television networks losing the fight against biased coverage

Media-watchers on both sides of the war have declared the Americans the losers. Embedded journalists and hi-tech equipment have so far not been able to deflect accusations that US television networks are presenting biased coverage.

Waiting for refugees in cruellest place on the planet

"This place looks like God roasted it," Raphael Mutiku said as we travelled through Badiyat ash Sham, the great desert that stretches from Jordan and Syria into Iraq.

Americans brace for a longer and bloodier conflict

News of coalition fatalities and troops held prisoner have changed Americans' expectations of the potential scale and tragedy of the Iraq conflict, a poll showed yesterday, as President George W. Bush prepared to ask Congress for a US$74.7 billion (HK$582.2 billion) war chest.

In halls of power and on the streets, opposition is muted

Despite wide public opposition to the war, China is the only permanent member of the United Nations Security Council that has not seen widespread protests.

America's 'war without suspense'

Alex Liebman was accosted last week in the cafeteria by a usually mild-mannered teacher here at Xiaoshi Middle School in Ningbo, Zhejiang. "Why is the US attacking Iraq? The US is trying to establish a new empire and set up hegemony over the whole world," he said. I struggled to swallow my rice before responding: "I oppose the war too. Please let me finish my food."

<a href=www.cnsnews.com>Read Source By Alan Caruba CNSNews.com Commentary from the National Anxiety Center March 24, 2003

It is not too soon to look toward the rebuilding of Iraq after the war. "Once Iraqis stabilize and liberate their own capabilities and infrastructure, they will turn outward. Then the modern standard-bearers of the world's oldest civilization will use their extraordinary talents as entrepreneurs and facilitators to shine light on knowledge and information gaps all over the Middle East and beyond." So says Joseph Braude in his book, The New Iraq: Rebuilding the Country for its People, the Middle East, and the World . A senior analyst for Pyramid Research, a Cambridge, Mass., consulting firm, Braude knows both the history and languages of the Middle East, and he offers an optimistic forecast.

<a href=www.cnsnews.com>Read here the complete source

<a href=www.agrinewspubs.com>More... Monday, March 24, 2003

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Although America’s minds are on Iraq and the potential impacts of war, the agriculture industry should be keeping a close eye on the developments with North Korea, said an Ohio State University agricultural economist. Matt Roberts, with the Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, said a war with Iraq may cause little, if any, economic impacts, but a conflict with North Korea could cause a dramatic disruption in agricultural trade and market prices. "A potential war with Iraq is simply creating short-term financial uncertainty, which may result in higher interest rates if tensions continue," Roberts said. "Any long-term ramifications may result in the slow-down of imports and exports due to heightened security, and in what we call reputation effects — America’s standing in the international community when it comes time for other countries to make American purchases." Such impacts would be minor and diminish as time moved on, but a war with North Korea could have a longer-lasting effect, Roberts said. "South Korea is a very industrialized nation and is a close trading partner with the U.S. I think it’s the fifth largest export market for our beef and pork," he said. "Any attack would probably involve the near leveling of Seoul (the South Korean capital) from the north, so the economic disruptions would be immense. We would feel that in our agricultural community. The lesser demand for meat would reduce the demand for feed grains. In other words, a decrease in exports translates into a decrease in grain prices." Although any conflict with Iraq or North Korea would produce some economic instability, the biggest impact a war would have on the U.S. agricultural community would be one of a social nature, Roberts said. "The National Guard and (Army) Reserves draw heavily from rural areas: police forces, firefighters, farmers. If a war with Iraq is not a quick and decisive one or if tensions continue to increase on the Korean peninsula, it’s possible we’ll start to see more people drawn out of our rural and farming communities," he said. "Their absence would just compound the stresses that some of these families already face with drought and finances and a tough winter." One impact Americans have felt with a looming war with Iraq has been an increase in gas prices, currently averaging $1.68 a gallon — a 54-cent increase from this time last year. "Probably the biggest economic impact we would see with a war with Iraq would be sustained high gas prices," Roberts said. With natural gas prices following suit, it could mean higher-priced fuel and fertilizers for farmers. "We import more of our natural gas than we once did. It’s the primary feedstock from which anhydrous is made, so that has some potential to impact farming profitability this year," Roberts said. "I don’t think this is shaping up to be a year like 2001 where there was a gross anhydrous shortage, but those gas prices will stay higher. We may see a slight shift from corn planting to soybean planting because corn production requires higher input costs." The other piece to the crude oil price puzzle is the political unrest in Venezuela that has substantially reduced the flow of petroleum products. Venezuela is the United States’ third-largest oil exporter, behind Mexico and Saudi Arabia. "Venezuela pretty much shot itself in the foot with this situation," Roberts said. "Venezuela has always been a reliable partner for us, until now. Many of our refineries were built to process Venezuelan oil, but they have had to alter their processes and it has made them less efficient." Carl Zulauf, an Ohio State agricultural economist, said another impact a war with Iraq could have would be a renewed emphasis on U.S. energy independence. This would result in the increased use of alternative fuel s like ethanol and biodiesel, crop byproducts. "In the short run, this is probably good for U.S. agriculture, in particular corn producers because of increased demand for ethanol," Zulauf said. "In the long run, the impact could be more problematic if some other source of alternative fuel emerges that displaces the demand for ethanol." Last year, the ethanol industry set an all-time production record and production in 2003 is likely to follow suit. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, American ethanol producers made 177,000 barrels of ethanol per day in January. Total production is projected to hit 2.5 billion gallons by the end of the year. "In the past year, since harvest, ethanol has truly been a savior to the corn market. Our corn exports have been very weak. However, ethanol production has exploded over the last six months, to the point where ethanol is consuming around 8 percent of American corn production," Roberts said. Biodiesel, another renewable fuel, also is making headlines in U.S. energy production. Last March, the Minnesota legislature passed a law mandating a 2 percent inclusion of biodiesel into the state’s petroleum diesel supply beginning in 2005. Minnesota is the first state to require the addition of biodiesel in commercial diesel supplies. More recently, a bill was introduced to the U.S. Congress that would give biodiesel the same tax incentives that ethanol currently receives. "Much of the tax incentive for ethanol is because it is exempt from the highway excise tax, but it has begun to impact the budget of the interstate highway system," Roberts said. "If biodiesel is exempt from those same taxes, concerns are being raised that as the production of alternative fuels increases, it will seriously impact that budget and the money is going to have to come from somewhere." More emphasis on alternative fuels, however, would provide support for farm prices. "Over the course of the year, my feeling is that national prices have been a dime higher because of increase in our ethanol production," Roberts said.