Truth, War, and Consequences : PBS Frontline video on line

A summary of Frontline's video discussing the decade long march of the United States towards war with Iraq.

Frontline made the first visit to Iraq two weeks after the fall of Baghdad, travelling by road from Kuwait. The roads are not secure, since bandits are everywhere, so the PBS team travelled in a convoy composed of Iraqi exiles. The sides of the highways leading into Baghdad were littered with the bombed out remains of Iraqi tanks. Baghdad, after years of sanctions and neglect, is shown as being not only bombed out, but ram shackle, garbage in the streets everywhere, buildings in decay. To make matters worse, entire buildings were ripped to shreds during the looting that took place in the aftermath of the fall of the Baath party, and there are scenes of the skeletal remains of such buildings after even the walls were knocked out to plunder the copper wiring and the plumbing. When the American administrators arrived they found almost every building involved in running the country completely demolished in this way. According to the program, the American military did not really know what to expect in Iraq and thus they decided to go in, and then determine what was required after the fact. This concept of dealing with the situation as they confronted it contributed to the lack of preparation to deal with the looting leading to the images of wide spread devestation revealed on the program. Even the communications infrastructure was ruined.

An interesting image shows protesting Iraqis and a large painted sign, in fractured English that read 'All Donne. Go home' (All Done. go home.) Poorly trained American soldiers are shown interacting with Iraqis, bullying them and quarreling with them, and then as an act of punishment, riddling their car with bullets and then driving back and forth over their car with a tank and destroying it, while the sound track captures the laughter of American soldiers.

Shortly after the occupation, the Americans gathered over three hundred tribal and religious leaders for a conference, and they quickly lost control of the agenda of the meeting, as the theme became 'we want democracy, and we want it now.' The Americans were unable to respond, since, as hindsight reveals, Iraqis will not be getting Democracy any time soon, and the reason for that would be obvious (the Americans have a privatization agenda to push through, and that might be unlikely if the Iraqis were given the Democracy they were demanding right from the start, and this left the American officials unable to respond to the speakers in the conference hall who were demanding this democracy.)

Chalubi is featured prominently as the main source of 'intelligence' regarding the 'threat posed to the west by Saddam Hussein' and according to Richard Perle, was the single most important source of intelligence the Americans had regarding the situation in Iraq (in spite of the fact that Chalubi had not been in Iraq for decades). Perle appears on camera to praise Chalubi as a brilliant scholar and 'just the type of liberal' they want in charge of Iraq and indeed throughout the Middle East (and this also in spite of the fact that Chalubi is an embezzler and a thief on the run from justice in the Middle East). The interviewer points out to Chalubi that half the American public now feel that they were deceived and lied to about the threat posed by Saddam (Chalubi being the principle source of this false information, heavily peddled by of the New York Times, as just one example). He is asked if he has any misgivings (the impication being that he should, since he lied) and Chalubi replied, 'no, we are in Baghdad now.'

In the second part of the program, Frontline gives a basic outline of the far right wing cabal (best known as the gang associated with the 'Project for a New American Century'). The producer of the program has stated that he decided to deliberately avoid mentioning the word 'OIL' in the program as a motivation for the war. Rather, Frontline focuses on this right wing cabal as the true driving source behind the war against Iraq and follows their evolving design against Saddam beginning over a decade ago during the Bush administration. (This leaves one to ask why this right wing cabal would be so obsessed with Iraq, and thus the viewer would have to fill in the blank with that word 'OIL', since the program deliberately makes a point to avoid mentioning that particular three letter word.)

After September 11th, what was once politically impossible (the invasion and occupation of Iraq) suddenly became politically feasible. At Perle's insistence, Bush stated that the American government would not distinguish between terrorists and the states that harbored them, opening the door to using 911 as a pretext for wars against other nations (provided that the pretext of 'supporting terrorists' could be supplied). In order to supply this pretext against Iraq, three days after 911, Perle and co-travellors set up a special intelligence agency to search for connections between Iraq and al Queda (doing an end run around the CIA and military intelligence).

According to Perle, the CIA and military intelligence were incompetent. And within days this special intelligence organization began to find the first links between Al Queda and military intelligence (which Perle explains as being 'missed' by other intelligence organizations). It turns out that this new agency did not listen to the CIA or to military intelligence, but rather discovered this 'new intelligence' in the person of Chalubi, who began to feed them bogus information about Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction. Perle insists that the CIA did not find this intelligence because 'they weren't looking for it and thus they didn't find it' and the reporter responds that conversely if you look for something you will find it (which is to suggest that Perle set up this new intelligence outfit simply to make damn sure that they did find something, which is just what happened). One gem they came up with was the bit about how Atta, the alleged ring leader of the 911 attack, met with Iraqi officials in Prague. It was later proven by the FBI that Atta was in the United States, in Florida, at the time the alleged collusion with Saddam's agents was supposed to have taken place, and nowhere near Prague. Nevertheless, we see Cheney on television repeating the fable to the American public, in several clips, some after 911, some over a year later, in a pattern to be later repeated with such fabrications as the bit about the nuclear smuggling from Niger (also a fraud) and thus the modus operandi for 'setting up Saddam for a hit' was established immediately in the months after 911, and the pattern was repeated again and again in State of the Union addresses and television interviews (which led directly to the false belief held by many Americans that 'Saddam was behind 911). It is extremely interesting to watch clips of Bush administration officials smoothly lying again and again, and continuing to lie, even when the lie was proven false. Very interesting stuff, and probably the most important footage in this particular Frontline program (especially given the sorry state of the media environment in recent months and years ... no doubt the program will come as quite a shock to those Americans who are still in the dark about these matters, and will also contribute to the cause of pushing some of these facts into the mainstream media).

In 2002, it seems obvious that the decision to go to war with Iraq was already well understood in Washington, as the State Department began organizing planning sessions with Iraqi exile groups on the 'future of Iraq' involving 'post war planning'. Chalubi was known to be skeptical about such 'seminars' and more concerned with the issue of who was going to be assigned to the role of 'the next Saddam' (the question of who was going to rule Iraq, if not a dictator, which Chalubi is at present, although subject to the Americans, would be something that would be decided at an election, not a seminar, and thus nothing that would have needed to concern Chalubi at the time, unless he understood that there was not going to be democracy or elections, in which case his stewing over who was going to rule Iraq makes more sense.)

In the mid 90s, during the Clinton Administration, Chalubi had been involved in an abortive 'Bay of Pigs' type invasion plot against Iraq, which had been shot down by the Clinton administration, on the grounds that Chalubi was over stating his support and providing shoddy intelligence, and the operation, which depended on American support, would wind up embroiling American in an invasion of Iraq. Chalubi then lobbied for the passage of a bill declaring the overthrow of Saddam as official American government policy, and the passage of the Bill resulted in the Clinton administration funneling millions of dollars into the Iraqi National Congress. Chalubi lobbied congress at the time on the importance of ridding the threat posed to the world by Saddam's 'weapons of mass destruction' the same bit he would later peddle as 'intelligence' to the Bush administration after 911, when the administration was actively looking for 'intelligence' linking Saddam to al Queda. What the program reveals here is that the planning for the attack on Iraq goes back to the first Bush administration, and then continues during the Clinton administration, with the aborted 'Bay of Pigs' plot, and then the passage of the bill funding the INC and setting as policy the toppling of Saddam as official American policy, and thus the actual attack on Iraq during the Bush administration can be thought of as a constant in American politics for over a decade, and despite recent Democrat condemnations, also a bipartisan policy. Chalubi began to use the money funneled to him by the Clinton Adminstration to begin 'purchasing' defectors who began to feed stories to the media which supposedly detailed the progress of Saddam's nuclear program and other WMDs and Frontline admits to be taken in by this bogus propganda, featuring it on some of their earlier programs.

In part three of the program, a reporter confronts Chalubi with the charge that his WMD 'intelligence' was all 'hearsay' and Chalubi states that if Americans heard this that or the other, it was not from the INC, but rather from their own government. The program then begins to detail the conflicts between the administration and the intelligence community. There was no intelligence, and yet the administration message, being fed to the public was clear and unequivocal (to quote Cheney, in one of the clips, 'there is no doubt that Iraq now has weapons of mass destruction.' Or from Bush, 'Iraq could launch WMDs in as little as 45 minutes.') Meanwhile, the intelligence community was stating that there was no evidence for either WMDs in Iraq or evidence which linked Iraq to al Queda and September 11th. There was a growing divergence between the intelligence community and the administration. According to an interview with an intelligence officer, the administration was 'cherry picking' information that fitted with their agenda and was practicing 'faith based intelligence' gathering, and were also deliberately distorting intelligence they received, to make it sound much more dangerous.

In October, 2002, during the congressional elections, Bush claimed that an Iraqi defector had come forth with information about Saddam's nuclear program. The defector had been brought forward by Chalubi who was also spreading disinformation concerning Iraq's link's with al Queda, and Bush also repeated this bit, claiming that 'we have learned that Iraq is training al Queda in bomb making, the use of poisons, and deadly gases.' This was another tid bit picked up from that wonderful source of intelligence known as Chalubi. A reporter confronts Chalubi with this false information, and he deliberately lies, claiming that the information is 'in U.S. hands'. When challenged to present it to Frontline, he agrees, and then even months later, refuses to respond to requests from the program for this promised 'evidence.'

In part four of the program the State Department and the Pentagon feuding over blue prints for post war Iraq. The Pentagon wanted to impose the INC upon the Iraqi people as a government, while the State Department and other opposition groups wanted a government formed by people from within Iraq, the doctrine of these groups being that in order to have 'legitimacy' what was required was a government that represented the people of Iraq, A quarrel developed in the United States government which centered on Chalubi, with Richard Perle insisting that Chalubi was 'everything we could have hoped for' (the man is a known embezzler, by the way, and fugitive from justice, so what made him the dream candidate as the new dictator of Iraq is a good question... but such a debate seems characteristic of Washington, a place which after all found the Shah of Iran, among others, to be 'ideal dictators').

Bush handed over all planning for 'post war Iraq' to Rumsfeld. Plans made by the State Department were ditched. The State Department plan called for using the Baath party and the army. In the end the Pentagon plan, which was the INC plan, called for the 'De-Baathification' of Iraq. This when combined with insufficient U.S. forces led to the disaster everyone is familiar with (although, at the same time, the idea of ditching Saddam, and then carrying on with the Baath party is stomach turning as well). The Pentagon and the Administration also assumed that the Iraqis would greet the Americans as liberators. Resistance would be practically non-existent. Chalubi assured them that this would be the case. Meanwhile, the administration was being warned of the likelihood of violence and wide spread looting (rather than joyous welcoming of liberators).

The program then examines administration claims concerning weapons of mass destruction, specifically Bush's state of the Union Address, which recycled the discredited Niger uranium tale, and Powell's address to the United Nations, and concluded that both were not being honest with the American people (the suggestion being that Powell was being a 'loyal soldier' in towing the administration line).

In part five, we are told the story of how Rumsfeld became convinced that Iraq could be conquered and then occupied with just a small mobile force. American forces met only token resistance, and the Pentagon flew in Chalubi, in the hopes that he would be able to rally an uprising of Shias in support of the American invasion forces. The idea was that Chalubi would be seen as leading Iraqi forces into battle against Saddam, and thus gain 'local credibility'. However, the exercise turned into a flop, and the locals were not interested in marching under Chalubi's banner. Chalubi was sent to cool his heels at a U.S. military base.

In part six of the program, the American decision to wait until they got onto the ground in Iraq to determine what needed to be done backfires, as the nation descends into looting and violence. General Garner is replaced by Bremer, who worked with the State Department on counter terrorism in the past. Bremer delayed on forming an Iraqi front administration, and instead began ruling by decree (one of the decrees being that looters were to be shot on sight, and he also decreed controls on media reporting). Garner had been working with the Baath party, which angered Chalubi and the INC, and Bremer proceeded with a rapid one week long 'De-Baathification' of the remnants of the Iraqi government. This alienated these people who then joined the resistance, as sabatoge increased.

At the time of the Frontline broadcast, the resistance had wounded close to 1600 Americans and two or three were being killed everyday, with Iraq's oil industry being the subject of repeated sabatoge. The INC line is that this sabatoge is not 'Iraqi resistance' but rather the Baathists are being transformed into 'Islamic fundamentalists.' The INC is promoting, to this day, the 'Saddam Al Queda' connection as an explanation for the current state of insurrection in Iraq.

The footage which follows gives some minimalist background on the raids being conducted daily by U.S. forces in Iraq. Due to media restrictions, little is actually seen of these raids, and the program relies on interviews conducted after the fact. The scenario in Iraq begins to resemble that of the previous Vietnam conflict, where war is unconventional, the 'enemy' is blended into the population, and where the population itself resents the presence of the American occupiers. (It is one of the features of the documentary that the positive spin comes from Chalubi and the INC while the onstreet interviews show a population that is lessed than pleased with the 'American occupiers'). The impression one is left with is that the INC and Chalubi represent the INC and Chalubi and are obviously out of touch with the mainstream of opinion among the Iraqi people.

On rare occasions the Frontline team found themselves outside the control imposed on the media when unexpected events occured. One example shows the sudden bombing of American troops in Baghdad, and the resulting fire fight. Panic stricken American troops began exchanging fire with armed Iraqis and then bullets began flying in all directions, and an Iraqi only five feet away from the camera crew dropped dead as Americans began firing in all directions, and civilians began scattering in all directions. It turns out that the man was 'not a shooter...he was just some guy standing on the side of the road.' After having cleared this up the American troop commander calls out, 'Alright, let's go.' The numbing present in the troops is remarkable (they have just gunned down innocent civilians, and having determined this to their satisfaction, get back to business...this is a rare glimpse outside the protective cocoon in Iraq where media surveillance of what is going on is being heavily controlled by Bremer). Bremer explains that the first goal is protection of American troops, which he hopes will be done 'prudently' so as to result 'in the minimum of collateral damage to the civilian population.'

The American troops often find themselves in the middle of a raid, when unsuspecting civilians in automobiles come driving down the street. Footage is shown of two such automobiles riddled with gun fire after turning onto a street where American troops were engaged in a raid, killing a man in one car, and a family in another car, and pedestrian walking down the street was also gunned down. The soldiers, who have been trained to fight wars, have been thrown into an urban environment where civilians are often perceived as military threats and they respond to them using the same type of force as they have been trained to use on battlefield. This problem is compounded by the fact that, as in Vietnam, this is a guerilla war, and there is no clear enemy (this is not a 'conventional war').

In the final part of the series, the aftermath of the war is examined. The costs and complexities of the situation are proving to be greater than were anticipated. Chalubi, meanwhile, is beginning to distance himself from the Americans, stating that 'we really don't need continuing occupation.' When he asked about the turmoil that would ensue in the event of a withdrawal he replies 'we will fight, and we will win.'

Bremer states that the war in Iraq is now bound up with American prestige in the world. America's commitment is being put to the test, American values are being tested. When a frontline reporter dwells on the question of the false justification for the war, the INC, the supposed 'intelligence source' for information on phony WMDs and weapons programs, ignores the question and turns attention back to 'American prestige in the world.'

Currently the Administration is complaining about 'negative press coverage'. Given that this is America, the tiny and small amount of complaining that might be going on in the press doesn't really seem to amount to much, but apparently is still to much for Washington, and so the White House is in the middle of peddling 'a rosy scenario' which describes the great progress being made in Iraq (and the Pentagon has been caught peddling form letters in which soldiers praise the wonderful improvements taking place in Iraqi society).

According to the United Nations and the World Bank, the economy in Iraq is not flourishing, as White House propaganda suggests, but will actually wind up shrinking by about one quarter this year. The average earnings for an Iraqi has plunged to about one sixth of what it once was (standing at about 600 dollars, making Iraqis among those now living on between one and two dollars a day). Unemployment has reached fifty percent. Both the sewage system and telephone systems are not functioning properly. This contrasts with Bush's October 11th speech on the radio which proclaimed that Iraq now had thousands of new businesses, with buying and selling and trading thriving in the new Iraq.

In many ways the Frontline video seems a little tame, compared with what you often here in the alternative media, but it is a major improvement over what is typically broadcast on the mainstream American media. There is one exception, every now and then, which is CNN, which is regarded as 'liberal' in the context of American broadcasting today, and which has broadcast scenes of angry Iraqis denouncing American occupation, among other things, and which might be the target of the White House criticism of bad press reporting giving the American people a wrong idea of how wonderful things are becoming in Iraq.

The Frontline video is hamstrung by Garners media controls, and so this does not yet equal the coverage once given to the violence in Vietnam. But then, according to what I have read, the mainstream American media resisted covering the situation in Vietnam in an honest fashion until years had gone by and the situation had become increasingly violent, and in response to the guerilla war the American troops had become increasingly brutalized, and thus increasingly brutal in response. Seen in this way, as tame as this Frontline video can seem, and as controlled as its media coverage was while in Iraq, it still serves the purpose of driving into the mainstream the idea that the war was sold on false premises (WMDs) and it also brings attention to the right wing cabal planning to attack Iraq for over a decade, and also brings to light that the attack on Iraq was also a bipartisan issue, which consumed the Clinton administration as well (which came close to launching a Bay of Pigs style invasion of Iraq, and which was also in bed with Chalubi).

The Frontline video is on line at the following URL:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/view/

A Unified Field Theory

The Unified Field Theory
is also available as a zip file -> unified.zip

Introduction :The Pioneer Effect and the New Physics. A brief description of the new physics required to explain the 'Pioneer Effect', which is the constant deceleration of space craft as they fly through space.

Principles of Evolution: A Study in the Evolution of Bedbugs