Late last month, Joshua Holland and Raed Jarrar published a very important article on AlterNet that exposes the ugliest part of the U.S. occupation. This is exactly the sort of news that the mainstream media should be publishing on the front page as part of the constitutional mandate to speak truth to power. But, alas, in the three weeks since this article was published, there has not been more than a hint of coverage in the major outlets.
The article reported on the recent vote by a parliamentary majority in Iraq, demanding a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. and other foreign troops from Iraq (an item that received mere mention in American media) and on a major new (and comprehensive) 23 point plan by the Al Fadhila party (a key "moderate" Shia party) for stabilizing the country.
This plan is opposed by the United States. This should not be surprising, since the U.S. has also opposed a number of similarly promising plans (also unreported in the major media) forwarded by a variety of key players in Iraq -- including at various times the major Sunni insurgent groups and the leadership of the largest and most ferocious of the Shia militia). American opposition will almost certainly doom this plan, as it has its predecessors.
Here is the ugly truth about U.S. opposition to the plan and its predecessors, according to Holland and Jarrar:
"These plans are unacceptable to the Coalition because they A) affirm the legitimacy of Iraq's armed resistance groups and acknowledge that the U.S.-led coalition is, in fact, an occupying army, and B) return Iraq to the Iraqis, which means no permanent bases, no oil law that gives foreign firms super-sweet deals, and no radical restructuring of the Iraqi economy."
There are three horrible lessons to be drawn from this almost invisible incident.
First, it demonstrates that depth of Bush Administration commitment to maintaining a powerful and dominant U.S. presence inside Iraq and the Middle East more generally. Their refusal to explore these options shows that a permanent American presence (including the five major military bases costing over two billion dollars) and the "opening" of the Iraqi oil economy to exploitation by private multinational oil companies are non-negotiable demands of the Bush Administration.
Second, the failure of the Democrats -- either the Congressional leadership or the cadre of Presidential candidates -- to publicize this refusal and to explore and/or embrace these initiatives is a depressing reminder that they continue to be the "loyal opposition." That is, while they oppose the details of Bush Administration policy (e.g., the use of the surge instead of redeployment), they are not willing to oppose the larger mission -- maintaining a major U.S. military presence in Iraq while imposing neoliberal reform on their economy.
Third, the mainstream American media is still failing to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to speak truth to power. The "press" is only mentioned in the First Amendment because the authors of the Constitution were depending on it to expose the tyrannical tendencies that inhere in any large and powerful government. That means they are supposed to blast away at events like this, where the U.S. government uses its military presence in another country to stop their lawmakers from pursuing important initiatives that could reduce the monumental suffering of their people.
Until we develop a powerful antiwar movement that does not depend on either the Democratic leadership or on the mainstream media, these sorts of Iraqi initiatives will continue to fail, and the slaughter may continue indefinitely.