FEATURE ESSAY

Victoria Furio

Used by permission of ZH Online (www.zhonline.org).
[8-15-06]

Scripture tells us the story of Yahweh’s outrage at a king’s sending a man into battle based on deception and wrongful desires. Coveting, deceit and murder. The king is none other than David, and his lust for Bathsheba, wife of Uriah, drives him to send her husband into battle to be killed. Deliberately. God angrily demands to know why David has shown such contempt for his Lord. How could a man kill to possess what is not rightly his? And be oblivious to the suffering of a woman who will lose her husband? The punishment Yahweh metes out is so severe that their child is to die and an entire nation is cursed with eternal strife.[1]

If such a sin was so unfathomable, then how would we judge a king who overpowers a nation, driven by wrongful desires, coveting its wealth and position, and sends the kingdom’s sons and daughters into battle for it under false pretenses? What sin could be more despicable than using one’s own children for the king’s illicit gain, exacting the final sacrifice of their lives based on a lie?

We would have to be sure of the facts to make such a judgment.

Three years ago the United States of America entered into war based on false premises. Everyone now knows that none of the claims used to justify invading Iraq were valid. And worst of all, they were not honest mistakes but deliberately contrived to seek the nation’s support. The head of British intelligence most aptly described the campaign in the now-famous Downing Street Memos: "the facts and intelligence" were being "fixed around the policy." None of our intelligence agencies had a shred of evidence that Iraq posed a threat. Reports saying as much were returned for re-write until they "got it right." Classified versions did not match unclassified versions released to the public. The "immanent threat" hammered into our consciousness for over a year about weapons of mass destruction had already been dismantled by United Nations weapons inspectors by 1998.

But our five top administration officials went on a media blitz to market the war, using radio, TV, and public appearances to frighten the public with bogus information, logging in more than 200 false or deliberately misleading statements. Our Secretary of State even went before the United Nations Security Council with the most disgraceful, concocted story of mobile weapons labs, complete with satellite photos and so-called defector reports. To seal the case, we also threw in an unfounded connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda. According to a Zogby poll, 85 percent of U.S. troops in Iraq today still think that the war was in retaliation for Saddam’s supposed role in 9/11.

What was there to gain by this?

Long before the start of hostilities, Halliburton began reaping benefits from the war. In September 2002, its subsidiary, Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) was one billion dollars into a new contract with the Pentagon as it busily built tent cities in Kuwait for 80,000 soldiers.[2] In October 2002, the Pentagon secretly awarded KBR total control over Iraq’s oil fields–marketing as well as repair–once the invasion took place.

Belying the insistence that war would only be a last resort, detailed economic, political and military plans were developed throughout 2002. By February 2003, the Treasury Department had completed its 101-page plan to crack open Iraq’s economy, featuring massive privatizations. The State Department’s "Future of Iraq Project" was meeting with Iraqi exiles, attempting to unite them into a ready-made replacement government. Securing the oilfields immediately upon invasion was high on the Pentagon’s agenda, and it began stationing troops in neighboring countries in January 2003. Before specific projects even existed, USAID had invited a select group of politically connected companies to take part in "reconstruction."

Once on the scene in May 2003, Coalition Provisional Authority chief, L. Paul Bremer, immediately set out to implement the U.S. economic plan. He first abolished virtually all of Iraq’s laws, something not permitted of an occupying power, and began to issue binding decrees, 100 Orders in total, governing everything from tariffs and trade to telephones, banking and the media. The remake aimed to sell off all state enterprises and open the economy to private and foreign ownership. Little did it matter that privatization would mean more unemployment in an economy already in shambles after decades of war and sanctions. Iraq would be a new and exclusive market for U.S. and British companies.

The new Orders suspended tariffs on imports and exports, allowed for 100 percent foreign ownership of Iraqi businesses, placed foreign companies on an equal footing for credit, reduced corporate taxes to a mere 15 percent and permitted them to repatriate 100 percent of their profits "without delay." The result was a central government stripped of income, with local businesses likely to fold, unable to compete with cheap imports. Iraq’s wealth flowed in one direction: out. Bremer’s Orders created a free-market dream that no nation on earth has ever accepted. Even the currency was destroyed.

The next step was to form a government to carry Bremer’s decrees forward. Denying Iraqis an opportunity to discuss and decide their future, Bremer appointed the members of the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) according to their willingness to endorse U.S. plans and retained veto power over all IGC decisions. Selected among those with prior U.S. collaboration, the Council was top-heavy with exiles – unknown to and mistrusted by most Iraqis because of their decades outside the country – members of ethno-religious sects, which did not represent Iraqis as a whole, plus the U.S.-preferred leadership choices, Iyad Allawi and Ahmed Chalabi.[3] Many IGC members relished this opportunity for personal and political gain. Bremer’s imposed timetable for writing a new constitution and elections for a permanent government were designed to form a "legitimate" government as soon as possible, in order to lock in the sweeping economic changes and establish a new oil law. The United States fully intended to see its candidates in permanent posts.

Handing over "sovereignty" one year later, Bremer effectively chose the next interim government, and pushed Allawi into the post of prime minister, violating a U.N. accord. The Coalition chief’s final act before departing in June 2004 was to bequeath the implementation of his edicts to Allawi.

Bremer’s plan for three transitional governments in as many years was designed to streamline U.S. choices for a permanent government with each phase. No government lasting a year or less could possibly be effective. Among many fatal mistakes, divvying up power by religious and ethnic group fueled the fires of today’s sectarian warfare.

Repeated calls by Iraqis for direct elections were rejected throughout Bremer’s tenure until a demonstration of 100,000 people in January 2004 forced the scheduling of the National Assembly elections the following year.

Touted by the Bush administration as a milestone for democracy, the January 2005 National Assembly elections did not meet internationally recognized standards. To begin with, all candidates had to be approved by Bremer. No one rejected by him could run. There were 7,700 candidates on 111 lists mostly grouped by religion, whose names were not revealed until a few days before the election due to fear of attack. There were no international observers, virtually no campaigning because of the danger, except for the lavish U.S.-spending for Allawi, no way to prevent fraud, and the location of polling places was often not known until election day itself.

Nevertheless, with great courage, 58 percent of Iraq’s eligible voters seized the opportunity for even a limited exercise of their rights. Many went to the polls to vote for a withdrawal of occupation forces and to reject the new economic Orders. But close to half the population could not or would not vote. Elections cannot be held in the midst of war, nor run by an occupying power.

Although the United States government hoped to buoy Allawi into the top leadership, he fared poorly in both the January and December 2005 elections. Since both contests were parliamentary elections, Iraqis still have not had a chance to directly elect their president or prime minister. The sectarian interests that initially worked to the United States’ advantage have become a serious liability.

Three years after the invasion, the bulk of the $21 billion in U.S. reconstruction monies had been dispersed but there was little to show for it. Despite the billions taken in by companies like Bechtel, Parsons and Fluor, only a fraction of the promised repair has taken place. Workmanship was in some cases shoddy or non-functional. In May 2006, a congressional inspection team reported that only 6 of 150 health care centers had been completed by one U.S. company, even though 75 percent of the funds had been spent. Iraqis are still desperate for clean water, while raw sewage runs into the streets and rivers, electricity is only available for 11 hours a day at best and hospitals still lack basic supplies and equipment.

Despite a staggering 60 percent unemployment rate, Iraqis were not hired to rebuild, as is the norm in any post-war situation. Halliburton preferred to import South Asian workers at $10 dollars a day with no benefits. By December 2004, UNICEF reported that the number of children suffering acute malnutrition had doubled since the March 2003 invasion. A country that once had one of the highest standards of living in the Middle East with top-notch education and health care had been reduced to rubble, with no signs of recovery.

Pentagon auditors have identified $1.4 billion in questioned costs and unsupported charges ranging from exorbitant fuel import costs to meals not actually served by Halliburton’s KBR. Kellogg, Brown & Root’s exclusive 10-year cost-plus logistics support contract (LOGCAP) allows the company to be reimbursed for all its expenses with no budget ceiling and receive a percentage of those costs as profit. By April 2006 it had racked up $14.8 billion for troop support and $3.6 billion in oil-related services for a whopping total of more than $18 billion dollars. Rep. Henry Waxman reported that Halliburton has been the fastest growing contractor under the Bush Administration, increasing its federal receipts by more than 600 percent between 2000-2005. Posting record year-end profits, Halliburton’s chairman declared, "The year 2005 was the best in our 86-year history."

The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) concluded in January 2006 that tens of millions of dollars had been squandered by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and that approximately $12 billion of Iraq’s oil money was improperly accounted for. The CPA acknowledged that oil exports were not metered. Christian Aid estimated some $4 billion in oil exports went unregistered in 2003 alone. The Coalition had no record of income or expenditures for nearly half of the $20 billion in Development Fund for Iraq (DFI) oil funds, earmarked by the U.N. to benefit Iraqis. The SIGIR found that $8.8 billion channeled to Iraq’s ministries under Bremer has no paperwork; thousands of ghost employees were listed and Iraqi officials were free to hand out hundreds of millions in cash as they pleased. One former CPA official said, "Iraq was awash in cash . . . Piles and piles of money. We played football with some of the bricks of $100 bills before delivery."

The Coalition Authority stalled and then stonewalled its designated U.N. monitors. Upon its dissolution, so went any liability for its actions.

Why would the United States demand a re-write of Iraq’s constitution and on a six-month deadline? What right does a foreign country have to dictate the terms, much less the contents, of another’s constitution?

When U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad saw the first draft declaring social justice as the basis for building society, designating the country’s oil wealth to insure education, health care, housing and social services for the entire population, and forbidding any permanent foreign military presence, he frantically lobbied for changes. Through back-door deals with a handful of pliable legislators he managed to design a new document, gutting all these provisions. The final product hints that health care will be on a paying basis, provides a vague role for a weak, central government and opens the door to regional power over what are rightly national matters, including current oil resources. This dangerous formula paved the way for a break up of the country along ethnic lines. It also allowed U.S. oil companies to negotiate directly with provincial governments, to the convenience of both, and not be subject to tougher national policy.

Bremer’s strict timetable calling for a referendum on the Constitution within 60 days of its completion was also unreasonably short. Most Iraqis never saw a copy of the new document before being forced to vote on it. Khalilzad and a group of self-interested legislators continued to make changes up to the day of the vote, well after the official version had been printed. The United States was adamant that the timetable must be honored and pushed along to the final phase: December 15 elections for a parliament that would, in turn, choose permanent leadership. What was the rush?

Oil is power in and of itself, but acquiring enough reserves to be able to control its price is the real prize. Hold back production, and the price stays high. As the world’s second largest single source of petroleum, gaining Iraq’s reserves not only assured U.S. superiority but also leverage over a good part of the world.

In the fiery destruction that began on March 19, 2003, in which more than 4,000 civilians died or were brutally maimed, most of Baghdad’s ministries were leveled but the Ministry of Oil was spared U.S. bombs. It has since been guarded by Marines, sharpshooters and some 50 U.S. tanks. As interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi dutifully offered guidelines for a new oil law, which allowed private foreign companies to develop all new oil fields–more than 60 of 80 known fields–while the central government remained in control of current fields–about 17. Through this formula, foreign oil companies–read U.S. and UK– could eventually control 81-87 percent of Iraq’s oil. The constitutional revamp was essential to implement this policy change. And the sooner a permanent government was installed, the sooner the anxious companies could sign binding contracts, with petroleum at the top of the list.

A look at U.S. oil giants’ record profits, tripled since 2003, compared to prices at the pump is a portent of what is to come. In 2005, ExxonMobil’s $36 billion in profits was the largest of any U.S. corporation ever, while Royal Dutch Shell set a record in the United Kingdom . Following them are BP, ChevronTexaco and ConocoPhillips. News of the Exxon CEO’s scandalous $48.9 million annual income for 2005 and subsequent annual retirement benefit of $8 million provided a shocking snapshot. The dual goal of profit and regional control is not just coincidence, but one that has been carefully developed over a long time and will be defended, should all else fail, with military might.

Immediately after the U.S. invasion in April 2003, construction began on some 14 "enduring bases." Pentagon planners see at least four of these bases as launch pads for operations not only in the Middle East but anywhere "trouble" arises from North Africa to South Asia, thereby fulfilling Cheney’s 1992 Defense Policy Guidance vision of global U.S. military dominance.[4]  An eventual "withdrawal" of U.S. troops would only shift most of them to the permanent bases, to be instantly available should a future Iraqi government stray from U.S. wishes. Bush Administration officials have never had any intention of leaving.

What is fundamentally wrong here is the notion that one nation has a right to another’s resources, and that they can even be taken by force! This violates the most basic human and divine laws and assures that there will be no peace.

By what moral authority does the United States proclaim itself to be a "liberator" when our government bears major responsibility for the past 40 years of the Iraqis people’s suffering? When the CIA hired Saddam Hussein in 1959 to assassinate Iraq’s prime minister for daring to believe that the country’s oil belonged to Iraq, America staked out its claim on the country. Since then, successions of American leaders have considered Iraq "ours." The United States supported the Butcher of Baghdad for 30 years without a word of criticism. As long as he was the U.S.’s Guardian of the Gulf, the U.S. and Western governments happily armed him to the teeth with material for chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and every missile and jet fighter under the sun. But once he had been disarmed of those very weapons, the time came for full possession.

Blinded by their lust for wealth and power, the king and his court care not that the conquered land is turning to dust. The sin of David has been multiplied not by 1,000 but by 100,000 or 250,000. No one cares how many Iraqis have been killed.

More monstrous yet is the ruler who sends his own sons and daughters into battle, indoctrinated with lies and hatred, to win more gold and power, knowing full well that they may not return. It is surely among the vilest of sins. Every U.S. soldier and every Iraqi citizen lost in this illegal and immoral war has been sacrificed on the altar of Mammon. America’s leaders seek unbridled profit and unilateral control. Coveting, deceit and murder do not equal service to the country, only to those who profit from them.

These policies pursue a false security. No matter how much of the world we conquer, oil and power will not give us life, only death. Destruction and death. God is our only security. And no one who truly knows God could ever glorify such sacrilege, much less claim to have Yahweh’s blessing for it.

Our country’s leadership must turn from this murderous idolatry. The gates of hell have been opened in Iraq. God grant that it may not be too late to close them.

* * *

Victoria Furio served for 15 years as mission personnel for the National Council of Churches and The United Methodist Church in Latin American human rights programs and is currently on staff at Union Theological Seminary in New York. She welcomes requests for further detail on these and other issues concerning the war in Iraq and can be reached at goldenrules05@yahoo.com.

If you have comments on this critique of US policies and actions in Iraq, please send a note, and we'll share your thoughts here.

Notes

[1] 2 Samuel, chapters 11 & 12

[2] As Defense Secretary in 1991, Cheney commissioned a KBR study on the benefits of military outsourcing, which claimed the Pentagon could save hundreds of billions by it. The next year, KBR won the first LOGCAP logistics contract. Cheney went on to become CEO of its parent company, Halliburton, from 1995-2000, during which time Halliburton doubled its government contracts.

[3] Allawi is a former Ba’athist intelligence officer who narrowly escaped assassination in London when Saddam found out he was working for British intelligence. He and Ahmed Chalabi headed up the CIA’s unsuccessful attempts to provoke an army coup between 1991-1996. Chalabi was convicted of bank fraud in Jordan and was the Pentagon’s source of bogus defector stories. Allawi provided Tony Blair’s famous "weapons of mass destruction could reach London in 45 minutes" statement in the run up to the war.

[4] Current U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad authored the first draft of this Defense Policy Guidance, which introduced the concept of "preemptive war" and was a blueprint for the 2003 Iraq invasion.