|
Friday,
August 3, 2012. Chaos and violence continue, Nouri goes nuts over
Turkey, his backup singers shimmy behind him and ooh and ahh about
suicide, arrests and all things 'evil' about Turkey, depleted uranium
gets some press attention, the VA's interesting contract practices are
discussed in Congress, and more.
A
power-sharing agreement brokered in November 2010 at Erbil among Iraq's
key political actors was meant to establish a balanced coalition
government, in which key executive branch posts were to be distributed
among the main parties in rough proportion to their electoral strength. A
newly created National Council for Strategic Policy was also meant to
broaden representation in policymaking beyond the cabinet. The resulting
checks and balances, it was thought, would prevent the government from
adopting extreme positions by requiring compromise policies acceptable
to all the major stakeholders.
Since then, however, Maliki's
critics claim he has ignored the Erbil agreement, instead accruing
excessive power, bypassing the Iraqi constitution and bringing under his
personal control the country's other political institutions, including
the judiciary, federal agencies and the nominally independent election
and integrity commissions and central bank.
He has also placed
many key national security posts in the hands of his supporters,
appointing many senior police, military and intelligence officers
without parliament's approval, while seeming to exercise undue influence
on their activities. The judgments of the supposedly neutral
Constitutional Court also consistently favor the government.
Furthermore,
Maliki and his allies have blocked the creation of the aforementioned
strategic council in parliament and refused to hold referenda in
governorates whose provincial councils were seeking to become federal
regions to increase their autonomy from Baghdad.
Again,
it's a very strong overview. (My own personal favorite observation?
"Finally, to reassure his critics, he has sometimes stated that he may
not run for a third term in national elections scheduled for 2014.")
The thing about Nouri is that once he unleashes the crazy, he can't reel
it back in, he can't bottle it up. Which explains the latest
development in the Baghdad-based government's attempt to be a 'good
neighbor.' Barry Malone (Reuters) reports,
"Iraq made a formal protest to Turkey's envoy in Baghdad on Firday
after the Turkish foreign minister made a surprise visit to an oil-rich
Iraqi city claimed by both the central government and the country's
autonomous Kurdistan region."
Huh? Who knew
Iraq had it's own Area 51, off-limits to all. But, wait, it's Kirkuk. A
city in the province of Kirkuk, where an estimated 388,000 people
live. And it's not a gated community. People travel in and out of
Kirkuk freely. But let a Turkish official touring northern Iraq visit
the city and Nouri's uncapping the crazy.
The
backstory: Turkey's Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu arrived in Erbil
on Wednesday and continued his visit on Thursday by visiting various
parts of the KRG and, most 'controversially' for Baghdad, Kirkuk.
Kirkuk is a disputed region with both the KRG and Baghdad claiming it.
(How to solve the issue? Article 140 of the Constitution explains it.
But that census and referendum was supposed to be instituted by the end
of 2007, per the Constitution, and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki
refused to do so and continues to refuse to do so.)
Davutolgu
visited leaders of Kirkuk's Turkmen community, with which Ankara has
long had close ties, as well as religious and historical sites including
the city's Ottoman cemetery.
Turkmen
Front head Arshad al-Salehi said: "Turkmen should work to enhance
relations with Turkey, and Shiites with Iran, and Sunnis with Gulf
countries."
The front's deputy
leader, Ali Hashem Mukhtar Oglu, said Davutoglu was the highest-ranking
Turkish official to visit the city in decades.
Ties between Iraq and Turkey have been marred by a flurry of disputes this year.
In
July, Iraq warned Ankara against "any violations" of its territory and
airspace, and instructed the foreign ministry to register a complaint at
the UN Security Council, after Turkish jets bombed Kurdish rebels in
Kurdistan.
A few days earlier,
Iraq called on Turkey to stop accepting "illegal" transfers of crude oil
from Kurdistan, which an official from the region said had begun
earlier in the month.
Sapa-AFP note
that in the meeting between the Turkish ambassador to Iraq and the
Iraqi government, it was conveyed to Iraq that "Turkey has no secret
agenda." Nouri's paranoia being what it is, that reassurance most
likely meant very little.
Nouri unleashed the dogs. Al Mada reports
that today the Ministry of Health announced that there have been seven
suicides -- all under 16-years-old -- as a result of a Turkish soap
opera. Also today State of Law's Abdul Salam al-Maliki is stomping his
feet. All Iraq News reports
that he is demanding that the Arab League condemn the visit by the
Turkish Foreign Minister and that the Arab League call the visit a
breach of Iraq's sovereignty. The KRG should actually pay Nouri
al-Maliki's State of Law political slate a monthly fee. These little
tantrums by State of Law are like a mini-advertisement: "Come to the
Kurdistan where adults are in charge." You have to wonder if Nouri gets
how stupid his slate makes Iraq look? On the world stage, State of Law
is a joke. al-Monitor notes, "According to Rudaw News Agency, parliamentarian Abdulhadi el Hassan from Maliki's party said: 'Turkey is blatantly interfering in Iraq's internal affairs. The Turkish embassy should be closed down. We have the right to detain Davutoglu'."
KUNA reports,
"Turkey's foreign ministry Friday summoned Iraqi Ambassador in Ankara
to protest against Iraqi criticism over Turkish foreign minister Ahmet
Davutoglu's visit to Kirkuk." Alsumaria notes
that Iraqiya (the political slate that came in first in the March 2010
elections) has called on Nouri's government to lower the rhetoric and
stop escalating the situation. Hurriyet Daily News reports Davutoglu met today with Ayad Allawi (head of Iraqiya).
Is
it any wonder that the KRG is so much more attractive to the
international business community? After all, they don't have to deal
with Crazy Nouri in the KRG. Daniel Graeber (Oil Price) reviews recent deals with the KRG that irk Baghdad:
Iraq,
more than seven years after the first post-Saddam government was voted
in, still lacks effective legislation to govern the oil sector. The
central government in Baghdad considers unilateral oil contracts with
the Kurdistan Regional Government illegal. U.S. supermajors Chevron [CVX 111.12  1.87 (+1.71%)  ] and Exxon Mobil [XOM 87.55 1.67 (+1.94%) ]
were blacklisted by Baghdad for making deals with Kurdish authorities.
In April, the Kurdish government retaliated by blocking oil exports but
has since sent some shipments over the border to Turkey. Despite the
political infighting, French majors Total and Marathon Oil locked step
in the Kurdish north. Total, in a statement, said it was looking for
"new opportunities" in Iraq. (More: Investing Lessons in One of the World's Most Volatile Sectors)
That
move brought additional fire from Baghdad. A spokesman for the energy
ministry said the central government would "punish" companies that made
deals without Baghdad's consent, warning Total it could face "severe
consequences" for its actions.
Maybe
it was the Kurds announcing a few days ago that they had no problem
with the US making efforts to assist Iraq with its ongoing political
crisis but Nouri's government lately has made clear that they're not
pleased with either the US or the KRG. Al Mada reports
that insiders in Nouri's Cabinet are stating that the rebuffing by the
Interior Ministry on police training by the US is only the first step
and that they are/will be making it clear that the government has little
desire to work with or have a relationship with the US government. A
quote from the article: "Iraq is capable of moving forward without the
United States and is no longer needs its assistance in either
construction or development." Apparently, yesterday's phone call with US Vice President Joe Biden did not go as well as Nouri would have liked.
Violence continues today in Iraq. AFP reports
that a Dhuluiyah roadside bombing has claimed the lives of 4 Iraqi
soldiers and left four more injured while a Baquba checkpoint was
attacked resulting in the deaths of 4 police officers with two more left
injured. In addition to those two incidents today, KUNA reports
that late last night there was an attack in al-Rutba in which 2 police
officers were killed and two more injured by assailants (three of which
were injured in the battle). Sinan Salaheddin (AP) reports
that "three drive-by shootings in Baghdad" today resulted in the
deaths of 3 Iraqi soldiers and 2 police officers with five soldiers and
six police officers left injured. Mohammed Tawfeeq (CNN) observes,
"The unrest coincides with an emerging political crisis, with Shiite,
Sunni and Kurdish political blocs increasingly at odds in the fractious
legislature. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, who is Shiite, has struggled
to forge a power-sharing agreement and has yet to fill key Cabinet
positions, including the ministers of defense, interior and national
security."
Raed Jarrar: The
second attack on Falluja happened in 2004 and this was the years where
the US actuallly used very heavy military weapons to attack the entire
country. I was in Iraq in 2003 and 2004 and went around the country
before the attack on Falluja and after documenting the US use of
depleted uranium. I think Iraqis were not very familiar with the
dangers of depleted uranium. I documented many cases of kids playing
inside tanks that were by DU bullets.
Shihab Rattansi: Now, of course, the US has denied using DU in the Iraq War -- in the second Iraq War at least.
Raed
Jarrar: I mean, in many cases, it is very much documented. They denied
it in the first war and then after that it was documented. And in the
second war, I think there are so much documentation --
Shihab Rattansi: Is the documentation of DU or simply elevated radiation?
Raed
Jarrar: Both. So I've found -- I've personally found documented many
DU bullets and DU bullet entry points into tanks and [. . .] of course,
elevated radiation. The DU radiation is very limited so it's usually
around a foot from where the DU bullet punctured the tank. And the
radiation there was between 2,000 and 10,000 percent
Shihab
Rattansi: We'll get back to that discussion in a moment because I
think there might be a discussion about what's -- if there is uranium
being used, if it is indeed depleted uranium. And we'll get back to
that later on. But as far as that second assault on Falluja occurred, I
mean just remind us what happened. There was basically an evacuation
order given.
Raed Jarrar: So there was
another first attack on Falluja that failed [April 2004]. And there was
another attempt to go in. And they gave evacuation orders to many
Iraqi civilians, many people, hundreds of thousands, left the city and
everyone knew that the entire town would be destroyed. Now, of course,
the promise was at that time that the US will go get rid of all of the
bad guys and rebuild the city. Now, of course, that did not happen. We
saw a total destruction of Falluja and the use of so many
unconventional weapons. But then after that no reconstruction was --
Shihab Rattansi: How many people were behind during that assualt?
Raed
Jarrar: No one knows the exact numbers because it wasn't documented.
But there were at least tens of thousands of left behind.
And there was some 'documentation.' The New York Times' Dexter Filkins won a little prize for his 'documentation.'
I wasn't aware there was a See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil
prize for journalism but then again the profession's in shambles these
days. So Dexy's prize winning feature took many, many days to appear in
print. Apparently the US military vetting Dexy's copy didn't feel any
pressing deadline. You know what might be worst than a Go-Go Boy in the
Green Zone (whose antics ended there ended his marriage)? The idiots
like Tom Hayden and Terry Gross who fawn over the Look The Other Way
When War Crimes Go Down Boy. Click here to check out the photo of Falluja by Jahi Chikwendiu ( Washington Post). It kicks off a Falluja photo essay.
Still on violence, and consider it the laugh of the day, Kitabat reports
that Ali Musa Daqduq being deported to the US (see yesterday's
snapshot) was turned down by the Iraqi court because they were worried
he might face capital punishment. Iraq holds something of a record with
68 executions in 2011 and they're prepared to top that this year and,
see the July 30th snapshot, have announced 196 more individuals they plan to execute.
(New York) – Amnesty International today urged Iraqi authorities to commute
all pending death sentences and impose a moratorium on executions with a
view to abolish the death penalty after the chief of police in the Iraqi
governorate of Anbar announced on Monday a Court of Cassation decision to uphold 196 death sentences in the region.
It is unclear if the sentences have been ratified by the Iraqi presidency yet.
The announcement gave no timeline for carrying out the executions but expressed a hope that it would be soon.
"After
this alarming announcement, Iraqi authorities must move quickly to
commute all death sentences and declare a moratorium on executions
across the country," said Philip Luther, Middle East and North Africa Director
at Amnesty International.
"If
the Iraqi authorities carry out these death sentences, they would
nearly quadruple Iraq's already shocking execution record so far this
year."
In the first half of 2012 alone, Iraq executed at least 70 people, which is
already more than the figure for all of last year.
According to Amnesty International's information, in 2011 a total of at least
68 people were executed in Iraq. Around the country, hundreds of others
are believed to remain on death row.
The death penalty was suspended in Iraq after the US-led invasion in 2003
but restored in August 2004. Since then, hundreds of people have been sentenced to death and many have been executed.
Amnesty International opposes the death penalty – the ultimate cruel,
inhuman and degrading punishment – in all cases without exception, as a violation of the right to life.
Amnesty International is a Nobel Peace Prize-winning grassroots activist
organization
with more than 3 million supporters, activists and volunteers in more
than 150 countries campaigning for human rights worldwide. The
organization investigates and exposes abuses, educates and mobilizes the
public, and works to protect people wherever
justice, freedom, truth and dignity are denied.
Back
in December, he called for Deputy Prime Minister Saleh al-Mutlaq to be
stripped of his post. By May, he was making nice with al-Mutlaq and the
push for a vote of no-confidence on al-Mutlaq in Parliament had been
dropped by State of Law. All these weeks later, Al Mada reports, nouri is finally asking Parliament to withdraw his request of a no-confidence vote on al-Mutlaq. This comes as Dar Addustour notes
he's also sent al-Mutlaq a letter asking him to, please, attend the
Cabinet meetings. On the Parliament front, the proposed federal court
law has been bottled up in Parliament for some time due to various
disagreements. Alsumaria reports
that Parliament is planning to vote on the law next week and that they
have agreed on the disputed point -- the number of members of the Court
will be 17 (9 judges, 4 Islamic law scholars and 4 legal experts).
Turning to the United States . . .
Chair
Bill Johnson: And one final question and then we'll move on to my
colleagues, in your analysis -- or your analysis shows that as of April
1, 2012, 60% of the firms listed as eligible in VetBiz had yet to be
verified using this more thorough process, we just talked about that,
and 134 of these firms received a total of 90 million in new VA SDVOSB
contracts during a four month period. So do you still feel that there
is a vulnerability here until all of the firms have been verified under
the new process?
Richard
Hillman: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Consistent with the VA OIG study which
found that for the level of review those that were using the less
rigorous process 70% of the time, upon more detailed review they were
found to be ineligble for the program causes us significant pause and
believe that we need to ensure that the rigorous process is being
followed by all of those within the VetBiz program
Chair
Bill Johnson: And given the fact that we're talking about tens of
millions in this case, a total of 90 million in new contracts during a
four month period, there are millions of dollars -- of tax payer
dollars -- at risk here of going to companies that are ineligible
thereby diminishing the amount of contract awards that should be going
to eligible veteran companies. Would you agree with that?
Richard
Hillman: The VA study, through it's work, determined that for a one
year period of time there were potentially $500 million dollars going to
ineligible firms. And if actions weren't taken to address that
problem, over a 5-year-period of time 2.5 billion dollars would be
provided to ineligible firms.
Chair
Bill Johnson: And given the fact that according to your statement a
few minutes ago that previous experiences that often times even after
they're found ineligible they're allowed to complete those contracts,
we're talking about millions, hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars,
going to ineligible firms that walk away scott free. Correct?
Richard Hillman: Seems that's so.
US
House Rep Jerry McNerny would observe after the exchange, "That was
pretty sobering, Mr. Chairman." And it was. And distrubing to hear
Richard Hillman, with the Government Accountability Office, explain
that, in cases where the VA has determined that a firm is not a veterans
small business and that the company may have been dishonest (even to
the point of fraud), the VA has "allowed [these firms] to complete those
contracts even though they had been found to be uneligible."
It
was Thursday's joint-hearing of the House Veterans Subcommittee on
Economic Opportunity and Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation. Yesterday's snapshot
noted the issue of whether or not the VA was breaking the law and the
VA's interesting concept of what ownership and control of a business
was. In the real world, if you have at least 51% of a business, you
have control of it. In the VA world, not really. This is a very big
issue because veterans who start small businesses and compete for
contracts may find out that they're not a veterans small business . . .
by the VA's definition. The VA's Thomas Leney was the witness we
focused on. Today we look at the second panel made up of GAO's Hillman
and the VA's Office of Inspector General's James O'Neill. We're going
to include two excerpts and they will not instill confidence in how
the VA is handling its small business program.
US
House Rep Jerry McNerney: I think our first panel showed the difficulty
we face in terms of coming up with a non-subjective standard for
awarding veteran statuses to businesses. The 100% control? Clearly,
there was a lot of questions within the Committee. But the fraud issue
is another part of this that we haven't talked about too much. Mr.
Leney was saying that only 5% of applicants tend to be fraud. But my
fear, and I think that's something that you're showing in prior
testiomny, is that that 5% can end up awarding a lot of contracts to
people who are undeserving and should be prosecuted. What -- How much
of a problem do you think fraud is in the overall program, Mr. Hillman?
Richard
Hillman: The work that we have done looking at individual case studies
is not something that we can extrapolate to the universe as a whole to
give you the percent of fraud that we think may exist within the
program. The closest example of that would be a study done by the VA's
OIG [Office of Inspector General] who, in 2011, did a study that was a
statistically valid, random sample projecting the extent to which there
may be fraud within the program. What they found with their study was
-- in a review of 42 firms -- they found that 32 of the 42 or 76% of
those firms were not eligible for the program. Now that study included a
verification process that was the less rigorous process under the 2006
act as well as just a plain self-certification process that was
implemented before the 2006 act. If you look at only those firms that
were included as part of the 2006 verification process, you see a
similar percentage. About ten of fourteen firms that were included in
the VA's OIG sample was found not to be eligible. Or 70% of those
programs, a very comparable percentage.
US
House Rep Jerry McNerney: Well do you think this 100% control standard
is contributing to fraud? Is that a standard that's difficult to verify
in some ways? Is there some way that we can improve that standard in
order to reduce the appeal of fraud to unscrupulous players?
Richard
Hillman: Like Jim has said, in the cases we have examined as part of
our work, there has been very little ambiguity as it relates to an
ownership or control issue -- when we have gone out and conducted our
own investigations. For example, ownership issues are most often
validated associated with the operating agreement -- operating plans --
that exist. And you can document the extent to which on paper the
individual is an owner of the business or not. Control on the other hand
is a much more subjective determination and, uh -- For example,
conversations this morning associated with the fact that if you own 51%
of the company, you can decide to sell that company. You not only own
it but you control it. Well there could be instances in the operating
plan or other agreements with that firm that if the principal decides to
sell that business there's an agreement that they must consult with the
minority owners first to get their agreement. Well that would be a
provision where there was maybe 51% ownership but because of an
operating agreement, not 100% control.
US House Rep Jerry McNerney: Well --
Richard Hillman: So the devil is in the details.
US
House Rep Jerry McNerney: -- that's informative. That's informative
because then ownership is easily -- it's subjective, it's easy to
establish, it means something, everybody can understand it and if people
are committing fraud, then they can be prosecuted. Whereas control is a
much more subjective standard that we're having to try and manage.
Richard
Hillman: In -- In all our cases we have looked at, we've seen
instances and where individuals may be living and working in other
practices 500 miles away. We see instances where they may be receiving a
salary of $12,000 where a minority owner may be receiving a salary of
$80,000. You see examples like these which suggest on paper ownership
exists but control isn't being afforded that leave you to pause. In
those instances, we provide our cases and our case results to the
enforcement organizations and they provide and adjuidcate over those
issues.
US
House Rep Jerry McNerney: So ownership has its own risks then with
regards to somebody just using a veteran on paper and maybe skimming off
some of the profits but not having control. So this is -- this is
still a difficult issue for us.
Richard
Hillman: And there is -- there is -- In addition to ownership issues,
there's also this issue that you just referred to as a pass through
where you do have a service disabled veteran as the owner of the
business but that service disabled veteran may pass that contract
through to an entity that is run by non-veterans or non-service disabled
veterans to manage that activity and, in accordance with provisions of
the program, if they don't handle 50% of that service contract or up to
15% of that contract or related contract then they're not fulfilling the
provisions of the program as well. So the details dictate whether or
not the program is -- is elibable for the program and I think that's --
that is a source of confusion and something that the program has
attempted to clarify.
[. . .]
Chair
Marlin Stutzman: Mr. O'Neal, in your testimony, all of the cases you
cite involved companies that self-certified their status as veteran
owned and controlled. CVE has now installed a more rigorous
verification program to determine whether a company is truly veteran
owned and controlled. Can you tell us how many of your cases -- opened
or closed -- involve companies certified under the more rigorous process
and whether that process is meeting the goals of eliminating most of
the cheaters?
James
O'Neill: No. I can't tell you here. I can give you a written
response. I'd have to do some research but I know of one instance, for
example, where the company had been certified under the more rigorous
standards but it was at the beginning of the process and mistakes were
made in CVE and we -- don't forget, we can execute search warrants, we
can get e-mail, we can uncover evidence of fraud that even the most
rigorous standard applied by CVE won't find. So it's going to happen. I
think it's certainly far fewer cases -- I don't think the number would
exceed 10, I'd be surprised -- I've actually -- our companies that have
passed that level of scrutiny by CVE. But I will respond to you in a
written response.
Chair
Marlin Stutzman: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Hillman, looking at the
highlights, you start off the first paragraph saying that the CVE SDVOSB
program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse. And you mention that
several times. And even with your recommendations, at the conclusion of
the one paragraph, you say GAO made some changes to the report that you
had made after the Veteran Affairs -- after they had challenged some of
them or you guys discussed them but you continue to believe that the
program remains vulnerable to fraud and abuse. Do you feel that the VA
is concerned about this particular program? Are they -- What kind of
response do you get from them when you discuss your concerns about fraud
and abuse? Is it as much of a concern to them as it is a concern to
you?
Richard
Hillman: When you review an organization such as the Veterans
Administration or perhaps even the Small Business Administration, those
entities have largely a role of advocacy and service to those
constituent groups -- either veterans or small businesses. The OSB
function which Mr. Leney operates is also more of a service oriented
function. The idea of having a strong controls environment to help
deter or detect fraud and abuse isn't necessarily part of that DNA. So
when we're going in and evaluating the extent to which a program has
strong prevention controls or detection and monitoring controls or
controls to ensure that the program is taking aggressive actions against
bad actors, we seem to be looking at it with a lens the extent to which
you can identify and address conditions offraud and abuse. That type
of influence -- I believe Mr. Lenny's organization is attempting to
develop through additional training, through additional guidance. But
it really hasn't existed to this same degree that we would have hoped
that it might to date.
Chair Marlin Stutsman: Why do you think that is?
Richard
Hillman: I believe it has an awful lot to do with what the
organization's mission as an advocate for those constituents groups --
in this case veterans -- uh-uh -- The -- uh -- interest in ensuring that
there's strong oversight and protection over the fraud, waste and abuse
angles isn't something that is really what they see as their primary
function.
Chair
Marlin Stutzman: What's your opinion of the VA's process for debarring
companies? Have they set the thresholds high enough? Are more
companies getting denied verification that should be also considered for
debarment? What is your opinion?
Richard
Hillman: The statistics that we have seen show that, over time, the
debarment committee within VA is making more debarment decisions and has
more proposed debarment decisions than they have had in the past. As
of July 26, 2012, there are now 11 SDVOSB [Service-Disabled
Veteran-Owned Small Business Program] cases that have been tried by the
debarment committee, 5 debarments, 6 proposed debarments. And these
debarments when they occur, occur for a four to five year period of
time. They're taking aggressive action in that regard. However, you use
numbers such as five debarments, six proposed and you're seeing many
more being provided to them for their review. The committee itself was
established in September 2010 -- almost two years of activity. I do
believe that is sufficient time for someone to go in and take an
evaluation of how well that Committee has been functioning over that two
year period and what additional steps could possibly be taken with
this.
Chair
Marlin Stutsman: Okay. Last question. Would you think -- Do you think
self-certification was a mistake? Does it open the door for more fraud
and abuse?
Richard
Hillman: Absolutely. The government-wide program which manages 7o
percent of all SDVOSB contracts is largely a self-certification program
and it is very suseptable to fraud and abuse. The VA is the only agency
that has a certification process for service disabled small veterans
business and that has reduced the vulnerability of fraud. We're hoping
that Mr. Lenney will continue to make that level of fraud as low as
possible, commiserate with the cost of establishing controls. And we're
-- we're very concerned about the government-wide program being a
self-certified program and, uh, that is not serving veterans well.
And we'll close with the war on Syria. Alex Lantier (WSWS) notes how a Democrat in the White House allows faux peace types to really go to town getting their War On:
Obama's
reassurance that the US is providing only "non-lethal assistance" to
anti-Assad forces is a cynical lie. The US is waging a brutal civil war
by proxy that has already cost tens of thousands of lives and displaced
hundreds of thousands of people.
Its goal
is to install a US puppet regime in Damascus to isolate and prepare for
war against Iran, remove a potential enemy of Israel, and advance a
broader agenda of complete dominance of the Middle East by US
imperialism. This agenda—pursued in the course of a decade of US wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan and intensified after last year's mass uprisings
in North Africa with wars in Libya and Syria—is deeply unpopular in the
working class in the United States and internationally.
Washington's
covert backing for the Syrian "rebels" lays bare the role of
pro-imperialist pseudo-left groups—like the International Socialist
Organization (ISO) in the US, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in
Britain and the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) in France—which have
promoted the war in Syria. Their "leftism" amounts to nothing more than
giving "left" justifications for the crimes of American and European
imperialism.
The ISO openly declares its support for intervention. In an article by Yusuf Khalil and Lee Sustar in its Socialist Worker
publication, it writes: "The increasing role of the armed struggle
raises the question whether to accept arms and support from the West …
While many in the Syrian revolutionary movement are opposed to US and
Western intervention, they will take whatever help they can get."
| 
No comments:
Post a Comment