Center for a Stateless Society » iraq war

L’amministrazione Obama ha recentemente annunciato una politica di intervento limitato in Iraq, con l’uso di droni per allontanare la possibilità che Isis conquisti i territori autonomi curdi. Il principale alleato americano è il governo regionale curdo di Massoud Barzani. Gli aiuti americani contro Isis si limitano alle regioni curde in Iraq.

Il principale avversario di Barzani nella conquista della fiducia dei curdi è Abdullah Ocalan, leader del Partito dei Lavoratori Curdi (PKK) attivo in tutti i quattro paesi in cui esistono significative minoranze curde.

Mentre guidava da una prigione turca un PKK originariamente marxista-leninista, Ocalan ebbe modo di studiare le opere dell’anarchico Murray Bookchin, di cui adottò una versione della sua filosofia “municipalista libertaria” (che Ocalan ribattezzò “confederalismo democratico”). La filosofia di Bookchin si impose all’attenzione di Ocalan come parte di un più ampio interesse per il pensiero socialista libertario tra i nazionalisti curdi dopo il crollo dell’Unione Sovietica. Ocalan vide nel confederalismo democratico – influenzato anche dagli sforzi orizzontalisti come quelli dell’esercito di liberazione zapatista messicano – un’alternativa sia al capitalismo clientelare occidentale che all’economia pianificata sovietica.

Il confederalismo democratico divenne la base su cui si sviluppò in Kurdistan il Raggruppamento delle Comunità, un tentativo del PKK di amministrare il territorio curdo. Questo ricalca da vicino il modello delle democrazie dirette federate di Bookchin, che a sua volta si basa sul modello della Comune parigina, dei soviet russi nati dopo la Rivoluzione di Febbraio, e delle entità anarchiche durante la Rivoluzione Spagnola. L’economia è governata da un insieme di auto-governo dei lavoratori e pianificazione partecipativa. Le donne hanno un ruolo di primo piano nelle municipalità e nelle milizie, e hanno combattuto valorosamente – per ragioni comprensibili – contro Isis.

Il PKK è ancora nella lista delle organizzazioni terroristiche per via della sua rivolta violenta contro il governo turco, anche se da un anno mantiene la tregua ed è riuscito a conquistare una significativa autonomia regionale per i curdi nella Turchia orientale. Ad aprile, sotto la tregua, il PKK ha trasferito il grosso delle sue forze combattenti nel Kurdistan iracheno.

Se Obama volesse davvero fermare l’ingresso di Isis nel Kurdistan iracheno farebbe meglio ad aiutare il PKK, soprattutto considerati i rapporti pacifici del partito con la Turchia e l’indipendenza di fatto delle aree curde nella Siria nordorientale. Il PKK e le sue milizie alleate in Siria hanno avuto più successo militarmente contro Isis del Libero Esercito Siriano appoggiato dall’occidente. Il PKK ha difeso le aree Yazidi del Kurdistan iracheno, e ha fatto trasferire i civili a rischio, quando i Peshmerga di Barzani si sono dileguati. Nel Kurdistan siriano, i combattenti PKK turchi hanno impedito la caduta di Kobane, che sta lungo le linee di comunicazione tra le aree dominate da Isis in Siria e Iraq. Ocalan e il PKK, a differenza di Barzani, sono molto popolari in tutto il Kurdistan, non solo nella parte irachena.

Ma è improbabile che Obama lo voglia. Peggio di una vittoria di Isis, dal punto di vista americano, sarebbe solo la dimostrazione della validità di un’alternativa sia al capitalismo corporativo che al socialismo di stato, un’alternativa basata sul decentramento, la democrazia diretta e l’autogestione.

Il Kurdistan ha molto in comune con la Corea postbellica. Nel vuoto di potere lasciato dalla ritirata dei giapponesi dalla penisola coreana, scrive (“Mass Graves”, ripubblicato su Austro-Athenian Empire il 25 maggio 2008) il compagno di C4SS William Gillis, “accadde qualcosa di sorprendente. Gli anarchici coreani, che da tempo appoggiavano la resistenza, uscirono dall’oscurità e formarono a livello nazionale una federazione di villaggi e consigli di lavoratori per sovrintendere un massiccio programma di riforma agraria.” Al nord, le forze di occupazione sovietiche soffocarono subito tutto, liquidando il progetto anarchico e installando al potere il regime dei Kim. Le forze americane arrivarono molto più tardi, dando alla Corea del Sud un momento di pace e libertà. Quando arrivarono, però, i comandanti militari americani scoprirono di “non avere una procedura valida per trattare con le federazioni regionali e le comuni anarchiche.” Così restituirono le terre all’aristocrazia spossessata, e aiutarono i possidenti terrieri a instaurare un governo militare. Con l’inizio della guerra di Corea, l’assassinio di anarchici e altri di sinistra, già in corso ad opera del regime militare, divenne frenetico. Almeno 100.000 sospetti anarchici, socialisti e comunisti o simpatizzanti finirono nelle fosse comuni.

Lo stato americano preferirebbe che Isis non vincesse. Ma come nel caso dei proprietari della fattoria ne La Fattoria degli Animali di Orwell, gli uomini hanno in comune con i maiali un interesse sopra tutti: non vogliono che gli “animali”, le persone qualunque, si governino da soli.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Obama Wants to Defeat ISIS — But Not That Badly

Kevin Carson — Sat, 30 Aug 2014 18:00:35 +0000

The Obama administration recently announced a policy of limited intervention in Iraq, using drone strikes to stave off conquest of Kurdish autonomous areas by ISIS. The main US ally on the ground is Massoud Barzani’s Kurdistan Regional Government, and US support against ISIS is limited to Kurdish areas inside Iraq.

Barzani’s main competitor for the loyalty of the Kurdish people is Abdullah Ocalan, leader of the Kurdish Workers’ Party (PKK), which is active in all four nations with substantial Kurdish minorities.

While leading the originally Marxist-Leninist PKK from inside a Turkish prison, Ocalan studied the work of anarchist Murray Bookchin and adopted a form of his “libertarian municipalist” philosophy (which he renamed “democratic confederalism”). Bookchin’s philosophy came to Ocalan’s attention as part of a larger wave of interest in libertarian socialist thought among Kurdish nationalists after the fall of the USSR. Ocalan saw democratic confederalism — also influenced by horizontalist struggles like Mexico’s EZLN — as an alternative to both Western corporate capitalism and the Soviet command economy.

Democratic confederalism became the basis for the Group of Communities in Kurdistan, a PKK attempt at territorial administration in Kurdish areas. It adheres closely to Bookchin’s model of federated direct democracies on the model of the Paris Commune, the soviets that emerged in Russia after the February Revolution, and local anarchist bodies in the Spanish Revolution. The economy is governed by a mixture of worker self-management and participatory planning. Women figure prominently in its municipalities and militia units, and have fought valiantly — for understandable reasons — against ISIS.

PKK is still listed as a terrorist organization because of its violent insurrection against the Turkish government, although it has maintained a truce with Turkey for the past year and gained significant regional autonomy for Kurdish areas in eastern Turkey. Since the truce the PKK moved the bulk of its fighting forces into Iraqi Kurdistan this April.

Supporting the PKK would arguably be far more effective if Obama really wants to stop ISIS penetration of Iraqi Kurdistan, especially given the party’s peace with Turkey and de facto independence of Kurdish areas in northeastern Syria. The PKK and allied militia in Syria have been more successful militarily against ISIS forces than the Western-backed Free Syrian army. PKK defended the Yazidi areas of Iraqi Kurdistan and relocated endangered civilians, when Barzani’s Peshmerga forces melted away. PKK fighters from Turkey have prevented the fall of Kobane in Syrian Kurdistan, which sits across lines of communication between ISIS areas in Syria and Iraq. Ocalan and the PKK, unlike Barzani, have popular support throughout Kurdistan — not just the Iraqi part.

But that’s unlikely to happen. The one thing worse than an ISIS victory, from the American state’s perspective, would be the demonstration effect of an alternative to both corporate capitalism and state socialism, based on decentralism, direct democracy and self-management.

Kurdistan has much in common with postwar Korea. In the power vacuum left by the retreat of Japanese forces from the Korean peninsula, C4SS comrade William Gillis writes (“Mass Graves,” reproduced at Austro-Athenian Empire, May 25, 2008), “something amazing happened. The Korean Anarchists, long the champions of the resistance struggle, came out of the woodwork and formed a nationwide federation of village and workers councils to oversee a massive project of land reform.” Soviet occupation authorities in the north quickly put a stop to this, liquidating the anarchist project and installing the Kim regime. American forces were considerably slower to arrive, giving southern Korea a respite of peace and freedom. When they did arrive, though, American military commanders “had no protocol for dealing with regional federations and anarchist communes.” Accordingly they restored land to the dispossessed aristocracy and helped the landlords set up a military government. With the start of the Korean War the military regime’s murder of anarchists and other leftists, already underway, kicked into high gear. At least 100,000 suspected anarchists, socialists and communists or sympathizers were buried in mass graves.

The American state would rather ISIS not win. But as with the farmers in Orwell’s Animal Farm, the men have one interest in common with the pigs that trumps all others: they don’t want the “animals” — ordinary people — to rule themselves.

Translations for this article:

Italian, Obama Vuole Sconfiggere Isis, ma non Molto.

Barack Obama, Murderer

Cory Massimino — Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:00:41 +0000

In early August, US president Barack Obama authorized airstrikes targeted at artillery used by the Islamic State extremist group against Kurdish forces defending Irbil, Iraq’s Kurdish regional capital. The Pentagon explained this decision by claiming the artillery was “near US personnel.”

Fast forward nearly two weeks and kidnapped American journalist, James Foley, is gruesomely beheaded by an ISIS militant on video that has made its way through the Internet for everyone to see.

This barbaric and tragic execution isn’t left unexplained, though. The killer explicitly explains why he took the actions he did. And no, it isn’t because he hates our freedom. It’s not because American women run around wearing bikinis. It isn’t because the US has access to computers, phones, TVs and other miracles of modern technology. It isn’t because the majority of Americans are Christian. The reason for Foley’s death can be explained in one word: Blowback.

In the video, the militant said that other American journalists will also die if the U.S. doesn’t cease its airstrikes in Iraq. In fact, at the end of the video, a militant shows a second man, identified as Steven Sotloff, another American journalist, warning that he could be the next captive killed.

Here it is, in plain view and even re-watchable — the consequences of interventionism. An innocent human being murdered in cold blood directly in response to American airstrikes that the president authorized. And more human beings are in known mortal danger if the president doesn’t alter his interventionist foreign policy.

Never before has the phrase “thanks, Obama” been more accurate.

So what does our Nobel Peace Prize winning, progressive commander-in-chief do? Immediately following the tragic execution of Foley, Obama told the press that the United States would be “relentless” against Islamic State militants … and ordered 14 more airstrikes!

Yes, you read that right. A terrorist murdered an American because of airstrikes, threatened to do it again if the airstrikes don’t stop, and the United States military said, “whatever, let’s just bomb them some more,” with an A-OK from the president.

You can’t make American foreign policy up. It’s almost like a dream sequence where the people in positions of authority become increasingly stupid and evil. But that’s actually just real life.

Of course this blowback comes as no surprise to the anti-war movement — and I mean the real anti-war movement, not the partisan hacks and fools who were against invading Iraq under Bush but are now cheering on “humanitarian intervention” (aka bombing with enough media support) under Obama.

The anti-war crowd, unlike the people actually in charge of foreign policy, understands and has predicted the effects of intervention. Overseas meddling never works out. And for central planners in Washington to think they can manipulate and coordinate other country’s affairs from millions of miles away, one has to question either their intelligence or their character.

The airstrikes ought to be ended as quickly as possible and whatever US personnel are near the Kurdish regional capital need to be immediately removed from the region. There is no good reason for them to be there in the first place. It not only puts lives in danger, it serves as an excuse for further bombing and even more meddling.

Even more ideally, the US military would be abolished all together. Then the platform from which psychopathic Nobel Prize winners gain power and murder people with no accountability will be gone.

How many more James Foleys before the United States realizes it can’t continue its interventionism? How many more dead human beings until Obama’s bloodlust is satisfied?

Out of Iraq, Etc.!

Sheldon Richman — Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:00:57 +0000

Nearly a century ago, after four bloody years of World War I, British colonialists created the state of Iraq, complete with their hand-picked monarch. Britain and France were authorized — or, more precisely, authorized themselves — to create states in the Arab world, despite the prior British promise of independence in return for the Arabs’ revolt against the Ottoman Turks, which helped the Allied powers defeat the Central powers. And so European countries drew lines in the sand without much regard for the societies they were constructing from disparate sectarian, tribal, and ethnic populations.

Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations declared that former colonies of the defeated powers “are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world.” These included the Arabs (and others) in Mesopotamia (Iraq) and the Levant (today’s Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine/Israel). Because they were not ready for independence and self-government, the covenant stated, their “well-being and development” should be “entrusted to advanced nations who … can best undertake this responsibility.”

In other words, the losers’ colonies would become the winners’ colonies. British and French politicians would judge when the Arabs (and Kurds) were fit to govern themselves. Until then, they would remain under the loving care of enlightened Europeans. On the few occasions when Arabs failed to appreciate their good fortune and resisted, their benefactors had to punish them with tough love in the form of aerial bombardment and other means of modern warfare. It was for the natives’ own good, of course.

Or that’s had the imperialists told it. Only a cynic could believe that their economic and political interests lay behind this neocolonialist system.

We might keep this history in mind as we view with increasing horror what is taking place in the newly declared Islamic State (formerly ISIL or ISIS) in large parts of British- and French-created Iraq and Syria.

No one can say how the Middle East would have turned out if the Western powers had butted out after the Great War and let the Arabs, Kurds, and others find their own way in the modern world. But treating the indigenous populations like children cannot have advanced the cause of peaceful civilization.

It’s no exaggeration to say that virtually every current problem in the region stems at least in part from the imperial double cross and carve-up that took place after the war. And the immediate results of the European betrayal were then exacerbated by further acts of intervention and neocolonialism, most recently: President George H. W. Bush’s Gulf War and embargo on Iraq; President Bill Clinton’s continued embargo and bombing of Iraq; President George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq and overthrow of the secular regime of Saddam Hussein (al-Qaeda, of which the Islamic State is an offshoot, was not in Iraq before this); President Barack Obama’s support (until recently) for the corrupt, autocratic Shi’ite government in Baghdad; and Obama’s throwing in with those seeking to oust secular Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, which made that country a magnet for radical Sunni jihadis, the same who are now threatening genocide against Shi’ites, Christians, and Yazidis in Iraq. (Thus Obama’s policy is at war with itself.)

History alone does not tell us what, if anything, outside powers should do now; there’s no going back in time. But we can say that without foreign interference, even a violent evolution of the region might have been far less violent than it has been during the last century. At least, the violent factions would not be seeking revenge against Americans.

The rise of the brutal Islamic State, with its unspeakable violence against innocents, is an appalling but unsurprising outcome of the last 100 years, including seven decades of neocolonialist American intervention. This suggests that U.S. intervention at this stage will only come to grief by boosting anti-American jihadi recruitment and even encouraging the targeting of Americans at home. Wars never go as planned. After all this time, any so-called “humanitarian” intervention will be interpreted in imperialist terms — and should be.

The U.S. government must get out of Iraq (etc.). Intervention not only violates the rights of Americans; it is sure to exacerbate the violence in that pitiable region.

What Obama Says with His Bombs

Jason Lee Byas — Mon, 11 Aug 2014 18:00:48 +0000

On August 7th, President Obama announced his authorization of targeted strikes over Iraq in order to quell the ongoing Islamic State offensive. Just as important are the statements his administration has made through the actions that followed. The bombs actually started to fall on Friday, announcing without words that the US government’s policy of actively managing Iraqi affairs from afar is far from over.

This reminder is unsurprising. Throughout Iraq’s history, western powers have always stood over its shoulders, issuing their own demands for their own purposes. Ever since its birth, Iraq has been a prime example of why foreign interventions almost always create more problems than they solve.

For instance, the current chaos in Iraq is a direct result of the 2003 invasion that toppled Saddam Hussein. Going further back, Saddam Hussein’s crimes were aided by a US government that sold him chemical weapons, which he then infamously used against the Kurds. In fact, much of the nation’s ethnic tensions can be blamed on the arbitrary borders drawn by the British after defeating the Ottoman Empire in the First World War.

Obama assures us that he “will not allow the United States to be dragged into another war in Iraq,” acknowledging that “there’s no American military solution to the larger crisis in Iraq.” Yet as his actions show, what counts as a solution will be determined by terms laid down by him and the government he represents.

Even if he keeps his word and does not issue another full-scale invasion, he still presumes the right to dictate Iraq’s future. Iraq is still the property of the United States.

A second unspoken message has been the disregard for whatever human life happens to be in the way of operations carried out by the United States military. Obama is right to condemn the truly horrifying crimes committed by ISIL in the harshest terms possible. Even so, this is not an excuse for his administration to begin slaughtering innocents on its own through the inevitable collateral damage.

No matter how precisely “targeted” these strikes really are, completely innocent people will be a part of the body count. Of course, those deaths come as a regretted, unintentional, undesired side-effect of the strikes, which are aimed at ISIL combatants. However, because modern warfare is such that these deaths will not be of an insubstantial number, and because they can be predicted to happen with near certainty, it is not overstating things to say that this is still murder.

Just as the news of continued American hegemony is no shock, no one should be surprised to learn that the United States government will incinerate innocents in large numbers without impunity. While asserting its claim to strike wherever it wants whenever it wants, the United States government has killed over 2,400 people in the past five years alone with its drone program.

There is another thing that Obama opted not to say, but can be heard loud and clear from his actions, of which the American people should take special note. No matter what commendable values you think a politician holds, you can count on power to push them elsewhere.

The United States government’s long campaign of chaos in Iraq has been a thoroughly bi-partisan project. Under Democrat John F. Kennedy, the CIA took actions to overthrow unfriendly leaders. Republicans Ronald Reagan and George Herbert Walker Bush sold Saddam Hussein the weapons he would use against his own people, before Bush invaded the country in the First Gulf War. Democrat Bill Clinton spent the 90s starving children with sanctions, dropping bombs, and officially changing United States’s Iraq policy to one of regime change.

In 2003, Republican George Walker Bush actualized that policy, by initiating the Second Gulf War. As Americans grew to hate that war more and more, two Democratic Presidential candidates in a row ran campaigns that heavily capitalized off calls for peace.

Now those candidates are in positions to actually decide U.S. policy in Iraq: John Kerry as Secretary of State, and Barack Obama as President. With that power, they have decided to send in military personnel, drop bombs, and maintain American dominance.

Having heard all this, the American people must start to make a statement of their own. They must refuse to fight.

Knowing that the United States military will be used for aggression and domination, no matter who controls it, they must refuse to join. Moreover, they must do all they can to work toward the day when Presidents and Secretaries of State are deprived of the voice they need to make their threats and stake their claims.

Iraq: Endless Imperial Surgery

Brian Nicholson — Sun, 10 Aug 2014 18:00:22 +0000

U.S. bombs fall on Iraq yet again, in strikes authorized by Barack Obama against the militant Islamist group Islamic State, which has taken over a chunk of the country. Between this and the deployment of US military “advisers,” the memory of Obama’s campaign criticizing war in Iraq on his way to office has grown a thick layer of moss. Yet again, faith placed in leaders, in government, to represent any interest but their own is dashed on the rocks of reality.

Curiously, along with the usual “more and faster, please!” screams from the likes of Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, another current of pro-war advocacy has bubbled up: They claim a “Responsibility To Protect,” spun as a debt incurred from the 2003 Iraq invasion and its fallout.

The train of thought is that the U.S.’s (continued) involvement in Iraq is owed because the emergence of sectarian warfare is, after all, the fault of the US post-Saddam. The arrogantly militaristic Can Do spirit at use here is clear enough already, but this also inherently comes with a rather clipped understanding of basic history. The story of western interference in Iraq does not start with the falsehoods of the “W” Bush Administration. In fact, the modern nation of Iraq itself was stitched together originally as a protectorate under the British, from pieces of the Ottoman Empire broken up after World War One. After the passing of the torch of hegemony from Britain to the U.S., one of the first things the U.S. government did in Iraq was back a coup by the Baathists — including one Saddam Hussein — in 1963. Later on, the CIA would aid Saddam’s regime in chemical weapons attacks.

Turning on the US’s own creation in the ’90s brought more war, sanctions that clearly hit Iraqi civilians much harder than anyone in the regime, and then the invasion and subsequent installation of yet another western client government.

Looking back at the “debt” rationale for new intervention in light of the full record of the past, the naive nature of it is blinding. Following it to the letter effectively places a debt going back nearly a hundred years. However, the currency being proposed for exchange is not the profuse apology & restitution that would take place on the level of non-state individuals, but bombs, missiles, and manipulation. That these make up the initial damage reveals the “offer” of supposed benevolent empire to be a sick joke. What is owed to the Iraq people by the U.S. government, after all this time of bloodshed and lies, is admission of guilt, followed by an exit from the world stage, head held low in shame.

In a nod to recent history, the beginning strikes in this ongoing chapter of empire were launched from the aircraft carrier USS George H.W. Bush. Without the end of U.S. hegemony, attainable only via the end of the state itself, news viewers may be greeted in 2044 by headlines about President Sasha Obama launching airstrikes on Iraq from the USS John Ellis Bush.

Si Difenda l’Ambasciata da Solo, Signor Presidente

Cory Massimino — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 11:00:28 +0000

Appena tre anni dopo aver ridotto la sua presenza in Iraq, gli Stati Uniti stanno mandando nuovamente le truppe. In risposta alle conquiste fatte dal gruppo jihadista Isis nella sua ultima offensiva, il presidente americano Barack Obama sta mandando in Iraq 275 soldati per “fornire supporto e sicurezza al personale e all’ambasciata americana di Bagdad.”

In un comunicato della Casa Bianca del 13 giugno, Obama evidenziava che “noi non manderemo nuovamente soldati a combattere.” Alcuni osservatori speravano che Obama evitasse gli errori commessi dal suo predecessore. Ma il lunedì seguente Obama, in una lettera allo speaker della camera John Boehner, annunciava: “stiamo spiegando questa forza, equipaggiata per combattere, con l’obiettivo di proteggere cittadini e beni americani” (corsivo aggiunto).

Parole evasive. L’Isis ha fatto capire che non si fermerà davanti a nulla, meno che mai davanti all’uccisione di 275 soldati americani, per prendere il controllo dell’Iraq. Il presidente lo sa. L’invio di truppe ha più probabilità di aggravare il conflitto che di attenuarlo. Obama sta mandando questi soldati a combattere, non importa cosa sostiene in pubblico. Se Obama vuole proprio difendere l’ambasciata americana a Bagdad, propongo che ci vada lui in persona.

Prenda un fucile e si metta davanti all’ambasciata, signor presidente.

Cosa è successo alla dichiarazione “non manderò truppe a combattere”? Sono bastati quattro giorni perché Obama cambiasse idea. Obama ha poi aggiunto: “Questa forza rimarrà in Iraq finché le condizioni della sicurezza non si evolveranno al punto che la sua presenza sarà superflua.” Come farà a capire che sarà superflua non l’ha specificato.

È improbabile che l’Isis smetta casualmente di fare violenza in tutto l’Iraq. Questo è un gruppo così estremista che è stato espulso dalla rete globale di al Qaeda. Cacciato via da al Qaeda! E ora sta sistematicamente e violentemente prendendo il controllo dell’Iraq, e il piano di Obama prevede l’invio di un contingente militare “finché le condizioni della sicurezza non si evolveranno al punto che la sua presenza sarà superflua”. Come se 275 soldati fossero sufficienti a fermare l’Isis. Come se l’Isis non fosse un’organizzazione irragionevole e assassina che continuerà i suoi attacchi alla faccia di quei 275 soldati.

Nessun calendario delle operazioni. Nessuna dichiarazione sulla missione. Nessuna strategia d’uscita. Vi ricorda qualcosa?

Spesso Obama parla come un presidente non-interventista. A volte parla come un leader che ama la pace. Ha anche ricevuto il premio Nobel per la pace. Ma le sue azioni dicono più delle sue parole. E le sue azioni sono semplicemente una rielaborazione delle politiche precedenti, dall’intensificazione degli attacchi con i droni ai colpi di mano in Afganistan alle scuse inventate per uccidere cittadini americani all’estero alle accresciute violazioni dell’intimità personale a casa con la scusa dell’antiterrorismo. Il secondo mandato di Obama è in realtà il quarto di Bush.

Invece di mandare quasi trecento soldati incontro al rischio secondo un “piano” malaccorto e miope, il presidente dovrebbe essere abbastanza coraggioso da andare lì di persona. Ehi, se le truppe hanno soltanto “compiti di supporto e sicurezza” (qualunque cosa significhi), come ha detto l’addetto stampa, qual è il problema?

Dopo la lettera di Obama a John Boehner, l’ufficio stampa ha rilasciato una dichiarazione che diceva: “l’ambasciata americana a Bagdad resta aperta, gran parte del personale resta sul posto e l’ufficio sarà equipaggiato con l’occorrente per la sua missione di sicurezza nazionale.”

Ma perché abbiamo un’ambasciata a Bagdad? Invece di mandare altre persone a proteggere l’ambasciata contro terroristi violenti, il presidente dovrebbe riportarle a casa, queste persone. Dovremmo chiudere l’ambasciata e smettere di ficcare il naso negli affari iracheni.

Meglio ancora, se si riportano a casa tutte le truppe e le si esonera dal servizio, e il complesso industriale militare viene drenato di tutte le risorse che ha rubato, l’imperialismo americano brutale e senza fine cesserebbe. Se la difesa fosse affidata ad associazioni volontarie e a ditte che operano sul mercato, tutte le inutili interferenze negli affari di altri paesi cesserebbero. Quando rispondono ai consumatori e ai loro proprietari, le organizzazioni, a differenza dello stato, non intervengono perché sarebbe troppo costoso e controproducente.

Venerdì tredici giugno, Obama giustamente ha detto: “in ultima istanza, spetta all’Iraq come nazione sovrana risolvere i suoi problemi.” Ora, se solo Obama ascoltasse l’Obama di venerdì.

Traduzione di Enrico Sanna.

Defend the Embassy Yourself, Mr. President

Cory Massimino — Wed, 02 Jul 2014 18:00:27 +0000

Just three years after winding down its presence in Iraq, the United States is sending troops back in. In response to the gains made by jihadist group ISIS in its recent offensive, US president Barack Obama is sending 275 troops to Iraq to “provide support and security for US personnel and the US Embassy in Baghdad.”

In a White House statement on June 13, Obama stressed, “We will not be sending troops back into combat.” Observers hoped that Obama would avoid the mistakes of his predecessor. But on the following Monday, Obama announced in a letter to Speaker of the House John Boehner, “this force is deploying for the purpose of protecting US citizens and property, if necessary, and is equipped for combat.” [Emphasis added]

That’s meaningless evasion. ISIS has shown it will stop at nothing, let alone at killing 275 American troops, to take over Iraq. The president must know this. Sending troops is more likely to escalate the conflict than calm it. Obama is sending these troops to fight, no matter what he publicly claims he’s doing. If Obama wants to defend the United States Baghdad embassy so badly, I propose he go there himself.

Pick up a gun and stand in front of the embassy yourself, Mr. President.

What happened to “not sending troops into combat?” It only took four days for Obama to change his mind. Obama continued, “This force will remain in Iraq until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.” How that will be determined he did not specify.

ISIS is not likely to randomly stop its rampage across Iraq. This is a group so extreme that it was expelled from al Qaeda’s global network — kicked out of al Qaeda! Now this same group is systematically and violently taking over Iraq, and Obama’s plan is to send in a military force “until the security situation becomes such that it is no longer needed.” As if 275 troops will be enough to make ISIS stop. As if ISIS wasn’t an insane, murderous organization that will continue its attacks in the face of these 275 soldiers.

No timetable. No mission statement. No end-game. Does this sound familiar?

Obama often sounds like a non-interventionist president. He sometimes sounds like a peace-loving leader. He even received the Nobel Peace Prize. But his actions speak louder than his words. And his actions are merely a re-hashing of previous policies, from increased drone strikes abroad to troop surges in Afghanistan to manufactured justifications for murdering US citizens in foreign countries to ramped up domestic, counter-terrorism privacy violations. Obama’s second term is basically Dubya’s fourth.

Rather than sending nearly 300 soldiers into harm’s way in a misguided, short-sighted “plan,” the president ought to be courageous enough to go himself. Hey, if the troops will merely be in a “support and security role” (whatever that means), like the press secretary said, what’s the big deal?

Following Obama’s letter to John Boehner, the press secretary released a statement saying, “the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad remains open, and a substantial majority of the U.S. Embassy presence in Iraq will remain in place and the embassy will be fully equipped to carry out its national security mission.”

Why do we have an embassy in Baghdad anyway? Rather than sending more people to protect the embassy in the face of violent terrorists, the president ought to bring people back home. He should close the embassy and stop meddling in Iraq’s affairs.

Better yet, if all the troops were brought home and relieved of duty, and the military industrial complex was drained of all its stolen resources the endless, evil imperialism by the United States military would cease. If defense was left to voluntary associations and firms in a competitive marketplace, this needlessly meddling in other country’s affairs would cease. Organizations that are held accountable to consumers and proprietors, unlike the State, would find it entirely too costly and counterproductive.

On Friday, June 13, Obama correctly stated, “ultimately it’s up the Iraqis as a sovereign nation to solve their problems.” I just wish Monday’s Obama had listened to Friday’s Obama.

Translations for this article:

Italian, Si Difenda l’Ambasciata da Solo, Signor Presidente.