Book Review: “Green Zone – Imperial Life In The Emerald City” by Rajeev Chandrasekaran

When the US invasion of Iraq took place in 2003, I was in London, having arrived there less than a year earlier. There were demonstrations and protests against what was described by the left-wing press to be an unfair war against a legitimate government. I did not take part in the protests. This was mainly because I didn’t have much free time. I was doing a one year Masters degree at the LSE. I was about to get married. I was writing my first novel. I had a part-time job. Another reason for not taking part in the protests was that I actually thought something good might come out of the invasion. I had in mind the US track-record in countries such as Japan, Germany and Korea, which were rebuilt largely with American help and assistance. I thought that a country which could implement the Marshall Plan and carryout the Berlin Airlift was very likely to change Iraq for the better and possibly use it as a tool to democratise and improve the rest of the Middle-East. How wrong and naïve I was!

With the benefit of hindsight, I now wish I had taken part in the anti-Iraq protests that took place in London. It is now clear that the Yanks had a plan for invading Iraq, but none for its occupation and administration. The lack of planning and foresight totally destroyed Iraqi infrastructure and its once high standard of living. Not only does Iraq now have a Shia-dominated government that is sympathetic to Iran, it also continues to be very unstable, with Sunnis still fighting the government and Christians being hounded out.

Rajeev Chandrasekaran’s Green Zone was released in 2006/2007 and has been on my reading list for a very long time. Chandrasekaran’s masterpiece only confirms what we all know by now, that just as the Berlin Airlift was America at its finest, the Iraqi occupation displays America at its nadir. Chandrasekaran was the Washington Post's bureau chief in Baghdad in 2003 and 2004 and therefore had firsthand access to the Green Zone, in the heart of Iraq where the Coalition Provincial Authority (CPA) had its head quarters, and the world outside the Green Zone. In chapter after chapter, Chandrasekaran lays bare the ineptitude of the CPA and how Iraq slipped into disaster.

Almost all appointments to the CPA went to Republican Party loyalists who were looking to make some quick money and/or fill up their CVs. Most of them didn’t really care about Iraq or if they did, they went about helping Iraq the wrong way. Some stupid decisions were really, really stupid, like the disbanding of the Baath party and excluding Baath party loyalists from all government posts and the demobilising of the Iraqi army. The US armed forces were much more concerned about maintaining their soldiers in comfort than in rehabilitating displaced Iraqis and rebuilding Iraq. Creating a comfort zone for the soldiers and marines meant serving bacon and other pork products in a country where pork is haraam. The Americans just didn’t care. Contractors siphoned off huge chunks of money using inflated bills.

There were a few stories which, for me, conveyed the sheer tragedy of the Occupation. One was the story of Walid Khalid, an Iraqi who used to work for pizzeria next to the Trevi fountain in Rome. Returning to Iraq after its ‘liberation’ from Saddam, Walid Khalid set up an authentic Italian eatery just north of the Green Zone and waited for the expected American customers to arrive. However, the Americans never came, since they had everything they needed inside the Green Zone, which always had electricity and air conditioning even when the rest of Iraq was starved of power. Then there's the story of a Press liaison officer who could not speak a word of Arabic. At the end of the book, we are told that USD 25 million has been set aside for Iraqi universities. However, Iraqi universities do not get the money which is instead given to US universities which want to establish partnerships with Iraqi institutions! I could go on and on, but I’ll spare you.

Amidst all that rubble, there was one happy ending. This is the story of how a State Department staffer named Alex Dehgan was sent to Iraq to reach out to former Iraqi scientists and re-direct them to harmless avenues, before they were snapped up by the Iranians or others not-so-well-disposed towards America. Chandrasekaran tells us that Dehgan had considerable success since he broke all rules and because he was not part of the CPA.

Towards the end of the book, we see First Sergeant Jerry Swope lead a platoon of soldiers in Humvees to Sadr city to escort and protect three septic tank trucks as they went on a mission to vacuum pools of sewage bubbling from corroded underground pipes. After one round of vacuuming, the Iraqis driving the septic tanks leave, telling Swope that they feared for their lives. Unknown to Swope, the previous night American special forces had arrested Moqtada al-Sadr’s deputy and war had been declared. The Humvees run into an ambush on their way back and many precious lives are lost on both sides. One does wonder how the Americans managed to antagonise the Shi’ites after having liberated them from Saddam.

The story of the Green Zone is the story of human arrogance, greed and corruption. It is also a tragedy.

Book Review: Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning by Jonah Goldberg

Jonah Goldberg is a conservative columnist and an editor at National Review. In his book Liberal Facism, Goldberg makes a very interesting case for the proposition that liberals are a lot more fascist than conservatives, though they constantly use the F word to besmirch conservatives and right-wingers.

The Italian word ‘fascismo’ is derived from the Italian word ‘fascio’ and the Latin word ‘fasces’. Fascio means ‘bundle’ or ‘union.’ In ancient Rome, ‘fasces’ was a bundle of rods tied together and was a symbolic of a magistrate’s authority. It denoted strength through unity since a bundle of rods can’t be broken up as easily as a single rod. Giovanni Gentile, the Italian philosopher who described as the Philosopher of Fascism wrote an essay called ‘The Doctrine of Fascism’ which was signed by Benito Mussolini and attributed to Mussolini. Fascism, as propounded by Gentile and Mussolini, propagated a nationalist ideology, that gave the ruler total authority to solve the nation’s economic, political and social problems. The main difference between fascism in its initial stages in Italy and communism is that communism preaches global brotherhood of workers and is not nationalist. Both idelogoies relegate the individual to the background and give importance to collective rights. It is worth noting that in its initial stages, Italian fascism was not inherently racist. It was only in the late 1930s that Mussolini adopted Hitler’s antipathy to the Jews and expelled many Italian Jews from his party. After World War II started, fascism began to be associated with Nazism, totalitarianism and racism.

Goldberg examines the ‘fascist’ streaks in US presidents ranging from Wilson to Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson to Kennedy and says that liberal fascism in the United States predates Italian fascism. Hillary Clinton is also labelled ‘fascist.’ In simple terms, Goldberg labels any form of authoritarianism and suppression of a dissenting view as fascism and he says that liberals are much more guilty of such ‘fascism’ than so called conservatives and right wingers. Goldberg gives various examples of how so called left-wing liberals have used ‘fascist’ methods to promote their ideologies, be it abortion rights or higher taxes or greater welfare measures. Goldberg’s grievance is that liberals have been so successful in linking fascism with right-wing ideology and conservatism that most Americans tend to make that association.

I do agree with Goldberg that liberals may be as much guilty of using authoritarian measures to promote their goals as anybody else. To give a recent example, animal rights activists in the UK carried out a protracted campaign of intimidating employees and suppliers of Huntingdon Life Sciences, a company which carries out testing of medicines and other pharmaceutical products. Some of those activists were sentenced to long prison terms very recently.

Goldberg’s arguments are not necessarily water-tight. For example, he says that the Klu-Klux-Klan disliked Mussolini and hence are not fascist. Further, Goldberg does not even mention or try to explain the existence of right-wing fanatics such as Aryan Nations or the British National Party. The Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by a right-wing fanatic. None of these find a mention in Goldberg’s book.

Further, I don’t agree with Goldberg when he traces the ‘common’ roots of fascism and liberalism and tries to show them to be the same. It is true that Mussolini and Hitler were socialists. Liberals in the USA and elsewhere did like Mussolini and supported him till he became a German ally. It is also true that Communism as practised in the Soviet Union and the China of the 1950s and 1960s had a few things in common with fascism. However, trying to say that welfare socialism promoted by the some US Democrats and the Labour Party in the UK is fascism is downright silly.

At the end of the day, you may not agree with Goldberg. Nevertheless I would recommend that you read this book, if only to understand how a conservative American’s mind works.

Book Review: The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt

In the fall of 2002, two academics, John Mearsheimer of Chicago University and Stephen Walt of Harvard (M & W) were commissioned by the Atlantic Monthly to write an article about the influence of the Israeli lobby on American foreign policy. M & W came up with an article that talked of a very powerful Israel lobby in the United States which placed Israeli interests ahead of US interests. After receiving comments from the editors at Atlantic Monthly and incorporating them, M & W were nonplussed to find that Atlantic Monthly no longer wanted to publish their article. Ultimately, it was published by the London Review of Books in early 2006, bringing in its wake a very bitter media row. The authors were accused of anti-semitism and faced blistering attacks from various quarters, including from prominent US commentators. A year later, the article was published in the form of a book.

In their introduction, M & W make a startling prediction which I know to have been proved true very recently. During each presidential election, M & W explain, the candidates differ on a number of points. But on one topic, they will ‘speak with one voice’, that is on Israel. Five weeks ago, Barack Obama, the Messiah of Change, he-who-is-Audacious-enough-to-Hope, addressed the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a prominent lobbying group, and declared that Israel's security was "sacrosanct" and "non-negotiable". John McCain of course, supports Israel unconditionally. Hilary, when she was in the race, was also an ardent supporter of Israel. This accurate prediction, made almost a year ago, gave me the incentive to read the rest of the book, which is a bit heavy and leaden. However, if you like political statistics and facts being thrown at you continuously for over 350 pages, this book is definitely for you.

Three propositions form the crux of M & W’s book. That the US has placed Israel on a pedestal, giving it more support and aid than any other ally the US has. This unconditional support and aid is a result of the Israel lobby. This uncritical and unconditional support for Israel is not in the US national interest. ‘What about Cuba?’ my brain screamed as soon as I read this. Thanks to extensive lobbying by Cuban émigrés in Florida, the US continues to maintain a trade embargo against Cuba even after Fidel Castro’s retirement. I should however admit that this embargo has not affected US national interest much, unfair and unjust though it might be.

The first proposition advanced by M & W is not particularly controversial. Who can deny that the US has gone out on a limb over Israel? But is the Israel lobby the main reason why it has done so? M & W make it clear that they are not against lobbying, which is bound to happen in a democracy. They also believe in Israel’s right to exist. The US is morally obliged to help Israel if its survival is at stake, they reiterate. The only problem they have is with the unconditional and unwavering support to Israel at a heavy cost to American interests.

Approximately one third of Amercian Jewry, we are told, does not consider Israel to be a prime issue. And so, the Israel lobby consists of not only American Jews, but also Christian Zionists and various neo-conservatives. These lobbyists come in all shapes and sizes and don’t always have the same opinion on all issues. However, they are able to work in tandem, without openly appearing to do so. They are highly effective in attacking any individual or organisation which opposes Israel or US support for Israel.

The US provides military, economic and diplomatic support to Israel, This support is much more than what any other country gets. M & W explain how US aid is without any strings attached, which means that Israel is able to use US aid for any purpose whatsoever, including the construction of illegal settlements in the West Bank and Gaza strip. One would get the feeling from M & W’s book that Israel is the only country which is able to divert US aid for other purposes. However, I can think of at least one other US ally which does this. Yes, Pakistan. US aid to Pakistan earmarked for development or for fighting Islamic fundamentalists is routinely used to buy conventional military hardware meant for use against India. Apologies, I digress yet again.

M & W do not comment on whether the formation of Israel itself was correct, though towards the end, they do say that it involved the violation of Palestinians’ rights. Most of the contentions made by M & W are perfectly acceptable. They say that Israel is not a reliable ally. Israel has double-crossed the US on various occasions. For example, during the Iran-Iraq war, when the US was quietly backing Saddam, Israel provided weapons to Iran. Israel has transferred US technology to China. Israel has spied on the US. The Israel lobby has been and still is pushing the US to go after Iran. This lobby prevented the US from opposing the Israel as it attacked Lebanon in 2006. M & W do make a strong case to show that the Israel lobby influences US policy towards Israel, a policy which does not make sense most of the time. Evidence that the Israel lobby has forced the US to support Israel’s short term interests at the cost of US interests and even long-term Israeli interests, is also compelling.

However, as they connect various dots, M & W make a few contentions which don’t appear to be tenable. For example, it is said that the Israel lobby influenced the US in its decision to invade Iraq. M & W do not claim that the Israel lobby was the main reason for the US decision, but they do say that without this lobby, there would have been no war. Apparently the Israel lobby has been trying to nudge the US into attacking Iraq since the days of Bill Clinton. They were unsuccessful, even though Clinton adopted the general goal of ousting Saddam. However, things became easier for them after 9/11 when stories of Iraq’s nuclear programme began to find greater acceptance. I find it difficult to believe that the Israel Lobby was the prime mover behind the Iraq war. I agree with M & W that the Iraq war was not about oil. But was it mainly to make Israel more secure? I think not. I think the Iraq invasion was the result of Dubya’s and Tony’s desire to remake the map of the middle-east. Look at it from George’s and Tony’s point of view. Both are extremely religious men who believe that God has sent them to earth for a reason. They want to bring peace and democracy to the middle-east. How do they go about it? They need to start somewhere. Where should they start? With Saudi Arabia? No. The people there are hardcore Wahhabis who will not easily accept democracy. Also, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are good friends of America. Iraq on the other hand was ripe for democracy. Its population is relatively secular. Its ruler was an enemy of the West. Its army looked formidable on paper, which was good, but was very weak after many years of western sancations. The majority of Iraqis are Shias who hate Saddam. Iraq was the perfect target, Blair and Bush believed. So they got a few intelligence reports ‘sexed’ up, whipped up public opinion and started the war.

M & W also say that the Israel lobby has forced the US to be confrontational towards Syria and seek a regime change in Syria even though the Syrian government had provided important intelligence about al-Qaida after 9/11. According to M & W, if it were not for the Israel lobby, the US would not be so antagonistic towards Syria; there would be no Syria Accountability Act; there might be a peace treaty between Israel and Syria; Syria might not be backing the Hezbollah in Lebanon. Here I ask - can’t there be an different explanation for this? Ever since the demise of the Soviet Union, the US has been in earch of new enemies. The arms lobby needs the US to have enemies in order to justify weapons sales to the US armed forces. Couldn’t this lobby have played a role in demonising Syria?

Which brings me to another point. There are various lobbies - the arms lobby, the oil lobby, and other special interests - who would be interested in skewing US policy on the middle-east. Maybe these lobbies have played as big a role as the Israel lobby in getting US foreign policy towards Israel to the point it is now.

To conclude, I would say that M & W have an interesting theory, but I was not fully convinced that the picture they formed by connecting various multi-coloured dots is not a red herring.