Anniversary 

Anti-Empire Report 

Hans Bennett & Ed Mertex interview William Blum 

printer

To mark the four year anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq (March 19), we interviewed author William Blum about Iraq and the long legacy of U.S. military aggression. Blum is the author of numerous books on U.S. foreign policy, including his prolific Killing Hope, which details more than 50 U.S. military and CIA interventions around the world since WW II. His monthly “Anti-Empire Report” is available at his website www.killinghope.org. 

Last year, Blum attracted the mainstream media’s attention when Osama bin Laden recommended Blum’s work and cited a passage from his 2004 book Freeing the World to Death: “If I were the president, I could stop terrorist attacks against the United States in a few days. Permanently. I would first apologize—very publicly and very sincerely—to all the widows and orphans, the impoverished and the tortured, and all the many millions of other victims of American imperialism. Then I would announce, in all sincerity, to every corner of the world, that America’s global interventions have come to an end and inform Israel that it is no longer the 51st state of the USA but now—oddly enough—a foreign country. I would then reduce the military budget by at least 90 percent and use the savings to pay reparations to the victims. There would be more than enough money. One year’s military budget of $330 billion is equal to more than $18,000 an hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born. That’s what I’d do on my first three days in the White House. On the fourth day, I’d be assassinated.” 

MERTEX/BLUM: Saddam is gone, we found no WMDs in Iraq, and now there are official reports of what the CIA warned several months before the invasion began: terrorist organizations are being fueled by the U.S.-led invasion. Is it fair to say that all the initial justifications of the war put forth by the current Administration were lies? 

BLUM: Is that in question any longer? Everyone knows that was a lie. The biggest lie of all is hardly ever mentioned anymore. It is not that Iraq had these weapons, but rather that they intended to use them against the United States. It really wouldn’t have mattered if they had the weapons. There’s no evidence whatsoever that they would have attacked the U.S. And that’s the biggest lie of all. 

What were the actual goals for the invasion? 

(1) Oil; (2) To save the U.S. dollar from the Euro dollar; (3) Israel; (4) To make corporations even richer. 

The Euro dollar? 

It was one of the first things the occupation did. Very soon after taking over they voided the Iraqi practice of using the Euro in oil transactions.  

Is the U.S. violating international law by building permanent military bases in Iraq? 

Yes, the Geneva Conventions declared that an occupation force cannot build bases. 

What do you think these bases show about U.S. policy for the future in Iraq and the Middle East? 

An intention to remain there for a long time and to use Iraq as a command center to control the Middle East. 

Announcing his new Iraq strategy on January 10, 2007, Bush said, “[Iran and Syria] are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq.” How big a role do Iran and Syria play in the current situation? 

You have to keep in mind which outside power is interfering in Iraq. It’s the United States. They can’t speak of Iran or Syria interfering in the affairs of Iraq when the U.S. is the champion of that. I have no idea to what extent Iran or Syria is helping to fuel the insurgency. Certainly they wouldn’t be needed to inspire it. The insurgents in Iraq have enough inspiration derived from the U.S. occupation. 

The U.S. Institute of Peace Iraq Study Group recently reported that the U.S. should “engage Iran and Syria in its diplomatic dialogue, without preconditions.” Has Bush disregarded this recommendation for diplomacy?  

He obviously has disregarded it because he wants to dominate them. He doesn’t want to be friends with them. Any association he has with them would make it much more difficult to invade. He can’t be seen as allied with nations that he considers invading in the future—or if not invading then at least continue to be hostile with them. He doesn’t want to change the whole atmosphere there, the whole tactic. 

In your book Killing Hope you described the effects of President Eisenhower’s intervention in Lebanon, by saying, “This was to put the world...on notice that the U.S. had virtually unlimited power, that this power could be transported to any corner of the world with great speed, that it could and would be used to deal decisively with any situation with which the U.S. was dissatisfied, for whatever reason.” How have things changed today? 

Has the U.S. position as the world’s sole superpower declined in the last 10 years? 

No. It’s increasing because it’s being used more. If the power is not used, it won’t have any meaning. It has to be used to remain the world’s bully. The Bush administration has been using it more than anybody else. 

Has U.S. economic dominance been decreasing? 

That’s always been the main rationale—economic dominance. That’s not declining at all. 

Do you think U.S. capitalism can be compatible with world peace? 

No. As long as it’s really capitalist, it’s going to be looking for new markets, new sources of raw materials as cheap as can be, and to control and keep pushing globalization. There’s no way to avoid this with capitalism.  

The U.S. likes to portray the image that they support women’s rights in the Middle East. Has the U.S. historically supported women’s movements in the Middle East? 

No. Take Afghanistan for example. Afghanistan in the late 1970s and much of the 1980s had a secular government which gave women equal rights. It was a great period for women in Afghanistan, and then the U.S. government overthrew this government that was giving women those rights. That’s a clear example of how much concern Washington has over women’s rights. In Iraq also, under Saddam Hussein, women were much better off than anywhere else in the Middle East, and now they’re back to the full covering of their face and body. 

How effective has the post-9/11 antiwar movement been in the U.S.? 

The way to measure the effectiveness is if they stop the war. They haven’t stopped the war obviously, so they’ve been a failure in that sense. However, they have succeeded in raising the consciousness of millions of people and that’s a healthy thing for the future.