The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi] Assembling the Coalition of the Willing/The Invasion of Iraq is already underway

I. Assembling the Coalition of the Willing
II.The invasion of Iraq is already underway

I. Assembling the Coalition of the Willing

Over the summer the Bush administration's claim of international support for
an invasion of Iraq, a "Coalition of the Willing," seemed a far-fetched
projection. The compliant US press corps politely neglected to ask for the
membership list of the coalition. No one mentioned Vice-President Cheney's
March trip to the Middle East, where every major Arab leader publicly
rejected the US invasion plan. The sole public member of the "alliance"
against Iraq remained the long-time partner of the airwar on Iraq: Tony
Blair's Britain.

Six months later things have changed.

In October the US Congress voted for war with Iraq. On November 8 all fifteen
members of the UN Security Council voted for Resolution 1441, a unanimous
condemnation of Iraq. And if there was an outstanding question as to this
body's determination to ignore the human rights of the Iraqi people, the UN
Security Council last week once again accommodated Washington and voted 13 -
0 to tighten sanctions!

Many political leaders in the US and around the world promoted the US
"working through the UN" to "slow" the US movement towards war with Iraq. But
over the past twelve years the UN has been the preferred political forum to
legitimize US aggression against Iraq. As the Democratic Party leadership
repeatedly reminds us, (many of them veterans of the Clinton war years) the
strategy of working through the UN has been a boon to winning other nations
to war against Iraq. Michael Donovan, an analyst at the private Center for
Defense Information observes "When the (Bush) administration invested in the
inspections process and decided to go the route of the United Nations, that's
what a lot of these countries needed to hear..."  "The inspections process
was the political cover they required for even quiet support of an operation
like this." (Associated Press, 23rd December) The UN disarmament campaign
against Iraq has been the essential component in the political campaign to
gather international support for the US war.

In November Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said the administration has
approached about 50 countries. "Some have said they will help a lot, some
have said a little," Rumsfeld said. "Some have asked that what they are
prepared to do be kept confidential." According to the AP report the current
Washington-led war alliance includes Britain, Australia, Canada, and "now
includes Iraq's northern neighbor, Turkey; other NATO allies such as Italy,
Spain, Denmark and Portugal; and Arab states including Kuwait and Qatar." The
Japanese parliament is currently discussing committing military forces to
post-invasion duty in Iraq. (Reuters, 21st December) And finally, not to be
left out of the gang rape of Iraq, the French now want in. President Chirac
yesterday called for additional troops to be prepared for deployment, and
noted that "alas, other theatres [than the Ivory Coast] could open up," a
reference to Iraq." (PI, 1-8-03)

The winning of Europe to the US war plan has been decisive. Until the recent
NATO conference the most obvious expression of European sentiment on the
question of the US war was the German election campaign of SPD candidate
Gerhard Schröder. He pledged no German support for the US war against Iraq
and won by a significant margin. The election victory raised the potential of
a European opposition challenging Washington's war program. But once in
office the German Social Democratic Party dropped its idealistic "antiwar"
campaign rhetoric to accommodate itself to the imperialist war agenda. In his
New Year's address, the chancellor said: "We Germans know from experience
that sometimes only violence can stop dictators." As in 1914, the antiwar
movement is again betrayed by the German Social Democratic Party. Civilized,
democratic Europe is now lined up behind Washington's war scheme.

On December 26 NATO's Secretary General Lord Robertson asserted the military
alliance has a "moral obligation" to support a United States-led war on Iraq.
At the recent NATO conference the cash-starved eastern European republics
eagerly lined up behind the US war effort. These nations hope to follow the
NATO development model of Poland. While the country can no longer keep its
shipyards open, it can afford to spend $3.5 billion to purchase 48
Lockheed-Martin F-16's. Washington padded Lockheed Martin's F-16 bid with the
offer of a $3.8 billion loan to Poland with repayment terms of up to 15
years, and "U.S. officials have argued that their financial plan is flexible
and will depend on Poland's payment ability." (December 28, 2002 Washington
Post) Hungary is providing their Taszar military base for Iraqi exiles to be
trained to support US military forces invading Iraq. Czech units are already
part of the invasion exercises in Kuwait. "To the east NATO candidates
Romania and Bulgaria are said to have offered domestic bases, airspace and
Black Sea ports." (Philadelphia Inquirer 1-8-03)

II. The invasion of northern Iraq is already under way ...and it IS about oil.

The US press has noted the ongoing negotiations over the use of Turkish bases
needed to dispatch US troops directly into northern Iraq. What they have
neglected to point out is that Turkey is to accompany US troops into the
oil-rich region. The central feature of the occupation of northern Kurdish
Iraq is its bilateral character. It is a coordinated US /Turkish operation.
US and Turkish forces are positioning themselves to seize the strategic Iraqi
cities of Kirkuk and Mosul. Iraq's northern oilfields, with its refining and
pumping facilities are the prize of this military campaign.

For weeks now the US has acknowledged the intervention of US Special
Operations and the CIA into northern Iraq. Alongside the US intervention is
the Turkish military build up in Iraq. The December 27, 2002 Christian
Science Monitor quotes observations of a Kurdish political activist Ayup
Tanis, in eastern Turkey, "We have seen hundreds of trucks and thousands of
troops coming through here. Over the last 15 days, they've been coming,
especially in the evenings and nights, and then passing through to Iraq."
Within the northern "no-fly-zones" the Turkish military incursion enjoys
aircover provided by the USAF and the British Royal Air Force that control
the skies of northern Iraq. The Jan 7, 2003 AP reports "Turkey has doubled
its military strength in northern Iraq to 12,000 soldiers." The Turkish
invasion of Iraq is already underway.

Last month the NY Times described the current Turkish invasion plans, signed
in October by then Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit. It called for the Turkish
military to establish 18 "refugee camps" designed to hold 275,000 Iraqi
Kurds. Its most noteworthy feature was the proposed location of twelve of the
camps INSIDE northern Iraq. (New York Times, 23rd November, TURKS, FEARING

Turkey as a longstanding NATO ally (and military ally of Israel) is an
essential regional partner in the war on Iraq. Its Islamic heritage is an
invaluable asset to Washington's occupation plans. The recent rise of the
Islamic party appears to have had no effect on the expansionist ambitions of
the Turkish generals.

US secret diplomacy has arranged for the Turks to play a decisive role in
northern Iraq, especially in regard to the Iraqi Kurds. The Turkish daily
Milliyet December 21 quoted, "one Western diplomat as saying that the US gave
a guarantee to Turkey concerning the red lines which the US will observe,
which include not permitting the foundation of a Kurdish state in Northern
Iraq after Saddam's administration, and not permitting the "ethnic" groups to
use the natural resources in Karkouk and al-Mousel."

The "natural resource" referred to here is oil. Lots of it. *
Iraqi oil from the Kirkuk field currently runs via pipeline through Turkey
(mandated by the UN) to the Mediterranean. From there it goes where? You
guessed it. Last year oil from Iraq comprised a full 8.5% of all US oil
imports. Under the UN sanctions scheme the US gets oil from Iraq, but the
catch is, Iraq doesn't get paid for it. Iraq has to apply to the hostile UN
Security Council for its money.

It remains a secret where the US and Turkish officials have arranged to draw
the "redlines" in northern Iraq. The Turkish/US alliance is designed to
militarily block the Kurdish move to economic independence. Keeping the Iraqi
Kurds from their claim of the oilfields of Kirkuk and Mosil ensures there
will be no Kurdistan in northern Iraq. In the "regime change" invasion plan
the oilfields of northern Iraq are no longer to be held by either Iraqi or
Kurdish forces. They are the losers. The spoils of imperialist war are
intended for the victors.

March to end the 12 year war on Iraq, January 18 in Washington DC.

Bob Allen,
Campaign to End the Sanctions
Philadelphia Pa

* The 1992 CIA map detailing the location of Iraqi oilfields is located at:
and the ethnoreligious make up of the country is illustrated at:


Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]