| Thursday, March 22, 2012.  Chaos and violence continue, Baghdad denies that  Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi's bodyguard was tortured to death, Baghdad  states he was sent to a hospital, as the day progresses, they change that to  "hospitals" (pretend not to notice, the press did), Iraqiya's prepared to bring  up the ongoing political crisis at the Arab League Summit (scheduled for the end  of this month in Baghad), the US Congress hears that DoD can't be successfully  audited because everything is in such disarray, and more.   "The purpose of today's hearing is to review the accuracy of pay to active  service members in the US Army," explained US House Rep Todd Platts in his  written statement this moment as he co-chaired a joint-hearing.  "The hearing  will examine the findings of an audit conducted by the Government Accountability  Office of the Army military payroll accounts for Fiscal Year 2010.  In 2010,  there were nearly 680,000 active duty Army service members whose pay was handled  by the Defense Finance Accounting System, or DFAS, centered in Indianapolis.   GAO conducted its audit of DFAS in order to verify the accuracy and validity of  Army payroll transactions."    Because of various issues with documentation, there's no way for the  Government Accountability Office to truly do an audit. Chair Platts noted in his  written statement, "The Army payroll is also a significant portion of total  Department of Defense.  As a result, the Department of Defense cannot pass an  audit unless the payroll systems are auditable." It you can't audit, there's no  accountability and no real oversight.    That hearing started a little late and there was concern about votes being  called shortly so to speed things along, Platts, Chair of the House Committee on  Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Government Organization,  Efficiency and Financial Management and Senator Thomas Carper, Chair of the  Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Federal Financial Management  Committee, waived their opening remarks and entered the written remarks into the  record.  Appearing before the two Subcommittees were the Army Reserve's LTC Kirk  Zecchini, the GAO's Asif Khan, the Army's Director of Accountability and Audit  Readiness James Watkins, the Army's Director of Technology and Business  Architecture Integration Jeanne Brooks and Aaron Gillison, the Deputy Director  of Defense Finance and Accounting Service-Indianapolis.    US House Rep Darrell Issa is the Chair of the House Committee on Oversight  and Government Reform and he made a surprise appearance as well.   Chair Darrell Issa:  I came here for two reasons.  First of all,  when the House of the People [House of Representatives] and the other  house [Senate] get together, it means that we have what it takes to move  positive legislation all in one room so it's always preferrable to have us hear  the same thing and come away from a hearing knowing we have to act and how we  have to act. So the second reason is that, Colonel, like you, I was an enlisted  man, paper leave and earning statements,  1970, it was real paper, as it was for  Senator Carper.  If one piece of paper got ripped out of there, it was gone  forever. My enlisted time was fairly uneventful although I had a lot of TDY  [Temporary Duty] and a lot of different supplemental dollars as an EOD enlisted  man.  But when I was commissioned, I saw the other side of it.  I was  responsible for up to 200 men and women who were constantly having to get  compassionate pay, they were having to get 25 or 50 dollars because when the  PCSd [Permanent Change of Station] in the paper work got lost. We would keep  them sometimes for a couple of months not getting their real pay because there  was a problem -- particularly if they were coming from overseas.  That was  approaching half a century ago.  We've come a long way, we've come from paper to  electronic. But we haven't come far enough to have the kind of proactive effort  to where you should never have to say, "Well how do we pay this person? What do  we do? Do we send them to the USO or do we in fact find some other way?" And,  more importantly, do we no longer have people who receive pay and then somehow  say, "Oh, that was a SNAFU and for the next six months, we're going to be  deducting."  I represent [Marine Corps Base] Camp Pendleton and, as a result, I  see that happening. Naval assets and private assets have to find ways to take  care of families because there's been an overpayment and then it has to be  repaid. Last but not least, I had the pleasure of leaving the Army and the only  time I've ever been audited -- personally audited -- was the year I left the  Army and there's nothing worse than trying to explain all these various per  diems in pays that are tax free if X,Y and Z  to a man who's never served in the  military but whose job it is to get a little money out of you.  So I believe  that when we get to where we do the job right, it will for our men and women in  uniform, especially those who have families who are also earning and they've got  to bring these together in a predictable way to make payments.  So I'm glad to  see that my good friend Chairman [Edolphus] Towns is also here.  That gives us  an awful lot of legacy of this Committee to hear it and to respond.  So, Mr.  Chairman, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you all for being here  today and I yield back.   Edolphus Towns is the Ranking Member (and former Chair) also chose to  submit his opening statements for the record. The lack of accountability, the  inability to do an audit, should be disturbing from a taxpayer stand point.   We're going to focus on LTC Kirk Zecchini who has served 28 years (for any  wondering, he's served in both of the current wars -- Iraq and Afghanistan) and  his testimony to provide one person's struggle to get the pay they deserve and  have earned. The excerpt that follows will be in order but we'll do jump cuts  (indicated by: "[. . .]") to work through several examples.    Chair Todd Platts: In your time, have you ever had an instance  where you -- because pay was not properly provided to you -- that it ended up a  hardship, financial hardship, because of incorrect balance in a checking account  or are you aware of any soldiers you've served with who have?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: Well, from my personal experience, the only real  hardship that I encountered was when I was in Afghanistan and my pay just  stopped for about a month-and-a-half and I still had a mortgage and I still had  bills to pay back home.  Fortunately, I had a little bit of savings while I was  still deployed but, yeah, that was a really tense period, not knowing when the  pay was going to get turned back on again.   Chair Todd Platts: In that example, where it was delayed, was there  any compensation -- meaning any interest for the two months that were not  properly paid when it finally was?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: No, sir.   [. . .]   Chair Thomas Carper: I guess you're not the only person you served  with who had some problems with pay.  We did in my unit, I presume you had  problems in your unit.  Were the problems similar in nature to those you  experienced, or were they different? Were there any commonalities?  Or was it  just across the board, wide variety of problems?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: I can't say that I've ever experienced the same  problem twice.    Chair Thomas Carper:  How about when you think of your colleagues  with whom you served?  Did they have similar problems or were they different  kinds of problems?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: I would have to say different.  Again, my  experiences were different from the typical Guardsman, where I had a lot of  active duty time, a lot of TDYs.  I did a lot more than outside of the  one-weekend-a-month, two-weeks-in-the-summer.   Chair Thomas Carper:  Sure sounds like you did.   LTC Kirk Zecchini:  So I'd have to say that mine were a little bit  different and broader than most of my peers.   Chair Thomas Carper:  You allued to this, but I think you said  there was a period of a month or two when you didn't get paid at all.  And when  I think of overseas, I was married and had no wife or children and the Navy  pretty much took care of our immediate needs, they fed us and gave us a place to  sleep and there was medical care and that kind of thing and so we were able to  save -- guys like me, we were able to save like every other pay check.  We  didn't make much money but we didn't spend much either. I had no wife or  children to support. I tried to help my sister a little bit to go to college but  that was the big obligation I had.  But that's not the case with a lot of folks.  Especially today when we have a lot of Reservists deployed to activated  deployed, we have a lot of Guardsman and women activated deployed and they do  have families.  And when they have problems with their pay, it's  a whole lot  more difficult and a lot more complex. Okay, put yourself in the position of  just providing good advice through us, but for us, to the folks who are charged  with fixing these problems. I realize we'll never get to perfection.  That  should be our goal. And if you were just to provide some advice, good advice,  with the folks charged with fixing this, and our job is to have oversight and  try to make sure that it's addressed, what would be the advice? It can be fairly  general, it doesn't have to be specific.  One of the best, I'll give you an  example, we had a guy before us testifying on the Finance Committee a couple of  months ago on deficit reduction and I asked him what do we need to do on deficit  reduction -- he's Alan Blinder, former vice chairman of the Federal Reserve,  professor of economics at Princeton -- and asked what do we do on deficit  reduction? His big deal on deficit reduction is health care cost -- if we don't  reign in corporate health care costs we're doomed. He said I'm not a health  economist but I asked him what you'd do about reigning in the deficit, he said,  "I'm not a health care economist but here's what I'd do: I'd find out what  works, I'd do more of that."  That's exactly what he said. "I'd find out what  works, do more of that." I said, "You mean find out what doesn't work and do  less of that?" And he said yes.  So that's actually pretty good advice in  everything we do, not just reigning in health care costs. But what should we do  here? What should the folks in the Dept of Defense do to address this  problem?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: Well obviously, I have seen a lot of changes in  28 years from paper statements to electronic statements now. And those have all  been, you know, good things. Most recently Defense Travel System came online,  where you can enter your travel claims online and that was huge. That really  took the paper work piece and it streamlined the process for travel vouchers.   You get paid now in three or four days where it used to take you a month to get  your travel pay.    Chair Thomas Carper:  So that's a great improvement?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: Yes. DTS was, in my mind, great. But not  everyone has access to DTS.  I had access because I was full time federal  technician where most traditional Guardsman and Reservists don't -- don't have  that system yet.   [. . .]    Ranking Member Edolphus Towns: How many times did you [. . .] have  the pay problem during your years of service?   LTC Kirk Zecchini:  After I started talking to Mr. Tyler last week,  I started thinking back to my career. I gave him some good examples but -- the  ones I just testified to -- but I can think of several other ones that weren't  such a big deal and they were pretty easy to fix at the unit level.  But  --   Ranking Member Edolphus Towns: It was so many times you can't  remember? Is that what you're saying?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: Yes.   Ranking Member Edolphus Towns: Wow. How widespread is the problem  among others?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: I mean, you hear people talking about pay  issues, you hear, you know, just dining chow how talk, people always -- somebody  always seems to have a pay issue that they're dealing with.    Ranking Member Edolphus Towns: How long did it take, the longest  period, for you to correct your pay?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: The example I mentioned about my  one-and-a-half-months without pay in Afghanistan that was the longest that I  ever went without a pay check. But the longest that I ever had to deal with a  problem in getting resolution to the problem was the one where I didn't get my  various allowances from my missions in Southeast Asia. That took about a  year-and-a-half.   Ranking Member Edolphus Towns:  Wow.  Could you just walk us  through one process of how you went about it to get paid?  Just  briefly. LTC Kirk Zecchini: About what?
   Ranking Member Edolphus Towns: Walk us through a process you had to  take in order to get paid.  In other words, you didn't get your check and what  you had to do in order to get it?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: Well the example I mentioned about the pay in  allowances from Southeast Asia, I was working in Bangladesh and the Philippines  and all through Southeast Asia.  Each of these different countries has a  different rate for hostile pay fire in the Philippines or hardship duty pay in  Bangladesh and I wasn't even aware that these allowances were there when I was  performing the duty. It was just through talking with my active duty  counter-parts who were there with me that I was informed that we were entitled  to these allowances. So when I got back to Ohio, I went back to my unit and  inquired about getting these allowances.  I actually had to look through the  regulations.  There's a chart they have in the rig that tells you that if you're  in this location during this time of year, you're entitled to this much money.   It was a pretty complex set of numbers and my unit clerk, my unit administrator,  certainly didn't know how to process that, so that's when it got pushed up the  chain of command. It went to Military Pay.  Military Pay didn't seem to know  anything about it. And, you know, time went on, I put together a spread-sheet. I  actually did a lot of the legwork for them to make it easier to understand what  I was supposed to get as opposed to what I did get.  And, uh, it languished.   And eventually I wrote a letter to the Ohio Inspector General requesting  assistance.  And that's when I finally got some action.   [. . .]   Chair Todd Platts: At what point in  that year-and-a-half long  process [on the Southeast Asia pay issues], how long had you tried working  through the channels before you went that route to get it taken care  of?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: I went to my unit initially in August of 2004, I  would say the very next month, in September, it got pushed up the chain to the  Ohio State Headquarters.    Chair Todd Platts: Alright.   LTC Kirk Zecchini: And I worked the issue with them probably until  August of '05 when I was getting ready to go to Iraq, I knew I was going to be  deployed again, so at that point I really just had to do  something.   Chair Todd Platts: Right. So-so, for about a year, you kind of  worked through the regular channels without success and this is something, once  you were aware of, seems pretty straight forward. You were in this country, you  qualified, yet a year later, you still weren't being compensated  accordingly.   LTC Kirk Zecchini: And it was a significant dollar amount too. It  wasn't --   Chair Todd Platts: Roughly, round number?   LTC Kirk Zecchini: As I recall, it was a couple thousand dollars  allowances.      Again, main point regarding waste and oversight: It can't be determined  because the DoD can't be truly audited with so many problems with regards to  their records.  Main point with regards to those who are serving, it is a battle  just to get paid and to be paid what you've earned.     From the Congress, to the north, Michael Bell is a former Canadian diplomat  of many years and now is Professor Bell at the University of Windsor where he  focuses on the Middle East. From time to time, he also writes a column for the  Globe & Mail . Today he weighs in on Iraq :The Americans had sufficient control and influence to  prevent a rout in Iraq, but as that control dissipated and their efforts at  democratization became increasingly problematic, they changed horses. Since  their departure, they have devoted their best efforts to helping Mr. Maliki  consolidate Iraq as a viable state player because of its geostrategic  importance, despite his increasingly well-documented abuses. Barack Obama's  administration is proceeding, reluctantly, with the sale to Iraq of more than  $10-billion in military equipment, much of which is serviceable for control and  intimidation.Mr. Maliki has  increasingly used the power of the state to consolidate his own autocracy,  accused by human-rights groups of intimidation, corruption, deceit, torture and  cronyism. Witness the arrest warrant issued for his Sunni vice-president, Tariq  al-Hashimi. Witness his son and deputy chief of staff Ahmed, reputed to be the  most powerful person in his entourage. Anyone deemed a threat is at risk for  their lives in Mr. Maliki's Iraq. And that's Iraq today.  Don't  expect to hear about those realities from the White House.  Tareq al-Hashemi is  Sunni and is a member of Iraqiya -- the political slate who won the March 2010  elections but Nouri having the White House's backing meant that elections in  Iraq didn't matter, that what the people wanted didn't matter, that 'democracy'  was as much a pretense under Barack Obama as it was under Bully Boy Bush.  Tareq  al-Hashemi was in the semi-autonomous Kuridsh region of Iraq when Nouri  al-Maliki issued a warrant for his arrest.  He has remained in the KRG as a  guest of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and KRG President Massoud Barzani.   Baghdad has repeatedly demanded that he be handed over.  It's cute to watch  Nouri not get his way for once.  (At least so far.)  al-Hashemi has noted that  Nouri controls the Baghdad judiciary and that he cannot receive a fair trial in  Baghdad (which is correct as evidenced by nine Baghdad judges pronouncing  al-Hahsemi guilty last month despite the fact that no trial had taken place --  the Iraqi Constitution makes it the law that you are innocent until proven  guilty in a court of law, that's not a slogan, that's not a bumper sticker, it's  written into the Iraqi Constitution, it is the law -- the very same law the  judges are supposed to be upholding but clearly either ignore or are ignorant  of).  al-Hashemi has asked that the trial be held in Kirkuk.    Since December, those working for Tareq al-Hashemi have been rounded up by  Nouri's forces.  At the end of January, Amnesty International was  calling  for the Baghdad government "to reveal the whereabouts of two women  arrested earlier this month, apparently for their connection to the country's  vice-president.  Rasha Nameer Jaafer al-Hussain and Bassima Saleem Kiryakos were  arrested by security forces at their homes on 1 January.  Both women work in the  media team of Iraqi Vice-President Tareq al-Hashemi, who is wanted by the Iraqi  authorities on terrorism-related charges."  Yesterday, al-Hashemi noted that his  bodyguard had died and stated that it appeared he had died as a result of  torture.   Alsumaria notes Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi  is calling for the international community to call out the death of his  bodyguard, Amer Sarbut Zeidan al-Batawi, who died after being imprisoned for  three months. al-Hashemi has stated the man was tortured to death. The photo  Alsumaria runs of the man's legs (only the man's legs) appear to indicate he was  tortured, welts and bruises and scars.  They also report  that the Baghdad Operations  Command issued a statement today insisting that they had not tortured al-Batawi  and that he died of chronic renal.  They also insist that he was taken to the  hospital for medical treamtent on March 7th and died March 15th. Renal failure  would be kidney failure.  And that's supposed to prove it wasn't torture?   If you work for an outlet that just spits out what you are told and didn't  actually learn a profession, yes.  Anyone with half a brain, however, apparently  that's half more than the average journalist possess today knows to go to  science.  The Oxford Journal  is scientific. This is from the Abstract  for GH Malik, AR Reshi, MS Najar, A Ahmad and T Masood's "Further observations on acute renal failure following physical  torture " from 1994:  Thirty-four males aged 16–40 (mean 25) years in the period from  August 1991 to February 1993 presented in acute renal failure (ARF), 3–14 (mean  5) days after they had been apprehended and allegedly tortured in Police  interrogation centres in Kashmir. All were beaten involving muscles of the body,  in addition 13 were beaten on soles, 11 were trampled over and 10 had received  repeated electric shocks.    Out of that group? 29 did live. Five died.  I don't think the Baghdad  Command Operations created any space between them and the charge with their  announcement of renal failure as the cause of death.  But, hey, I went to  college and studied real topics -- like the law and political science and  sociology and philosophy -- and got real degrees not glorified versions of a  general studies degree with the word "journalism" slapped on it.  So what do I  know?   A bit more than Salam Faraj (AFP) who not only  gets the  cause of death wrong -- BCO issued a press release, kidney failure is layman's  term, the press release uses renal failure, don't interpret, report, don't  improve, be factual.  I thought there were some guidelines for reporters but  apparently reporting's nothing more than a creative writing class and a whim.   He refused treatment, Faraj wants to introduce into the record.  When?  Because  Faraj can't even give you the damn dates from the BCO press release -- such as  March 7th al-Batawi was taken to the hospital.  These are things that should be  in the report.  Their absences means AFP  is more into gossip than  reporting and also makes AFP  look really stupid to anyone who can read  Arabic and wonder why AFP  missed all the details of this story --  details contained in a public press release?  It's cute to that March 15th isn't  there in the report either.  But AFP does want you to know that on  March 18th, the body was handed over to the family -- the family that  AFP  didn't talk to.  It's something, but heaven help us all of that  passes for solid reporting.  Someone denies torture and says, oh, cause of death  was . . . It's incumbent upon you to look into that given cause and its  relationship to torture if it has any.  If you didn't do that, you didn't do any  reporting.  You did stenography.  Nothing more.  AP offers a much briefer account and  does a far better job.  They also note that Iraqiya MP Salman al-Jumaili has  called today for an investigation and is stating that human rights organizations  should also be examining the death. Reuters also does a better job  than  AFP  but you have to wonder if all the 'additional details'  (embellishments and filigree?) that the government keeps adding aren't being  tracked and noted.  Example, originally, it was stated he was taken to one  hospital.  That was by the Baghdad Command Operations in their official press  release.  Later in the day, the Supreme Judicial Council spokesperson  Abdul-Sattar al-Briqdar stated "he was sent to several hospitals."  Why did the  number change?  Why is the spokesperson weighing in?  Has the Supreme Judicial  Council conducted an investigation?  If so, did they complete it rather fast?   Wasn't the body turned over to the family too soon for an autopsy?  Wouldn't an  autopsy be needed for a spokesperson for the courts to pontificate at such  length and with such certainty?     Iraqiya is headed by Ayad Allawi.  Al Mada reports  that Iraqiya is said to be planning  to present a memorandum to the Arab Summit (due to be held in Baghdad at the end  of this month) which will detail a number of unresolved and internal issues  including Iranian threats to Iraqi forces, human rights violations and the  refusal to implement the Erbil Agreement.  In addition, they plan to address the  lack of national partnership.  Alsumaria notes  this plan as well and quotes a  spokesperson for Iraqiya stating that the Arab League Summit is supposed to be a  discussion of Arab peoples and therefore the issue is pertinent and valid.  Dar Addustour notes  that there is  supposed to be (another) prep committee meeting on the national conference to  address the political crisis this coming Sunday.  Yesterday Lale Kemal (Today's  Zaman) reported , "An advisor to a senior Turkish state official  quoted Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan as telling US President  Barack Obama following the US withdrawal of troops from Iraq in late December of  last year that 'you [US] left Iraq in the hands of Iran once you withdrew'." Alsumaria TV notes   that Turkish warplanes bombed Arbil Province.  Dar Addustour  reports  a woman and her four children were slaughtered in Saffron and  that security checks are being carried out -- apparently door-to-door searches  -- in the neighborhood (all five were killed by a knife or knives). Iraqi youths  continue to be targeted for being Emo and/or gay or for being thought to be one  or both.  Al Jazeera has a very strong overview of the issue  (link is photos, text and videos)  and we'll grab that topic tomorrow (and  I'm saying that here to make sure that happens, we'll also grab a Jane Arraf  weekend report that I've had to keep pushing back and pushing back).    Oh and those other Iraqis -- a throw away line -- who sacrificed  their lives.  In other words, you know, American lives are all that count here,  you know, American chauvinism and support for the American military that's  carrying out illegal, unjust and immoral wars and committing War Crimes. So,  anyway, with that, I am glad to be talking about Iraq.  You know, we can't erase  the memory of Iraq, of what happened there and the lessons we should be  learning.  And I agree -- I like David's point: "No, repeat the lies that were  told.  Let the people know.'  But you know, I thought about it, it's just -- my  book actually deals with the history of US and British intervention in Iraq  since the 1920s.  It goes through the Iran-Iraq War, the sanctions.  It's  interesting because now there's a big thing about the IAEA and Iran, right?   Well you if you read my book, you'll find out the IAEA was involved in planning  coup de'etats and assassination attempts against Saddam Hussein in Iraq.  Of  course, that's not mentioned.  But anyway, so I-I-I think it's very important to  ponder the real lessons of Iraq.  And that's what I want to do today.  And not  feel, "Oh, well."  You know, this is reflected in our attendence here.  "Oh,  that's over with.  Let's move on."  Or let's move no where.  We really -- The  Iraq War is incredibly revealing of the nature of this system, the illegitimacy  of the entire system and the need for fundamental change and revolution if you  stop and think about this. And that's what I want to reflect on a little bit  here today.  So,first of all, what I want to start out with is a quote which I  think -- I want to deconstruct this.  This is from BAsics, from the talks and writings of  Bob Avakian who is the leader of the Revolutionary  Communist Party that I support, I write for its newspaper Revolution.  He  writes, "The essence of what exists in the US is not democracy but capitalism,  imperalism and political structures to enforce that capitalism and  imperalism." What the US spreads around the world is not democracy, the  imperalism and political structures to enforce that imperialism."  So just think  about that.  Not democracy, but capitalism, imperialism, political structures to  support it.  We didn't vote for the Iraq War, if you remember.  And when the  Iraq War began, 15 million people around the world and I mean hundreds of  thousands in this country went out to the biggest protest since sometime in the  sixties. 'Oh, that's a focus group.'  Never mind.  In other words, the political  structures were not in anyway reflective of what people needed or want, they  reflected the needs of capitalism and imperalism.  That's what they were doing.   Did the war reflect the consent of the governed?  "Oh, here's what we're going  to do in Iraq. Would you like us to do that?" No, it's -- as David pointed out  -- one lie after another.  And I liked your ten lies because it is hard to get  how contorted and inflated and all this: 'No, Saddam Hussein's a Sunni and he's  a secular ruler but, no, he's in bed with al Qaeda, the Islamic fundamentalists  who, by the way, hate him.'  And never mind, so we heard it on Fox News. You  know, what about the so-called free press? That's supposed to be a pillar of  democracy.  It wasn't just that they repeated lies, they suppressed anyone who  spoke the truth.  Phil Donahue?  Gone.  [. . .] And then what does that say  about the nature of that system? In other words, this quote I read, what the  essence of what exists points to the fact that the economic base of society, the  capitalistic system, is what sets the terms, not public opinion, not the  interests of people, not how you vote, none of that.  The system is determined  and the terms are set by the needs of this capitalist, imperialist system and  the political structures serve them.  And what are the needs of that system?  This is a system that demands global exploitation of labor -- go see the Mike  Daisey Agony and Ecstacy of Steve Jobs, Apple and all their parts made in China  and so on and so forth.  And it demands control of resources.  It demands  control of markets.  And all of this is enforced how?  By military bases. 732  military based in what -- 120 or 130 countries and one war or intervention after  another -- by violence. And this is how the system actually functions, this is  how it works.  And this is actually what was behind the Iraq War because a lot  of people realize that lies were told in the Iraq War but they don't realize why  the war was fought.  You know, this is the biggest lie of all.  And the New York  Times sometimes will say, 'Well it's true that Judith Miller made a mistake in  her reporting.  You know, we'll leave aside the fact that all of this was  deliberate, it wasn't a mistake, it wasn't bad intelligence."  But what they  never tell is you is: "Oh, by the way, this was a war of imperialism.  Because  since the collapse of the Soviet Union, we the US ruling class have realized  that we have an opportunity to create an unchallenged empire across the globe  because we don't face any other super powers.  And if we don't seize this  opportunity, our window of the unipolar moment"  as they called it "would vanish  and we'd be in big trouble because we have a lot of problems and contradictions  in our own system and we're facing China and Russia, they could re-emerge.  In  fact, let's not let any regional powers rise to challenge us."  And this was the  driving logic behind the whole war on terror and the invasion of Iraq.  A lot of  people thought, "Oh, the invasion of Iraq was a 'diversion' from the 'real war  on terror'."  No, it wasn't.  It was the perfect embodiment of the "real war on  terror" which was never about catching a few dozen or a few hundred or however  many there were al Qaeda or Saudi or whatever groups did the 9-11 attacks.  It  was about restructuring the entire Middle East and Central Asia and locking it  more firmly under US domination.  And, yes, defeating Islamic fundamentalism  because it was creating problems for the US.  This is a big reason they don't  like Iran.  And then using that region really as a hammer against the rest of  the world. Why is the Middle East so important to the functioning of the system?  And here, I do think people, I do think the capitalist class overall benefits  from this. That's what keeps the wheels humming and turning.  Yes, there are  contractors that made some money.  Sure, but that's not the essence of it  because one US president after another, Democrat or Republican -- it doesn't  matter, has considered the control of the Middle East central to US global  power, right?  This is why Israel looms so large for the US, because it's their  military outpost. The Middle East, 60% of the world's energy sources.  Energy is  a strategic commodity that allows you -- It's not about SUVs and do consumers  have good gas prices? It's about global dominance.  Because if you control oil,  you can shape the global economy and you can control powers that depend on  oil.     Time and space permitting, I would love to highlight more of that  conversation tomorrow.  If that's not possible, we may grab it next week.       |