Re: [A-List] Oil Addiction: The World in Peril - 5

["tony black" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George,

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this one...but let me just point
to a few specifics from the article where I believe Chomat is engaging in
'revisionist' history: (with my comments in brackets [ ] )

"In 1980, a conflict betwen Iraq and Iran erupted..

 [What? Like some quirky coincidence in a mysterious quantum universe, i.e.
without a Western, specifically US, imperial context?]

....It claimed  millions of lives, all of them unfortunate citizens reduced
to dust to satisy Hussein's policy of war....."

 ['policy of war'? First, what kind of 'analysis' is that? Second, and
specifically, the overwhelming role of the US administration in the
fomenting of this conflict is *completely* elided...completely. Some may
call this 'accidental' or the author 'taking a short cut' or whatever....but
I've witnessed too much of this over three decades to believe it isn't
anything other than apologist, revisionist ideology].

"....Saddam was seeking control of the rich oil fields..

[ Yes, naturally he had his own agenda; every US client dictator does.
(Bye-the-bye, Hussein's 'nationalism', as I earlier called it, goes back
almost from his instalment as a client US asset. So, no, he wasn't entirely
a 'puppet'...which explains - as it does many a fallen dictator i.e.
Noriega, Trujillo etc. - his later downfall). But that does not negate the
crucial fact that without US support and encouragment, this war would never
have even been *allowed* to go ahead. For, of course, the US had *its*
agenda too, to overthrow the 1979 Iranian revolution and bring Iran 'back
into the fold'. And it is *this* agenda which is, politically, the most
significant one.]

"In 1990, he tried again..

 [completely ignoring - or ignorant of - the entire political context of the
Iraq / Kuwait / US menage a trois ..which I outlined ever so briefly (but
which is critical to any rational appreciation and understanding of the
causes of the conflict) in a previous post. As for this war being about
oil...In fact, this particular 'police action' was, of all the recent ones,
the least about oil. If it *had* been principally about such, then the US
would never have left when they did, as they did ...i.e. leaving Saddam in
power.]

"Perhaps one-third of the Iraqi soldiers who took part in those battles now
lie buried in the desert."

[Now this is perhaps the most blatant, astounding example of revisionist
fact in the whole piece....I mean, did *Hussein* bury tens of thousands of
Iraqi conscripts in the sand? (Because that is, in the context of earlier
statements, what is undeniably implied). No, the *US* military did. In many
cases by literally bulldozing them alive into their own graves. Or how about
the infamous 'death road' to Basra? i.e. As the 'war' was nearing an end
(actually, technically the 'war' was at an end) the US bombed both ends of
the Iraqi retreat from Kuwait along a 40 mile or so stretch of desert
highway...and then the US 'top guns' proceeded to incinerate the entire
troop column. Perhaps ten thousand men, maybe more, murdered..completely
helpless. One of the most heinous point-specific crimes in post-WW2 history.
And overall, don't forget the casualty figures..they tell the *whole* story:
Them - ~200,000; Us - ~200.] [It never fails to arouse my cynical wonder,
when I recite those figures and then watch as the eyes of the recipient
glaze over in a seemingly futile effort to grasp the point..]

Still, with a certain irony Chomat does make mysterious illusion to "those
dramatic events, which were never clearly explained to the world."

'Never clearly explained'? Yes they were. Except that Chomat & Co. are at
pains to explain them away...

And here, finally, I must point out the significance of my making all this
'fuss' about 'revisionist history'...(And such includes all that is related,
i.e. the so-called 'war crimes' tribunals..set up by NATO and the US
etc)....The *political function*, either wittingly or unwittingly (though
usually the former), of such revisionism is - through the elision and/or
inversion of past reality - to pave the way for future revisionist needs to
come; for future crimes; for future imperial 'wars'.

And it is because of this, that we are, IMO, duty bound to call them as they
occur, each and every one.

Tony

----- Original Message -----
From: "George Dargus" <argus1000@xxxxxxxx>
To: "The A-List" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, August 05, 2005 10:29 AM
Subject: Re: [A-List] Oil Addiction: The World in Peril - 5


> I didn't read Chomat's article in the same way you did. I think Chomat
> didn't elide US responsibility in the Iraq war. He directly blamed the US
> for provoking it so the US could grab Iraq's oil resources. Same as you, I
> first thought that Chomat's views of the reasons behind the war were
> simplistic. But now I'm not so sure: maybe, as an hands-on oil specialist,
> he saw with his own eyes what really made things move in the Middle-East:
> OIL!
>
> The other reasons for that war you mentioned could have been resolved
> diplomatically. Since 1991, Hussein was increasingly showing that he
wasn't
> a puppet at all, and that he didn't envision selling much of his oil to
the
> US. But that is only my opinion.
>
> George
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "tony black" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "The A-List" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 3:11 PM
> Subject: Re: [A-List] Oil Addiction: The World in Peril - 5
>
>
> > George,
> >
> > The Iran/Iraq war was clearly a US proxy attack on Iran....An attempt to
> > undo the 1979 revolution. The author seems blithely unawares that
Hussein
> > was initially..and throughout the Iran/Iraq War...a US / CIA asset; a
> > puppet.
>
>
> >
> > As for the 1991 Gulf War....This was almost entirely provoked by the US
> > through its pressure upon Kuwait to steal Iraq's oil, call in early
> > outstanding loans to Iraq etc, and all targeted at Iraq at time
(following
> > the Iraq/Iran war) when the country was nearly bankrupt. Repeated
attempts
> > by Hussein to engage the Int'l community to intercede and mediate the
> > crisis
> > were completely rebuffed - at the behest of Washington (as were
diplomatic
> > efforts to forestall the 'war' itself)..The case goes on and on (i.e.
the
> > setup by US Ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, giving Iraq the green
light
> > to invade Kuwait) etc, etc,...The US patently intended to attack Iraq
for
> > a
> > whole variety of reasons including: Hussein's increasingly nationalistic
> > stance, the need to devise a new post -Cold War bogyman, the need to
> > offset
> > the troubling demand for the expected post-Cold War 'peace dividend', a
> > good
> > photo op for the Pentagon, pressure from Israel, the oil, etc...The
> > ensuing
> > invasion destroyed, of course, the entire country...The 'allies' lost
less
> > than 200 combatants(!) (a third of whom were killed by friendly fire or
in
> > accidents) while the Iraqis lost in the neighbourhood of 200,000...As I
> > say,
> > the Gulf Massacre....Later losses due to 'sanctions' and the total
> > destruction of the country's infrastructure ..and continuous bombing for
> > over a decade...resulted in, conservatively, at least another million or
> > so
> > deaths.
> >
> > My comment, thus, was directed at the author's almost complete eliding
of
> > the US responsibility for both conflicts (very much like what happened
> > with
> > even some 'progressive' writers w.r.t. the 'killing fields' of Cambodia,
> > and
> > what has recently happened with most of the left w.r.t. the 'genocide'
in
> > Rwanda) ....i.e. Chomat heaped the responsiblity for these almost
entirely
> > on the back of Hussein, choosing to disregard the aforementioned facts,
> > merely offering up the present assault seemingly as part of his
> > 'progressive
> > credentials'...I'm sorry, but that won't wash. Eliding the facts of
> > history
> > just so long as one is prepared to wax indignant on the injustices of
the
> > newest, ongoing conflict...well, that's one of the oldest tricks in the
> > Orwellian / imperialist, apologist handbook...Revisionist history is
> > revisionist history, no matter the context.
> >
> > Tony
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "George Dargus" <argus1000@xxxxxxxx>
> > To: "The A-List" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 11:30 PM
> > Subject: Re: [A-List] Oil Addiction: The World in Peril - 5
> >
> >
> >> Okay, Tony. Maybe you are right. But then what his your view on the
> >> Iran/Iraq war?
> >>
> >> George
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "tony black" <tal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> To: "The A-List" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 10:27 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [A-List] Oil Addiction: The World in Peril - 5
> >>
> >>
> >> >I have enjoyed and continue to enjoy Chomat's work, but I am compelled
> >> >to
> >> > comment that his review, such as it is, of the Iran / Iraq War and of
> > the
> >> > 1991 Gulf War (the 1991 Gulf Massacre) is at best politically naive;
at
> >> > worst a complete travesty...
> >> >
> >> > Tony
>