Dead but Undefeated

[Ivo Skoric]

Since the moment American president declared victory in Iraq, a day 
did not pass without a report on American casualties in the region. 
Yet the US Administration refuses to learn that it cannot win a war 
against an enemy that does not recognize a defeat.

The wars are fought on the premise that at one point one side will 
recognize it is in its best interest to give in. Even Japanese did 
that in the WW II. But here there is an enemy that will joyfully die 
but not be defeated. That leaves the conquerors with only two 
options: either they have to leave and give up, or they have to make 
sure all of their enemies are dead.

Rummsfeld opted for the second choice, but he is so far unsuccessful 
on delivery.

The Staten Island Ferry accident yesterday, that killed 10, might, 
indeed, have been an accident. Those happened before September 11, 
too. Only after 2001, nobody in New York city believes in accidents 
any more.

Administration is behaving like an aggressive doctor who insists on 
treating his cancer patient with heavy chemotherapy and radiation, so 
in the end patient dies from the treatment earlier than he would die 
from the cancer.

Not only they did not condemn Israeli attack on Syria, but they 
congratulated Sharon, and they had the Congress slap Syria with 
sanctions, following Israeli bombing, accusing Damascus of hiding 
Saddam's money, and sending IRS auditors to check-it out.

Could that be true? It could. But does it justify the heavy handed 
approach that turns more people in the region against the US? No, but 
who cares, since this Administration thinks that it is most important 
that the US is feared, not loved, abroad.

They simply do not understand that their enemy does not posses any 
fear, because they do not understand that it is possible to have an 
adversary that has no fear. And that's their fallacy, that will cost 
them dearly.

They face a fatalist enemy, that does not care about mercantilist 
goals. Now, the US Army is destroying crops of Iraqi peasants who 
prove not to be enough co-operative in helping US track down Iraqi 
guerillas. They did that in Vietnam. Israel does that in Gaza. 
Ottomans did that in Serbia. Nazi Germany did that in Yugoslavia. IT 
NEVER WORKED.

At home, this administration presided not only over the most severe 
economic crisis in last 50 years, but also over the unique 
destruction of the peculiar differences that so far made the US so 
attractive to youth everywhere - even in the developed Western 
European democracies: Patriot and related acts forever shattered the 
image of the US as a land committed to unabridged freedom.

With no benefits to be gained, this Administration is bent on 
destroying that what matters most for the spirit of this country. 
Abroad it is more and more lonely. Soon, it would be able to count 
only on the Israeli police-state as its ally.


Iraq, sitting on the third-largest (or was that second, before todays 
article in The New York Times downgraded them?) oil reserves in the 
world, now imports oil at the rate of $4M a day. Those $4M a day are 
provided by US citizens who pay taxes to US government.

Pentagon awarded the monopoly in oil procurement to Halliburton, with 
no competition. Halliburton is a company that is closely associated 
with the vice-president Dick Chenney. If that happened in Nigeria, US 
government would call it corruption, wouldn't it?

Halliburton now sells the oil way above market price to its sole 
customer - US Army Corps of Engineers. They are paid by US 
government, that gets its money from YOU, through taxes. Corps of 
Engineers re-sells that oil to Iraqi citizens way below market price. 
You pay the difference.

In the region where a gallon goes for $.71, and transportation would 
cost about $.25, Halliburton sells it for up to $1.70, pocketing 
about $.74 per gallon (share of which goes to Chenney). US Army Corps 
of Engineers re-sells it to Iraqis for $.15, having US taxpayers foot 
the $1.55 per gallon, roughly the price per gallon they pay in the 
US.

That's how this Administration distributed the spoils of its costly 
war: higher taxation for the people, bigger breaks and all the 
profits for the well-connected ageing oligarchy.

Such oligarchs, like Chenney, can then give speeches only to Heritage 
foundation in front of 200 hand-picked, like-minded dinosaurs, whose 
rampant nationalism is just a substitute for their failure to 
modernize their social views, repeating ad nauseam the old myths and 
urban legends, and, of course, taking no questions.

Eventually, it would be surprising and insulting to intelligence if 
the US Congress approve Bush's request of $87B for Iraq. Why would 
they give more money to the White House which aides may be involved 
in high treason, by disclosing a name of one of their own secret 
agents?

There should be no chances for Bush to win in 2004. How could he? 
Every week Americans can see TEN (10) respectable US citizens - 
senators, congresspersons, governors, generals, and preachers - on 
the network TV in general agreement that his government SUCKS. By 
November 2004, some of it is bound to stick in anyone's head, and no 
matter how much money will Republicans invest in re-election, they 
may fail.

At which point they may concede the defeat, but this bunch being such 
hard-balls as they are, they may as well try to rig the results and 
declare victory. That for sure would result in the widespread unrest. 
So, ultimately, the US is bound to become an "interesting country" 
very soon, too, or?

Elections 2000 showed clear fault lines of division in the US 
society. The 21st century Mason-Dixon line is not between the North 
and South but rather between densely populated coastal regions, and 
sparsely populated inland regions. Bush had more success in the 
later.

If he would retain the "redneck base" - then the unrest might turn 
ugly in case he loses, declares victory and is contested. However, 
the economy would not support that option. It is more likely that the 
people who stuck American flags on their porches after September 11, 
are pretty fed up by now, for getting poorer and deceived, while he 
is giving tax-breaks to the richest 1%.

Which is good, because it staves off the 2nd civil war. The 
Washington DC bureaucrats (who vote 90+% for Gore in year 2000) 
obviously won't be unhappy either to get rid of the current 
Administration. So, we should expect that this aberration in the US 
history will come to a quick end.

The question is what will follow. Because the US will simply not be 
able to just pull out troops from Iraq the day after Bush loses 
elections. And the economic maladies will take even longer to repair. 
As well as to repel all the abhorrent acts passed under the current 
administration.

The oligarchy does not have any illusions that they can save Bush. 
So, they probably already hedge placing their money on a couple of 
Democratic candidates, to ensure that their privileged lives are not 
too threatened by the failure of their candidate.

Compromise is the way of the post-civil-war American political life. 
This makes it highly likely that a Democrat is elected, most 
obnoxious laws are repelled, the US troops withdrawal from Iraq is 
scheduled, the co-operation with the UN and other countries is re-
established, the economic package is passed to reverse the Bush's tax-
cuts, the oligarchy accepts to take a hit, but ultimately makes sure 
that changes are not deep enough to endanger their entrenched 
positions.

The yearning for political centrism, and fear from radical, and 
possibly violent, political change, is a mainstay of the US middle 
class, i.e. general population. That reduces chances for candidates 
that offer "revolutionary" ideas like Kucinich - establishing the 
Department of Peace and fundamentally changing the approach to 
foreign policy, basing the new one on the principles of non-violence. 
That's a shame - because that would be precisely the right answer to 
achieve a "victory" in a war against the enemy that does not 
recognize defeat.

Ivo