September 15, 2008

It's Not Because Of The Surge

Iraq

Patrick Cockburn, one of the very best Western journalists covering Iraq, puts the "surge" in much needed perspective. The Independent:

As he leaves Iraq this week, the outgoing US commander, General David Petraeus, is sounding far less optimistic than the Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, about the American situation in Iraq. General Petraeus says that it remains "fragile", recent security gains are "not irreversible" and "this is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade... it's not a war with a simple slogan."

Compare this with Sarah Palin's belief that "victory in Iraq is wholly in sight" and her criticism of Barack Obama for not using the word "victory". The Republican contenders have made these claims of success for the "surge" – the American reinforcements sent last year – although they are demonstrably contradicted by the fact that the US has to keep more troops, some 138,000, in Iraq today than beforehand. Another barometer of the true state of security in Iraq is the inability of the 4.7 million refugees, one in six of the population, who fled for their lives inside and outside Iraq, to return to their homes.

Ongoing violence is down, but Iraq is still the most dangerous country in the world. On Friday a car bomb exploded in the Shia market town of Dujail, north of Baghdad, killing 32 people and wounding 43 others. "The smoke filled my house and the shrapnel broke some of the windows," said Hussein al-Dujaili. "I went outside the house and saw two dead bodies at the gate which had been thrown there by the explosion. Some people were in panic and others were crying."

Playing down such killings, the Iraqi government and the US have launched a largely successful propaganda campaign to convince the world that "things are better" in Iraq and that life is returning to normal. One Iraqi journalist recorded his fury at watching newspapers around the world pick up a story that the world's largest Ferris wheel was to be built in Baghdad, a city where there is usually only two hours of electricity a day.

Life in Baghdad certainly is better than it was 18 months ago, when some 60 to 100 bodies were being found beside the roads every morning, the victims of Sunni-Shia sectarian slaughter. The main reason this ended was that the battle for Baghdad in 2006-07 was won by the Shia, who now control three-quarters of the capital. These demographic changes appear permanent; Sunni who try to get their houses back face assassination. [...]

The perception in the US that the tide has turned in Iraq is in part because of a change in the attitude of the foreign, largely American, media. The war in Iraq has now been going on for five years, longer than the First World War, and the world is bored with it. US television networks maintain expensive bureaux in Baghdad, but little of what they produce gets on the air. When it does, viewers turn off. US newspaper bureaux are being cut in size. The result of all this is that the American voter hears less of violence in Iraq and can suppose that America's military adventure there is finally coming good.

An important reason for this optimism is the fall in the number of American soldiers killed. (The 30,000 US soldiers wounded in Iraq are seldom mentioned.) This has happened because the war that was being waged against the American occupation by the Sunni community, the 20 per cent of Iraqis who were in control under Saddam Hussein, has largely ended. It did so because the Sunni were being defeated, not so much by the US army as by the Shia government and the Shia militias. [...]

If McCain wins the presidential election in November, his lack of understanding of what is happening in Iraq could ignite a fresh conflict. In so far as the surge has achieved military success, it is because it implicitly recognises America's political defeat in Iraq. Whatever the reason for President George Bush's decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein in 2003, it was not to place the Shia Islamic parties in power and increase the influence of Iran in the country; yet that is exactly what has happened.

The surge only achieved the degree of success it did because Iran, which played a central role in getting Nouri al-Maliki appointed Prime Minister in 2006, decided to back his government fully. It negotiated a ceasefire between the Iraqi government and the powerful movement of Muqtada al-Sadr in Basra, persuading the cleric to call his militiamen off the streets there, in March and again two months later in the Sadrist stronghold of Sadr City. It is very noticeable that in recent weeks the US has largely ceased its criticism of Iran. This is partly because of American preoccupation with Russia since the fighting began in Georgia in August, but it is also an implicit recognition that US security in Iraq is highly dependant on Iranian actions.

General Petraeus has had a measure of success in Iraq less because of his military skills than because he was one of the few American leaders to have some understanding of Iraqi politics. In January 2004, when he was commander of the 101st Airborne Division in Mosul, I asked him what was the most important piece of advice he could give to his successor. He said it was "not to align too closely with one ethnic group, political party, tribe, religious group or social element". But today the US has no alternative but to support Mr Maliki and his Shia government, and to wink at the role of Iran in Iraq. If McCain supposes the US has won a military victory, and as president acts as if this were true, then he is laying the groundwork for a new war.

In Iraq, in the real world, the violence and the privation and the horror continue. But here in the US, people are bored. They've changed the channel. As if it were all just some tv series that has run its course. Let's see what else is on. As if it weren't happening in the real world, to real people — because of us.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 23, 2008

4000

Iraq

In Iraq, the killing and dying goes on.

US troop deaths in Iraq hit 4000 today.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, millions more displaced, a nation in ruins.

A sizable majority of Americans now oppose the war, joining the overwhelming majority of people around the world. And yet the war goes on, and on, and on. Why? Because it's not enough just to tell a pollster you're against the war, nor is it enough just to plan to vote for the least war-like candidate come November. Action is required.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:41 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

February 27, 2008

The Disintegration Of Iraq

Iraq

Patrick Cockburn, in The Independent, writes that the Turkish invasion of northern Iraq only accelerates Iraq's ongoing disintegration. Excerpts:

Iraq is disintegrating faster than ever. The Turkish army invaded the north of the country last week and is still there. Iraqi Kurdistan is becoming like Gaza where Israel can send in its tanks and helicopters at will.

The US, so sensitive to any threat to Iraqi sovereignty from Iran or Syria, has blandly consented to the Turkish attack on the one part of Iraq which was at peace. The Turkish government piously claims that its army is in pursuit of PKK Turkish Kurd guerrillas, but it is unlikely to inflict serious damage on them as they hide in long-prepared bunkers and deep ravines of the Kurdish mountains. What the Turkish incursion is doing is weakening the Kurdistan Regional Government, the autonomous Kurdish zone, the creation of which is one of the few concrete achievements of the US and British invasion of Iraq five years ago.

One of the most extraordinary developments in the Iraqi war has been the success with which the White House has been able to persuade so much of the political and media establishment in the US that, by means of "the Surge", an extra 30,000 US troops, it is on the verge of political and military success in Iraq. All that is needed now, argue US generals, is political reconciliation between the Iraqi communities.

Few demands could be more hypocritical. American success in reducing the level of violence over the last year has happened precisely because Iraqis are so divided. The Sunni Arabs of Iraq were the heart of the rebellion against the American occupation. In fighting the US forces, they were highly successful. But in 2006, after the bombing of the Shia shrine at Samarra, Baghdad and central Iraq was wracked by a savage civil war between Shia and Sunni. In some months the bodies of 3,000 civilians were found, and many others lie buried in the desert or disappeared into the river. I do not know an Iraqi family that did not lose a relative, and usually more than one.

The Shia won this civil war. By the end of 2006 they held threequarters of Baghdad. The Sunni rebels, fighting the Mehdi Army Shia militia and the Shia, dominated the Iraqi army and police, and also under pressure from al Qa'ida, decided to end their war with US forces. They formed al-Sahwa, the Awakening movement, which is now allied to and paid for by the US.

In effect Iraq now has an 80,000 strong Sunni militia which does not hide its contempt for the Iraqi government, which it claims is dominated by Iranian controlled militias. The former anti-American guerrillas have largely joined al-Sahwa. The Shia majority, for its part, is determined not to let the Sunni win back their control of the Iraqi state. Power is more fragmented than ever. [...]

[I]n the long term neither Sunni nor Shia Arab want the Americans to stay in Iraq. Hitherto the only reliable American allies have been the Kurds, who are now discovering that Washington is not going to protect them against Turkey.

Very little is holding Iraq together. The government is marooned in the Green Zone. Having declared the Surge a great success, the US military commanders need just as many troops to maintain a semblance of control now as they did before the Surge. The mainly Shia police force regards al-Sahwa as anti-government guerrillas wearing new uniforms.

Meanwhile, the most any American presidential candidate will say is that the US attack on Iraq was a "mistake," a "strategic blunder," instead of what it is: a vicious crime that has destroyed a nation and inflicted incalculable suffering on its inhabitants. It's happening to real people, in a real place, now, as you read this.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:30 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

December 27, 2007

3900

Iraq

In Iraq, the dying goes on.

US troop deaths in Iraq hit 3900 today.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, millions displaced. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:42 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

December 14, 2007

"Iraq Doesn't Exist Anymore"

Afghanistan  Iran  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East

From an excellent interview with Nir Rosen:

Question: Is the "surge" working as Bush claims or is the sudden lull in the violence due to other factors like demographic changes in Baghdad?

Nir Rosen: I think that even calling it a surge is misleading. A surge is fast; this took months. It was more like an ooze. The US barely increased the troop numbers. It mostly just forced beleaguered American soldiers to stay longer. At the same time, the US doubled their enemies because, now, they're not just fighting the Sunni militias but the Shiite Mahdi army also.

No, I don't think the surge worked. Objectively speaking, the violence is down in Baghdad, but that's mainly due to the failure of the US to establish security. That's not success.

Sure, less people are being killed but that's because there are less people to kill.

The violence in Iraq was not senseless or crazy, it was logical and teleological. Shiite militias were trying to remove Sunnis from Baghdad and other parts of the country, while Sunni militias were trying to remove Shiites, Kurds and Christians from their areas. This has been a great success. So you have millions of refugees and millions more internally displaced, not to mention hundreds of thousands dead. There are just less people to kill.

Moreover, the militias have consolidated their control over some areas. The US never thought that Muqtada al Sadr would order his Mahdi Army to halt operations (against Sunnis, rival Shiites and Americans) so that he could put his house in order and remove unruly militiamen. And, the US never expected that Sunnis would see that they were losing the civil war so they might as well work with the Americans to prepare for the next battle.

More importantly, violence fluctuates during a civil war, so people try to maintain as much normalcy in their lives as possible. It's the same in Sarajevo, Beirut or Baghdad — people marry, party, go to school when they can — and hide at home or fight when they must.

The euphoria we see in the American media reminds me of the other so-called milestones that came and went while the overall trend in Iraq stayed the same. Now Iraq doesn't exist anymore. Thats the most important thing to remember. There is no Iraq. There is no Iraqi government and none of the underlying causes for the violence have been addressed, such as the mutually exclusive aspirations of the rival factions and communities in Iraq. [...]

Question: The media rarely mentions the 4 million refugees created by the Iraq war. What do you think the long-term effects of this humanitarian crisis will be?

Nir Rosen: Well, the smartest Iraqis — the best educated, the professionals, the middle and upper classes — have all left or been killed. So the society is destroyed. So there is no hope for a non-sectarian Iraq now.

The refugees are getting poorer and more embittered. Their children cannot get an education and their resources are limited. Look at the Palestinian refugee crisis. In 1948 you had about 800,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes and driven into Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and elsewhere in the Middle East. Over time, they were politicized, mobilized and militarized. The militias they formed to liberate their homeland were manipulated by the governments in the region and they became embroiled in regional conflicts, internal conflicts and, tragically, conflicts with each other. They were massacred in Lebanon and Jordan. And, contributed to instability in those countries.

Now you have camps in Lebanon producing jihadists who go to fight in Iraq or who fight the Lebanese Army. And this is all from a population of just 800,000 mostly rural, religiously-homogeneous (Sunni) refugees.

Now, you have 2 million Iraqi refugees in Syria, a million in Jordan and many more in other parts of the Middle East. The Sunnis and Shiites already have ties to the militias. They are often better educated, urban, and have accumulated some material wealth. These refugees are increasingly sectarian and are presently living in countries with a delicate sectarian balance and very fragile regimes. Many of the refugees will probably link up with Islamic groups and threaten the regimes of Syria and Jordan. They're also likely to exacerbate sectarian tensions in Lebanon.

They're also bound to face greater persecution as they "wear out their welcome" and put a strain on the country's resources.

They'll probably form into militias and either try go home or attempt to overthrow the regimes in the region. Borders will change and governments will fall. A new generation of fighters will emerge and there'll be more attacks on Americans.

Question: You have compared Iraq to Mogadishu. Could you elaborate?

Nir Rosen: Somalia hasn't had a government since 1991. I've been to Mogadishu twice. Its ruled by warlords who control their own fiefdoms. Those who have money can live reasonably well. That's what it's like in Iraq now — a bunch of independent city-states ruled by various militias — including the American militia and British militias.

Of course, Somalia is not very important beyond the Horn of Africa. It's bordered by the sea, Kenya and Ethiopia. There's no chance of the fighting in Somalia spreading into a regional war. Iraq is much more dangerous in that respect.

Question: Is the immediate withdrawal of all US troops really the best option for Iraq?

Nir Rosen: It really doesn't matter whether the Americans stay or leave. There are no good options for Iraq; no solutions. The best we can hope for is that the conflict won't spread....The civil war has already been fought and won in many places, mainly by the Shiite militias.

The Americans are still the occupying force, which means that they must continue to repress people that didn't want them there in the first place. But, then, if you were to ask a Sunni in Baghdad today what would happen if the Americans picked up and left, he'd probably tell you that the remaining Sunnis would be massacred. So, there's no "right answer" to your question about immediate withdrawal. [...]

Question: The US-led war in Afghanistan is not going well. The countryside is controlled by the warlords, the drug trade is flourishing, and America's man in Kabul, Hamid Karzai, has little power beyond the capital. The Taliban has regrouped and is methodically capturing city after city in the south. Their base of support, among disenchanted Pashtuns, continues to grow. How important is it for the US to succeed in Afghanistan? Would failure threaten the future of NATO or the Transatlantic Alliance?

Nir Rosen: Although the US has lost in Afghanistan; what really matters is Pakistan. That's where the Taliban and al Qaeda are actually located. No, I'm NOT saying that the US should take the war into Pakistan. The US has already done enough damage. But as long as America oppresses and alienates Muslims; they will continue to fight back. [...]

Question: The US military is seriously over-stretched. Still, many political analysts believe that Bush will order an aerial assault on Iran. Do you think the US will carry out a "Lebanon-type" attack on Iran; bombing roads, bridges, factories, government buildings, oil depots, Army bases, munitions dumps, airports and nuclear sites? Will Iran retaliate or simply lend their support to resistance fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Nir Rosen: I think it's quite likely that Bush will attack Iran; not because he has a good reason to, but because Jesus or God told him to and because Iran is part of the front-line resistance (along with Hizballah, Syria and Hamas) to American hegemony in the region. Bush believes nobody will have the balls to go after the Iranians after him. He believes that history will vindicate him and he'll be looked up to as a hero, like Reagan.

There is also a racist element in this. Bush thinks that Iran is a culture based on honor and shame. He believes that if you humiliate the Iranian regime, then the people will rise up and overthrow it. Of course, in reality, when you bomb a country the people end up hating you and rally around the regime. Just look at the reaction of the Serbs after the bombing by NATO, or the Americans after September 11. [...]

Question: Bush's war on terror now extends from the southern border of Somalia to the northern tip of Afghanistan — from Africa, through the Middle East into Central Asia. The US has not yet proven — in any of these conflicts — that it can enforce its will through military means alone. In fact, in every case, the military appears to be losing ground. And it's not just the military that's bogged down either. Back in the United States, the economy is rapidly deteriorating. The dollar is falling, the housing market is collapsing, consumer spending is shrinking, and the country's largest investment banks are bogged down with over $200 billion in mortgage-backed debt. Given the current state of the military and the economy, do you see any way that the Bush administration can prevail in the war on terror or is US power in a state of irreversible decline?

Nir Rosen: Terror is a tactic; so you can't go to war with it in the first place. You can only go to war with people or nations. To many people it seems like the US is at war with Muslims. This is just radicalizing more people and eroding America's power and influence in the world. But, then, maybe that's not such a bad thing.

There's a lot more in the original interview. It's worth reading in full.

One thinks of Yeats:

Things fall apart; the center cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed...

And one thinks of Humpty Dumpty. This particular Humpty Dumpty won't be put back together again any time soon.

None of this was necessary.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:58 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Fake Calm In Iraq

Iraq

There's no denying that US troop deaths are down in Iraq. Is peace breaking out? Don't believe the hype, says Pierre Tristam:

When Kuwait was liberated in 1991 — a strange concept, Kuwait having been free neither before being invaded by Iraq nor since — its citizens lined up the streets of their capital and waved thousands of American flags as troops drove by. "Did you ever stop to wonder," a man called John Rendon proudly asked during a speech to a government agency, "how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?" He answered his own question: "That was one of my jobs then."

The first Bush administration hired Rendon to produce the television show known as the first Gulf War. With the Rendon Group, his public relations firm, Rendon won multi-million dollar contracts to make the American occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan look good, and do the same on behalf of the Afghan and Iraqi governments. Propaganda has been a lucrative business in these wars. It gave us such classics as the fabricated toppling of Saddam's statue in Baghdad early in the war, the taxpayer-supported Pentagon effort to plant positive stories in the Iraqi press, and the more recent mini-series about the successes of the American "surge."

The propaganda controls are clearly in effective hands today. There's been no need, as there is in more discriminating Iraq, to plant positive stories in the domestic press. For the most part the mainstream news media here seem as willing as they were in 2003 to buy the Bush administration's latest recasting of the Iraqi catastrophe as a country on the mend. But caveats grow as lush as date palm in Iraq. Here's this season’s crop.

Al-Qaida was routed. Not exactly. The semi-mythical invention of "al-Qaida in Mesopotamia" was never a force as potent as its Iraqi enemies. One thing Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis agree on is rejection of foreign meddling, be it bin Laden's or Bush's. Iraqis reviled al-Qaida before the invasion and had no connection to 9/11. They revile al-Qaida more today, now that Bush's invasion made its brand of terrorism possible on Iraqi soil. Absent American troops, ironically, al-Qaida would have faced an unrestrained assault from Shiite and Sunni militants, to whom tribe comes before religion, and religion before caliphate.

That's just as true in the rest of the Arab world. A Brookings Institution survey of Arab opinion in six countries last year showed bin Laden’s popularity never breaking 5 percent. Bin Laden's popularity in the Middle East is itself an invention, convenient to the Bush administration's offensive posture there, inconvenient to Arabs who must pay its price. Bin Laden is the Arab world's Timothy McVeigh, a fringe loon, but one lucky enough to be constantly re-validated by Bush's monomaniacal war on Islamowhatever.

Refugees are coming back: The return of 25,000 refugees from abroad, out of a total of 2 million, is deceptive. News reports have generally neglected to mention that Syria, where most of Iraq's refugees have gone, shut its door to them two months ago and is now requiring refugees already there to apply for visas — through the Syrian embassy in Baghdad. In other words, Syria is booting them out.

Our friends the Sunnis. The Bush administration says the new alliance with former Sunni insurgents is a benefit of the surge's supposed rout of al-Qaida. But those Sunni insurgents had themselves began routing al-Qaida before their alliances with American troops, and well before the "surge" peaked. The Pentagon reversed the chronology to make itself appear as the new strategy's broker — and to obscure the deeper reason the Bush administration is aligning itself with Sunnis anew. Osama or a free Iraq are not it.

Our former friends the Shiites: Southern Iraq is already a fiefdom under the control of Moqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shiite who got rid of most of the British presence, and is biding his time before being rid of the American. Sunnis dread a Shiite take-over unrestrained by American occupation. So does Bush, because so do oil-rich Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and the Emirates, where militant, resentful Islam is the shifty sands under those authoritarian, unelected, lavishly corrupt and American-backed sheikhdoms. In Iraq, the Bush administration is rediscovering that a Sunni-dominated authoritarian regime wasn't such a bad thing after all. Lacking that, Sunnis as a proxy force against Shiite hegemony will have to do.

Peace isn't breaking out in Iraq. A colder, longer war is. It's further miring the United States in the shards of the Sunni-Shiite divide. And it's confirming once again in Arab eyes that America's end game is control of the Middle East's authoritarian houses of cards. If Enron was an emirate, Bush would be its principal shareholder right now, with America's foreign policy as collateral.

Seldom mentioned is the fact that Muqtada al Sadr unilaterally called a halt to attacks by his Mahdi Army. That had nothing to do with the "surge."

For a darker and deeper analysis of the "surge" and the state of Iraq, see the next post.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 12:16 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

November 15, 2007

"Suicide Epidemic" Among US Vets

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  War and Peace

A CBS news investigation has found that US veterans are committing suicide at an alarming rate, led by young veterans of the US "war on terror." Herald Sun:

The US military is experiencing a "suicide epidemic" with veterans killing themselves at the rate of 120 a week, according to an investigation by US television network CBS.

At least 6256 US veterans committed suicide in 2005 - an average of 17 a day - the network reported, with veterans overall more than twice as likely to take their own lives as the rest of the general population.

While the suicide rate among the general population was 8.9 per 100,000, the level among veterans was between 18.7 and 20.8 per 100,000.

That figure rose to 22.9 to 31.9 suicides per 100,000 among veterans aged 20 to 24 - almost four times the non-veteran average for the age group.

"Those numbers clearly show an epidemic of mental health problems," CBS quoted veterans' rights advocate Paul Sullivan as saying.

CBS quoted the father of a 23-year-old soldier who shot himself in 2005 as saying the military did not want the true scale of the problem to be known.

"Nobody wants to tally it up in the form of a government total," Mike Bowman said.

"They don't want the true numbers of casualties to really be known." [...]

"Not everyone comes home from the war wounded, but the bottom line is nobody comes home unchanged," Paul Rieckhoff, a former Marine and founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America said on CBS.

It's not just the horror and stress of combat. It's hard getting most people to kill, so recruits have to be subjected to intense conditioning. The military's gotten very good at this. I read somewhere that during the Second World War, only 25% of US soldiers actually fired their weapons in battle; in Korea, it was up to 50%; in Vietnam, 95%. But people aren't machines. You change their programming, and it's hard to change it back. Too little thought is given to the large-scale consequences of taking a significant fraction of young people, conditioning them in this way, and then returning them to the general population with their whole lives lying before them. It's hard on the veterans, obviously, but it also warps the psychological climate and culture of American society as a whole, and not in a good way. Yet another uncounted cost of war.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:37 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 29, 2007

Body Armor Profiteer Indicted

Iraq  Politics

David Brooks, who made a fortune selling faulty body armor to the Army and Marines, has been indicted. Marine Corps Times:

The former CEO of the nation’s leading supplier of body armor to the U.S. military was indicted Thursday on charges of insider trading, fraud and tax evasion in a scheme that netted him more than $185 million, prosecutors said.

David H. Brooks, 53, the founder and former chief executive of DHB Industries Inc., appeared in federal court on Long Island and was ordered held without bail. His lawyer entered a not-guilty plea. [...]

The charges were outlined in a superseding indictment that also named Sandra Hatfield, 54, the former chief operating officer of DHB. The pair was accused of falsely inflating the value of the inventory of DHB’s top product, the Interceptor vest, to help meet profit margin projections. [...]

Authorities allege the scheme propelled the company’s stock from $2 a share in early 2003 to nearly $20 a share in late 2004. When the pair sold several million DHB shares at that time, Brooks made more than $185 million and Hatfield more than $5 million, according to the U.S. attorney’s office. [...]

Brooks and Hatfield also are accused of failing to report more than $10 million in bonus payments to themselves and other DHB employees to the Internal Revenue Service.

Brooks also is accused of using DHB funds to buy or lease luxury vehicles for himself and family members, and to pay for vacations, jewelry, cosmetic surgery, country club bills and family celebrations.

Prosecutors say he threw lavish bar and bat mitzvahs for his children in which entertainers like Tom Petty, Aerosmith and the Eagles performed.

Brooks, who owns more than 100 horses and races them at harness tracks around the country, also used DHB funds for his private horse racing business, prosecutors said.

At the beginning of the Iraq war, Brooks' company had a monopoly on the production of body armor. The Army and Marines eventually had to recall some 23,000 of his vests. Brooks, surprise, surprise, was a hefty contributor to Republican political campaigns.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:39 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 26, 2007

Many-Fold Increase In US Airstrikes This Year In Iraq

Iraq

They tried this in Vietnam, too. Keep troop deaths down by bombing from the air. Except it doesn't work (never mind the morality of it) in a counterinsurgency war. Too many civilians get killed. USA Today (via Xymphora):

The U.S. military has increased airstrikes in Iraq four-fold [sic] this year, reflecting a steep escalation in combat operations aimed at al-Qaeda and other militants.

Coalition forces launched 1,140 airstrikes in the first nine months of this year compared with 229 in all of last year, according to military statistics.

Airstrikes are up in Afghanistan, too. Coalition planes have made 2,764 bombing runs this year, up from 1,770 last year. The figures don't include strikes by helicopter gunships.

The increasing use of air power also stems from improved accuracy and smaller munitions that allow commanders to launch airstrikes against insurgents who travel in small groups and sometimes hide among civilians. [...]

"We are using air power in lieu of putting extensive forces on the ground," said Air Force Maj. Gen. Allen Peck, commander of the Air Force Doctrine Development and Education Center.

However, increased use of air power raises the chances of killing innocent civilians, said Mark Clodfelter, a professor at the National War College. Winning over the population is key to defeating insurgents.

"You don't want bombing to be a recruiting method for the insurgents," Clodfelter said. [Emphasis added]

The article says a four-fold increase, but their arithmetic's wrong. 1140 versus 229 is a five-fold increase, and that doesn't take into account the fact that the 1140 figure is for only 9 months. Extrapolate that out to a year, and the increase is more than 660%. Clearly, a sea change in tactics, one that is practically a secret here in the US.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 24, 2007

Dems Suck, Too

Iran  Iraq  Politics

The other day, I got a fund-raising call from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC). I told the caller I was sick of the Democrats' caving in to Bush on Iraq, Iran, torture, wiretaps, and everything else, and they weren't getting any of my money, and I hung up. What surprised me was how angry I was. I've had it with the Democrats, and I guess I'm angrier than I knew. Chris Floyd is pissed, too:

Outrage follows outrage, surrender follows surrender: Every day the unreality of our political discourse worsens, even as the reality on the ground grows more bitter and uncontainable. As we approach the anniversary of the Democrats' recapture of Congress — an event that was supposed to mark the repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless, blood-soaked enterprise — it is undeniable that the situation is actually worse now than before.

The prospect of a Democratic victory in 2006 was for many people the last, flickering hope that the degradation of the republic could be arrested and reversed within the ordinary bounds of the political system. This was always a fantasy, given the strong bipartisan nature and decades-long cultivation of greed, arrogance and militarism that has now come to its fullest bloom in the Bush administration. But desperation can crack the shell of the most hardened cynic, and no doubt there were few who did not harbor somewhere deep inside at least a small grain of hope against hope that a slap-down at the polls would give the Bush gang pause and confound its worst depredations.

One year on, we can all see how the Democrats have made a mockery of those dreams. Their epic levels of unpopularity are richly deserved. At every step they evoke the remarks of the emperor Tiberius, who, after yet another round of groveling acquiescence from the once-powerful Roman Senate, dismissed them with muttered contempt: "Men fit to be slaves." The record of the present Congress provides copious and irrefutable evidence for this judgment.

After 10 full months of Democratic command in the legislative branch -- 10 full months under the "liberal," "progressive," "antiwar" Democratic leadership -- where are we? The Iraq war, far from being ended or even curtailed, was instead escalated by Bush in the face of popular discontent and establishment unease: the first, and most egregious, Democratic surrender. Bush's illegal spying on Americans was not only not punished, it was formally legitimized by Congress, whose Democratic leaders are now hastening to give their telecom paymasters retroactive immunity for taking part in what they knew to be a massive criminal operation...The Military Commissions Act -- which eviscerated 900 years of habeas corpus, as even Arlen Specter admitted (before slavishly voting for the bill anyway) -- remains on the books, unshaken by the Democrats, despite all the cornpone about "restoring the Constitution" they've dished out for the rubes back home.

And now we stand on the brink of another senseless, useless, baseless war, this time with Iran -- a conflict that, as Juan Cole pointed out on Salon recently, is likely to make the belching hell of Iraq look like a church picnic. Dick Cheney's bellicose outburst Sunday in a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Studies -- a reprise of many similar war dances he performed in the run-up to the unprovoked invasion of Iraq -- takes us one step closer to this new crime. But Cheney's assertions of Persian perfidy -- all of them unsubstantiated, and in the case of the nuclear program, refuted by the IAEA -- were simply the culmination of a remarkable bipartisan campaign of demonization in which the Democrats have actually taken the public lead, repeatedly castigating the administration for not being "tough enough" on Iran, and repeatedly vowing that "all options are on the table" against the mad mullahs. [...]

The Democrats have already overwhelmingly -- and officially -- accepted the administration's arguments for war against Iran. The first on-the-record embrace came in June, on a 97-0 Senate vote in favor of a saber-rattling resolution from Fightin' Joe Lieberman [that] affirmed as official fact all of the specious, unproven, ever-changing allegations of direct Iranian involvement in attacks on the American forces now occupying Iraq. [...]

But even this was not enough. A few weeks later, there was a new resolution, carefully calibrated to mesh with the all-out propaganda blitz surrounding the appearance of Gen. David Petraeus on Fox News in September. (He also put in an appearance on Capitol Hill, it seems.) Once again, the majority of Senate Democrats voted with the monolithic Republicans for yet another Lieberman-sponsored measure, which effectively if not formally authorized military action against Iran by declaring the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard a "foreign terrorist organization" and tying it to attacks on American soldiers in Iraq. [...]

Even the clueless Joe Biden...gets it. He told George Stephanopoulos Sunday that Bush will seize on the resolutions exactly as predicted: "The president's going to stand there and say ... 'Ladies and gentlemen, as the United States Congress voted, they said these guys are terrorists. I moved against them to save American lives.'"

But Bush is not the only president -- or potential president -- who might seize on the Senate votes. Last week -- just a few days before Cheney's speech -- Hillary Clinton weighed in with a "major policy article" in Foreign Affairs that regurgitated the administration's unproven allegations against Iran as indisputable fact. This too is ominous stuff, coming from a strong front-runner who not only is leading in the opinion polls but is also way out in front among an elite constituency whose support is much more important and decisive than that of the hapless hoi polloi: arms dealers. Clinton has surpassed all candidates -- including the hyper-hawkish Republican hopefuls -- in garnering cash payments from the American weapons industry, the Independent reports. Obviously, these masters of war are not expecting any drop-off in profits if Clinton takes the helm.

And indeed, beyond her "all options" thundering at Iran, Clinton has vowed to do the one thing guaranteed to breed more war, more ruin, more suffering, more "collateral damage," more terrorist blowback: keeping American forces in Iraq, come hell or high water. Clinton's "withdrawal" plan calls for retaining an unspecified number of "specialized units" in Iraq to "fight terrorism," train Iraqi forces and protect other American troops carrying out unspecified activities. Is it any wonder that she's the apple of Lockheed Martin's eye?

But in fact, the "antiwar" plans of the other "liberal" candidates -- the "serious" ones, that is -- are remarkably similar. In other words, the Democrats are promising a permanent (or in the current weasel-word jargon, "enduring") U.S. military presence in Iraq -- which of course has been one of the primary war aims of the Bush administration all along (even before it took office). Credible analysis shows that up to a million people or more have been slaughtered in this ghastly enterprise -- and still the Democrats will not act to end it or, God forbid, try to remove its perpetrators from office. Instead they will keep the red wheel of death rolling toward the ever-vanishing horizon. [...]

[The people] turned to the only serious alternative the system provided: the Democrats. And this is what they got: more war, more torture, more tyranny, more corruption, more lies. [Emphasis added]

The game's rigged. Democrats and Republicans pretend to be different by having different positions on abortion and gay marriage. But on issues of war and peace, military spending, government surveillance, and even torture, they're peas in a pod. Fraternal twins. Coke and Pepsi. An exquisite scam: keep people excited about abortion and gay marriage to make them feel like they have a meaningful choice, then ignore what they want on everything that really matters to the Big Money that drives the system.

What's the difference between Democrats and Republicans? Democrats tell different lies to get elected. A pox on both their houses.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:49 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

September 26, 2007

Winding Down — Not

Iraq  Politics

Bush's request for war funding in 2008 will be the biggest of the war. LAT:

After smothering efforts by war critics in Congress to drastically cut U.S. troop levels in Iraq, President Bush plans to ask lawmakers next week to approve another massive spending measure — totaling nearly $200 billion — to fund the war through next year, Pentagon officials said.

If Bush's spending request is approved, 2008 will be the most expensive year of the Iraq war. [...]

The funding request means that war costs are projected to grow even as the number of deployed combat troops begins a gradual decline starting in December. Spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is to rise from $173 billion this year to about $195 billion in fiscal 2008, which begins Oct. 1.

When costs of CIA operations and embassy expenses are added, the war in Iraq currently costs taxpayers about $12 billion a month, said Winslow T. Wheeler, a former Republican congressional budget aide who is a senior fellow at the Center for Defense Information in Washington. [Emphasis added]

Good thing we elected all those Democrats last year. What a difference it's made.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:58 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Privatizing War

Corporations, Globalization  Iraq  War and Peace

A startling piece of information from John Robb. Private military contractors probably provide almost as many "trigger pullers" in Iraq as the entire US military does:

There are currently 20,000 PMC [Private Military Company] trigger pullers in Iraq. These men are guarding facilities and key people across the country. This is likely nearly the same number of trigger pullers (as opposed to support personnel) as the entire US military currently has in the country. Without these men, the US military would barely be able to field a force large enough to patrol Baghdad. [Emphasis added]

Privatization of war-fighting is bad news for a variety of reasons. It undermines democracy, because it is infinitely easier to sell a war that's fought by mercenaries than one fought by uniformed soldiers that people still think of as their sons and daughters. It removes accountability for the conduct of the fighting, since the contractors are not bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It supports the creation of standing private armies and fosters the further militarization of domestic law enforcement. And it creates a built-in constituency for more war. When war is a profit center, the obvious way to grow profits is to promote war. When PMCs have soldiers on the ground (not just in Iraq, but in many hotspots around the world), they have all sorts of opportunities to drum up business.

Where is this all headed? LA Times:

[Erik] Prince, the former Navy SEAL who founded Blackwater, is straightforward about his company's goal: "We're trying to do for the national security apparatus what FedEx did for the Postal Service."

Since FedEx rendered the post office irrelevant for all but the most trivial forms of mail, this means you can kiss our national security apparatus goodbye. [Emphasis added]

The Founders considered any form of standing army a grave threat to liberty. And now we're going to convert much of the standing army into a profit-making enterprise under private control.

Whatever else corporations are, they are undemocratic: what the boss says, goes. And corporations are committed to maximizing growth. So when corporations have armies — when corporations are armies — how can it end well?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:40 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 25, 2007

3800

Iraq

The carnage continues in Iraq.

US troop deaths in Iraq hit 3800 today.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead, millions displaced. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:54 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

September 23, 2007

I'm So Proud

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  Politics

Our president:

(Via Cryptogon)

Posted by Jonathan at 05:01 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 21, 2007

Blackwater Un-Banned In Iraq

Iraq

Well, that didn't take long. Blackwater is going back to work in Iraq.

In case you were wondering if Iraq's supposedly sovereign government actually has final say-so.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:50 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

September 17, 2007

Barbarian Invasion

Iraq

In Iraq, five millenia ago, civilization began. Today, among the many bitter fruits of the US invasion is this: the ongoing — and soon to be complete — ransacking, looting, and destruction of thousands of the world's most ancient archaeological sites. Robert Fisk:

Today, almost every archaeological site in southern Iraq is under the control of looters.

In a long and devastating appraisal to be published in December, Lebanese archaeologist Joanne Farchakh says that armies of looters have not spared "one metre of these Sumerian capitals that have been buried under the sand for thousands of years.

"They systematically destroyed the remains of this civilisation in their tireless search for sellable artefacts: ancient cities, covering an estimated surface area of 20 square kilometres, which – if properly excavated – could have provided extensive new information concerning the development of the human race.

"Humankind is losing its past for a cuneiform tablet or a sculpture or piece of jewellery that the dealer buys and pays for in cash in a country devastated by war. Humankind is losing its history for the pleasure of private collectors living safely in their luxurious houses and ordering specific objects for their collection."

Ms Farchakh, who helped with the original investigation into stolen treasures from the Baghdad Archaeological Museum in the immediate aftermath of the invasion of Iraq, says Iraq may soon end up with no history.

"There are 10,000 archaeological sites in the country. In the Nassariyah area alone, there are about 840 Sumerian sites; they have all been systematically looted. Even when Alexander the Great destroyed a city, he would always build another. But now the robbers are destroying everything because they are going down to bedrock. What's new is that the looters are becoming more and more organised with, apparently, lots of money.

"Quite apart from this, military operations are damaging these sites forever. There's been a US base in Ur for five years and the walls are cracking because of the weight of military vehicles. It's like putting an archaeological site under a continuous earthquake."

Of all the ancient cities of present-day Iraq, Ur is regarded as the most important in the history of man-kind. Mentioned in the Old Testament – and believed by many to be the home of the Prophet Abraham – it also features in the works of Arab historians and geographers where its name is Qamirnah, The City of the Moon. [...]

The legions of antiquities looters work within a smooth mass-smuggling organisation. Trucks, cars, planes and boats take Iraq's historical plunder to Europe, the US, to the United Arab Emirates and to Japan. The archaeologists say an ever-growing number of internet websites offer Mesopotamian artefacts, objects anywhere up to 7,000 years old.

The farmers of southern Iraq are now professional looters, knowing how to outline the walls of buried buildings and able to break directly into rooms and tombs. The archaeologists' report says: "They have been trained in how to rob the world of its past and they have been making significant profit from it. They know the value of each object and it is difficult to see why they would stop looting." [Emphasis added]

Millenia have passed, empires have come and gone, and the antiquities have survived it all. But now, in the blink of an eye, they will be gone.

It's disgraceful and appalling, but it fits: we trash the world with reckless disregard for the generations to come after us, so of course we care nothing for the ones who came before. But these things, once done, cannot be undone. It is cause for deep and everlasting shame.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:12 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Blackwater Banned In Iraq

Iraq

Iraq's Interior Ministry says it has banned the infamous mercenary outfit Blackwater USA from further operations in Iraq. CNN:

Iraq's Interior Ministry has revoked the license of Blackwater USA, an American security firm whose contractors are blamed for a Sunday gunbattle in Baghdad that left eight civilians dead. The U.S. State Department said it plans to investigate what it calls a "terrible incident."

In addition to the fatalities, 14 people were wounded, most of them civilians, an Iraqi official said. [...]

Sunday's firefight took place near Nusoor Square, an area that straddles the predominantly Sunni Arab neighborhoods of Mansour and Yarmouk.

The ministry said the incident began around midday, when a convoy of sport utility vehicles came under fire from unidentified gunmen in the square. The men in the SUVs, described by witnesses as Westerners, returned fire, the ministry said.

One witness told The Associated Press that he heard an explosion before the gunfire began.

"We saw a convoy of SUVs passing in the street nearby," Hussein Abdul-Abbas, owner of a mobile phone store in the area, told the AP. "One minute later, we heard the sound of a bomb explosion followed by gunfire that lasted for 20 minutes between gunmen and the convoy people who were foreigners and dressed in civilian clothes. Everybody in the street started to flee immediately."

A team from another security company passed through the area a few minutes afterward.

"Our people saw a couple of cars destroyed," Carter Andress, CEO of American-Iraqi Solutions Groups, told CNN on Monday. "Dead bodies, wounded people being evacuated. The U.S. military had moved in and secured the area. It was not a good scene."

An Interior Ministry spokesman, Brig. Gen. Abdul Kareem Khalaf, said, "We have revoked Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq. As of now they are not allowed to operate anywhere in the Republic of Iraq. The investigation is ongoing, and all those responsible for Sunday's killing will be referred to Iraqi justice." [Emphasis added]

This is going to be interesting. Will the Iraqi government be allowed to make this stick?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 16, 2007

Greenspan: Iraq War Was For Oil

Iraq

Sunday Times:

America's elder statesman of finance, Alan Greenspan, has shaken the White House by declaring that the prime motive for the war in Iraq was oil.

In his long-awaited memoir, to be published tomorrow, Greenspan, a Republican whose 18-year tenure as head of the US Federal Reserve was widely admired, will also deliver a stinging critique of President George W Bush's economic policies.

However, it is his view on the motive for the 2003 Iraq invasion that is likely to provoke the most controversy. "I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil," he says.

Greenspan, 81, is understood to believe that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the security of oil supplies in the Middle East. [Emphasis added]

Duh.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:15 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 14, 2007

1.2 Million Iraqis Killed By The War

Iraq

ORB, a leading British survey research firm, reports:

In the week in which General Patraeus reports back to US Congress on the impact the recent "surge" is having in Iraq, a new poll reveals that more than 1,000,000 Iraqi citizens have been murdered since the invasion took place in 2003.

Previous estimates, most noticeably the one published in the Lancet in October 2006, suggested almost half this number (654,965 deaths).
These findings come from a poll released today by O.R.B., the British polling agency that have been tracking public opinion in Iraq since 2005. In conjunction with their Iraqi fieldwork agency a representative sample of 1,461 adults aged 18+ answered the following question:

Q How many members of your household, if any, have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq since 2003 (ie as a result of violence rather than a natural death such as old age)? Please note that I mean those who were actually living under your roof.

None 78%
One 16%
Two 5%
Three 1%
Four or more 0.002%

Given that from the 2005 census there are a total of 4,050,597 households this data suggests a total of 1,220,580 deaths since the invasion in 2003.

Detailed analysis (which is available on our website) indicates that almost one in two households in Baghdad have lost a family member, significantly higher than in any other area of the country. The governorates of Diyala (42%) and Ninewa (35%) were next.

The poll also questioned the surviving relatives on the method in which their loved ones were killed. It reveals that 48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance. This is significant because more often that not it is car bombs and aerial bombardments that make the news – with gunshots rarely in the headlines.

As well as a murder rate that now exceeds the Rwanda genocide from 1994 (800,000 murdered), not only have more than one million been injured but our poll calculates that of the millions of Iraqis that have fled their neighbourhoods, 52% have moved within Iraq but 48% have crossed its borders, with Syria taking the brunt of refugees.

Whether the true number is really 1.2 million or not, one thing is clear: the number, whatever it is, is a really big number. But no one on the tv will say it's true, so no one will believe it — and of course no one wants to believe it. And then there are the millions of refugees, a number that no one seems to dispute. The overall scale and scope of the suffering is impossible to grasp. This is all happening in a real place, to real people — millions of them.

But General Petraeus seemed like such a nice man.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:54 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 11, 2007

Pentagon Report To "Differ Substantially" From Petraeus'

Iraq

General Petraeus makes it sound like the Centcom commander and the Pentagon brass all agree with him. Not so, apparently. Newsweek:

Newsweek has learned that a separate internal report being prepared by a Pentagon working group will "differ substantially" from Petraeus's recommendations, according to an official who is privy to the ongoing discussions but would speak about them only on condition of anonymity. An early version of the report, which is currently being drafted and is expected to be completed by the beginning of next year, will "recommend a very rapid reduction in American forces: as much as two-thirds of the existing force very quickly, while keeping the remainder there." The strategy will involve unwinding the still large U.S. presence in big forward operation bases and putting smaller teams in outposts. "There is interest at senior levels [of the Pentagon] in getting alternative views" to Petraeus, the official said. Among others, Centcom commander Admiral William Fallon is known to want to draw down faster than Petraeus. [...]

John Arquilla, an intelligence and counterinsurgency expert at the Naval Postgraduate School, is even harsher in his assessment of Petraeus. "I think Colin Powell used dodgy information to get us into the war, and Petraeus is using dodgy information to keep us there," he said. "His political talking points are all very clear: the continued references he made to the danger of Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example, even though it represents only somewhere between 2 and 5 percent of the total insurgency. The continued references to Iran, when in fact the Iranians have had a lot to do with stability in the Shiite portion of the country. And it's not at all clear why things are a little better now. Is it because there are more troops, or is it because we're negotiating with the insurgents and have moved to small operating outposts? On any given day we don't have more than 20,000 troops operating. The glacial pace of reductions beggars the imagination." [...]

According to a former senior civilian official in the Coalition Provisional Authority, Petraeus is a "total performer." This reporter observed Petraeus's political skills up close while flying with him above the Iraqi city of Mosul in a Blackhawk helicopter in early 2004. Speaking through headphones over the loud whirring of the chopper engines, Petraeus pointed out to then-Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer III how many satellite dishes had popped up on Iraqi homes during the general's tenure as commander of the 101st Airborne Division. Citing the dishes as a sign of progress, he proposed that Bremer go national with Petraeus's "Mosul's most wanted" TV show, launched to get locals to call in with insurgent tips. And Petraeus called in a large press gaggle to observe training exercises at his local Iraqi military training academy. Later, back in Baghdad, Bremer shook his head and laughed indulgently. "He loves headlines," Bremer said. "But he's very good." [Emphasis added]

Something tells me the Pentagon brass who disagree with Petraeus won't get two days in the media spotlight to say so.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 10, 2007

Petraeus' Performance

Iraq  Politics

Watching Petraeus' performance, you get the impression that great strides are being made in Iraq. But note what he actually said: by mid-July of next year, if all goes well, the US should be able to go back to the same number of troops it had before the surge. I.e., the withdrawal he's talking about is withdrawal of the surge. Back to where we were before. That's all. Nearly a year from now. And after that — who knows. Petraeus:

Force reductions will continue beyond the pre-surge levels of brigade combat teams that we will reach by mid-July 2008. However, in my professional judgment, it would be premature to make recommendations on the pace of such reductions at this time.

Petraeus comes across as smart, competent, straight-forward, on top of things. No wonder, given how much prep and practice he's had. Still, you listen to him and you think, wow, that's encouraging.

But Iraqis beg to differ. BBC:

Coming at a crucial moment, a new BBC/ABC News opinion poll suggests ordinary Iraqis have a damning verdict on the US surge.

The poll, conducted in August, also indicates that Iraqi opinion is at its gloomiest since the BBC/ABC News polls began in February 2004.

According to this latest poll, in key areas - security and the conditions for political dialogue, reconstruction and economic development - between 67 and 70% of Iraqis, or more than two-thirds, say the surge has made things worse. [...]

Since the last BBC/ABC News poll in February, the number of Iraqis who think that US-led coalition forces should leave immediately has risen sharply, from 35 to 47%, although that does mean that a small majority - 53% - still says the forces should stay until security has improved.

But 85% of Iraqis say they have little or no confidence in US and UK forces. [...]

In terms of quality of life, 80% of Iraqis say the availability of jobs is bad or very bad, 93% say the same about electricity supplies, 75% for clean water, 92% for fuel.

And 77% of Iraqis say the ability to live where they want, without persecution, is bad or very bad. [...]

There are some more encouraging results.

Sixty-two per cent of Iraqis still say Iraq should have a unified central government, and 98% say it would be a bad thing for the country to separate along sectarian lines. [...]

This is the fourth BBC/ABC News poll since the US-led invasion. And the polling reveals two great divides.

The first is between the relative optimism recorded in November 2005, and the gloom reflected in the two polls conducted this year. [...]

The other great divide is that revealed between the Sunni and Shia communities.

Eighty-eight per cent of Sunnis say things are going badly in their lives.

Fifty-four per cent of Shias think they are going well.

Also, strikingly, 93% of Sunnis say attacks on coalition forces are acceptable, compared with 50% of Shia (the overall total is 57%). [...]

But both communities think equally overwhelmingly (by 98%) that sectarian separation is a bad thing. Iraqis are also somewhat suspicious of their neighbours.

Seventy-nine per cent of them think that Iran is actively encouraging sectarian violence in their country, 66% think the same of Syria and 65% think likewise about Saudi Arabia. [Emphasis added]

It's helpful, too, to know that people close to Petraeus call him "a walking mass of ambition" and "the most competitive person I have ever known — ever," a man who will not just beat you but "make a point of it." And he probably wants to be President. So take his performance with a heaping helping of salt.

And there's this. Military leaders are not supposed to be the ones to sell a policy. That's supposed to be a job for civilians. The White House is hiding behind the general, using the general to cow Congress, which is not how a democracy is supposed to work.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:24 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 07, 2007

Progress!

Iraq

Posted by Jonathan at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

The Decider Down Under

Iraq  Politics

Feel the pride. AP:

President Bush had a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day at the Sydney Opera House.

He'd only reached the third sentence of Friday's speech to business leaders, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, when he committed his first gaffe.

"Thank you for being such a fine host for the OPEC summit," Bush said to Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

Oops. That would be APEC, the annual meeting of leaders from 21 Pacific Rim nations, not OPEC, the cartel of 12 major oil producers.

Bush quickly corrected himself. "APEC summit," he said forcefully, joking that Howard had invited him to the OPEC summit next year (for the record, an impossibility, since neither Australia nor the U.S. are OPEC members).

The president's next goof went uncorrected — by him anyway. Talking about Howard's visit to Iraq last year to thank his country's soldiers serving there, Bush called them "Austrian troops."

That one was fixed for him. Though tapes of the speech clearly show Bush saying "Austrian," the official text released by the White House switched it to "Australian."

Then, speech done, Bush confidently headed out — the wrong way.

He strode away from the lectern on a path that would have sent him over a steep drop. Howard and others redirected the president to center stage, where there were steps leading down to the floor of the theater.

The event had inauspicious beginnings. Bush started 10 minutes late, so that APEC workers could hustle people out of the theater's balcony seating to fill the many empty portions of the main orchestra section below — which is most visible on camera.

Even resettled, the audience remained quiet throughout the president's remarks, applauding only when he was finished. [Emphasis added]

Mr. Magoo.

Kinda funny, I guess, but then there's this (SMH):

[Bush] arrived in Australia in a chipper mood.

"We're kicking ass," he told Mark Vaile on the tarmac after the Deputy Prime Minister inquired politely of the President's stopover in Iraq en route to Sydney. [...]

[In his press conference,] Bush said [Afghanistan and Iraq] were "both theatres in the same war". [...]

His defiance on Iraq is growing. He implied that those who argued against the war in the first place had no role in the current debate.

Perhaps encouraged by the expectation that he will soon be able to withdraw some troops and claim success, regardless of what the rest of the world believes, Bush appeared as a man who has convinced himself he is on the right track and will crash or crash through. [Emphasis added]

"We're kicking ass." The guy's delusional.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:21 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 04, 2007

Winding Down — Not

Iraq

Average number of US troop deaths in Iraq for the past six months and each six month period previously:

Not a good trend.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:42 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 03, 2007

Dead Certain

Iraq  Politics

The NYT has some excerpts from interviews Bush gave to author Robert Draper for his forthcoming book, Dead Certain:

[I]n an interview with a book author in the Oval Office one day last December, [Bush] daydreamed about the next phase of his life, when his time will be his own.

First, Mr. Bush said, "I'll give some speeches, just to replenish the ol' coffers." With assets that have been estimated as high as nearly $21 million, Mr. Bush added, "I don’t know what my dad gets — it's more than 50-75" thousand dollars a speech, and "Clinton's making a lot of money."

Then he said, "We’ll have a nice place in Dallas," where he will be running what he called "a fantastic Freedom Institute" promoting democracy around the world. But he added, "I can just envision getting in the car, getting bored, going down to the ranch."

For now, though, Mr. Bush told the author, Robert Draper, in a later session, "I'm playing for October-November." That is when he hopes the Iraq troop increase will finally show enough results to help him achieve the central goal of his remaining time in office: "To get us in a position where the presidential candidates will be comfortable about sustaining a presence," and, he said later, "stay longer." [...]

As Mr. Draper described it, Mr. Bush began the interview process over lunch last Dec. 12, in a week when he suddenly had free time because his highly anticipated announcement of a new Iraq strategy had been postponed.

Sitting in an anteroom of the Oval Office, he eschewed the more formal White House menu for comfort food — a low-fat hotdog and ice cream — and bitingly told an aide who peeked in on the session that his time with Mr. Draper was "worthless anyway."

But as Mr. Draper described it, and as the transcripts show, Mr. Bush warmed up considerably over the intervening interviews, chewing on an unlit cigar, jubilantly swatting at flies between making solemn points, propping his feet up on a table or stopping him at points to say emphatically, "I want you to get this" or "I want this damn book to be right." [...]

And in apparent reference to the invasion of Iraq, he continued, "This group-think of 'we all sat around and decided' — there's only one person that can decide, and that's the president." [...]

In response to Mr. Draper’s observance that Mr. Bush had nobody’s "shoulder to cry on," the president said: "Of course I do, I've got God's shoulder to cry on, and I cry a lot." In what Mr. Draper interpreted as a reference to war casualties, Mr. Bush added, "I'll bet I've shed more tears than you can count as president."

Yet Mr. Bush said his certainty that Iraq would turn around for the better was not for show. "You can't fake it," he told Mr. Draper in December. [...]

"I've been here too long," Mr. Bush said, according to Mr. Draper. "Every time I start painting a rosy picture [about Iraq], it gets criticized and then it doesn't make it on the news."

But he said he saw his unpopularity as a natural result of his decision to pursue a strategy in which he believed. "I made a decision to lead," he said, "One, it makes you unpopular; two, it makes people accuse you of unilateral arrogance, and that may be true. But the fundamental question is, is the world better off as a result of your leadership?" [...]

Mr. Bush acknowledged one major failing of the early occupation of Iraq when he said of disbanding the Saddam Hussein-era military, "The policy was to keep the army intact; didn't happen."

But when Mr. Draper pointed out that Mr. Bush's former Iraq administrator, L. Paul Bremer III, had gone ahead and forced the army's dissolution and then asked Mr. Bush how he reacted to that, Mr. Bush said, "Yeah, I can't remember, I'm sure I said, 'This is the policy, what happened?'" But, he added, "Again, Hadley's got notes on all of this stuff," referring to Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser.

Mr. Bush said he believed that Mr. Hussein did not take his threats of war seriously, suggesting that the United Nations emboldened him by failing to follow up on an initial resolution demanding that Iraq disarm. He had sought a second measure containing an ultimatum that failure to comply would result in war.

"One interesting question historians are going to have to answer is: Would Saddam have behaved differently if he hadn't gotten mixed signals between the first resolution and the failure of the second resolution?" Mr. Bush said. "I can't answer that question. I was hopeful that diplomacy would work." [Emphasis added]

So, he's The Decider, but he's got no idea how the Iraqi Army got disbanded. Doesn't remember all of that "stuff". I bet Cheney remembers.

Dead Certain. Could the irony of that title be any more grotesque?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 30, 2007

Chaos And Disintegration

Iraq

A month ago, we noted that southern Iraq is fragmenting into a failed state, with various warlords carving out their piece of turf. Forget Sunni v. Shia. It's way more fragmented than that, way more terrifying.

John Robb points to another disturbing story along those lines (AP):

Fighting erupted Tuesday between rival Shiite militias in Karbala during a religious festival, claiming 51 lives and forcing officials to abort the celebrations and order up to 1 million Shiite pilgrims to leave the southern city.

Security officials said Mahdi Army gunmen loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr fired on guards around two shrines protected by the Badr Brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council.

Residents of Karbala contacted by telephone said snipers were firing on Iraqi security forces from rooftops. Explosions and the rattle of automatic weapons fire could be heard during telephone calls to reporters in the city 50 miles south of Baghdad.

In addition to the deaths, security officials said at least 247 people were wounded, including women and children.

The clashes appeared to be part of a power struggle among Shiite groups in the sect's southern Iraqi heartland, which includes the bulk of the country's vast oil wealth. [Emphasis added]

A million pilgrims forced to flee amid explosions and automatic weapons fire. Impossible to imagine.

There's no telling where the fragmentation will end. Humpty-Dumpty is not going to come magically back together. Chaos, suffering, and collapse — and it will deepen and spread. As Robb says, "We haven't found the bottom yet."

Posted by Jonathan at 06:24 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 27, 2007

Allawi Resurfaces

Iraq

Ayad Allawi, darling of American neocons, is being pushed back into the limelight as a possible replacement for Prime Minister al-Maliki.

But let us not forget this (and here). Of course, here in the US you wouldn't even know it happened unless you read blogs.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:57 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Rules Of Engagement

Iraq

This isn't new, but I hadn't seen it before. Shameful on so many levels. Be sure to read the accompanying text.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:26 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 24, 2007

America To The Rescue

9/11, "War On Terror"  Humor & Fun  Iran  Iraq

A little history lesson from Jon Stewart:

Posted by Jonathan at 09:41 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 23, 2007

Iraq Coup?

Iraq

Juan Cole's sources say a military coup may be in the offing in Iraq. Spreading freedom and democracy.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 20, 2007

The War As They Saw It

Iraq

Yesterday's NYT carried an enlightening op-ed authored by seven US soldiers who served in Iraq. Worth reading. Here's an excerpt:

[T]he most important front in the counterinsurgency, improving basic social and economic conditions, is the one on which we have failed most miserably. Two million Iraqis are in refugee camps in bordering countries. Close to two million more are internally displaced and now fill many urban slums. Cities lack regular electricity, telephone services and sanitation. "Lucky" Iraqis live in gated communities barricaded with concrete blast walls that provide them with a sense of communal claustrophobia rather than any sense of security we would consider normal.

In a lawless environment where men with guns rule the streets, engaging in the banalities of life has become a death-defying act. Four years into our occupation, we have failed on every promise, while we have substituted Baath Party tyranny with a tyranny of Islamist, militia and criminal violence. When the primary preoccupation of average Iraqis is when and how they are likely to be killed, we can hardly feel smug as we hand out care packages. As an Iraqi man told us a few days ago with deep resignation, "We need security, not free food."

In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.

Meanwhile, the dominant narrative will continue to be that the "surge" is "working". The media will continue to listen to the spin of people who have every reason to lie, and they will ignore the words of soldiers who have nothing to gain by coming forward. And collectively, we will all continue down the path to ruin.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:25 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Petraeus Report To Be Written By White House

Iraq  Media  Politics

We're supposed to all be waiting to hear what General Petraeus will say in his September "progress" report. But buried deep in an LA Times story about the upcoming report, we find this:

Administration and military officials acknowledge that the September report will not show any significant progress on the political benchmarks laid out by Congress. How to deal in the report with the lack of national reconciliation between Iraq's warring sects has created some tension within the White House.

Despite Bush's repeated statements that the report will reflect evaluations by Petraeus and Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, administration officials said it would actually be written by the White House, with inputs from officials throughout the government.

And though Petraeus and Crocker will present their recommendations on Capitol Hill, legislation passed by Congress leaves it to the president to decide how to interpret the report's data.

The senior administration official said the process had created "uncomfortable positions" for the White House because of debates over what constitutes "satisfactory progress."

During internal White House discussion of a July interim report, some officials urged the administration to claim progress in policy areas such as legislation to divvy up Iraq's oil revenue, even though no final agreement had been reached. Others argued that such assertions would be disingenuous.

"There were some in the drafting of the report that said, 'Well, we can claim progress,'" the administration official said. "There were others who said: 'Wait a second. Sure we can claim progress, but it's not credible to...just neglect the fact that it's had no effect on the ground.'"

The Defense official skeptical of the troop buildup said he expected Petraeus to emphasize military accomplishments, including improving security in Baghdad neighborhoods and a slight reduction in the number of suicide bomb attacks. But the official said he did not believe such security improvements would translate into political progress or improvements in the daily lives of most Iraqis.

"Who cares how many neighborhoods of Baghdad are secured?" the official said. "Let's talk about the rest of the country: How come they have electricity twice a day, how come there is no running water?" [Emphasis added]

Everybody pretends the report will be from Petraeus, but it's being cooked up by political hacks in the White House. Which is to say, it will be completely useless as a basis for deciding anything. Watch, though, as the mainstream media play along and portray it as a serious evaluation originating from Petraeus himself. Pardon me while I retch.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

3700, 4000

Iraq

The carnage continues in Iraq.

While I was gone from the blog, US troop deaths in Iraq passed the 3700 mark, and total coalition deaths surpassed 4000. Totals as of today: 3707 and 4004, respectively.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:19 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 02, 2007

Stats

Iraq

The spin doctors tell us that July saw the lowest number of US troop deaths since November. So, therefore, the "surge" must be working.

But here's a graph of US troop deaths since January '06:

The highlighted months are this July and July a year ago. That's progress?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:31 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

US Cannot Account For 190,000 Weapons Given To Iraqis

Iraq

The US points the finger at Iran for supplying weapons to the insurgents in Iraq. But the foreign power who's supplying the most weapons is, evidently, the US. AFP, via RawStory:

The US government cannot account for 190,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces in 2004 and 2005, according to an investigation carried out by the Government Accountability Office.

According to the July 31 report, the military "cannot fully account for about 110,000 AK-47 assault rifles, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armour and 115,000 helmets reported as issued to Iraqi forces."

The weapons disappeared from records between June 2004 and September 2005, as the military struggled to rebuild the disbanded Iraqi forces from scratch amid increasing attacks from Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

Since 2004 the military "has not consistently collected supporting records confirming the dates the equipment was received, the quantities of equipment delivered, or the Iraqi units receiving the items," the report said. [...]

US commanders often accuse foreign powers such as Iran of supplying arms to illegal militias fighting in Iraq, but the report shows they cannot fully account for the hundreds thousands of weapons they brought in themselves.

Last month, Turkey raised concerns over reports that separatist Kurdish guerrillas launching cross-border raids from northern Iraq had received US-supplied guns supposedly destined for Iraqi security forces. [Emphasis added]

A circular firing squad of epic proportions. Unbelievable.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 01, 2007

Gasoline On The Flames

Iran  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East

The US has announced that it will send $63 billion in military aid to the Middle East: $20 billion for the Saudis and several small Gulf states, $13 billion for Egypt, and $30 billion for Israel.

William Arkin writes in the Washington Post:

There has been no official talk of a new U.S. military alliance in the Middle East. But my sense is that the Bush administration may be looking to solidify one before it leaves office — and the recently announced $63-billion Middle East arms deals are a stepping stone toward this goal.

The details are still sketchy. But from a strategic standpoint, the administration sees the alliance as serving at least two purposes. One, it ensures that some future president won't give up the fight. And two, it legitimizes future conflict with Iran.

"We are out here to talk about the long term," Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates said at a press conference yesterday in Egypt. "The United States has been in this region and in the Gulf specifically for some 60 years. We have every intention of being here for a lot longer."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice equally spoke of "future security cooperation" beyond Iraq.

The new military alliance even has a temporary name: GCC+2. Yesterday, Rice and Gates met with the leaders of the Gulf Cooperation Council of six nations: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — plus Egypt and Jordan.

"We have had historic interests in this region and we have pursued them through security cooperation for decades," Rice said, declining to go into the specific nature of any discussions. And indeed they were wide-ranging: Lebanon, Israel-Palestine, terrorism, Iran, Syria.

There is no question that the main event was enlisting the mostly Sunni-dominated governments to do more to prop up Baghdad and support the United States in Iraq. [Emphasis added]

Because if there's anything the Middle East needs more of, it's weapons. And I think we can pretty much conclude that all talk about a US withdrawal from Iraq is just that — talk. Just to placate us. Nobody, Democrat or Republican, who is serious about pulling out is ever going to be allowed to get in a position to make it happen. Not while there's oil in the ground.

See what they do, not what they say.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:31 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 30, 2007

Southern Iraq: Failed State Falling Under Control Of "Warlords"

Iraq  Palestine/Middle East

Nearly all of the Western news coverage in Iraq centers around Baghdad, so one could get the impression that elsewhere in Iraq things aren't so bad. But one would be wrong. CNN reports that much of Iraq is devolving into failed state status, with various warlords fighting it out to define the limits of their turf. Think Somalia. CNN:

The fight between US-led forces and militants in and near Baghdad and the sectarian civil war raging in the capital has overshadowed another grim wartime reality — the factional strife in Iraq's southern Shiite heartland.

Experts who study the region attribute the instability to turf battles among "warlords" and their fighters in an unstable political and social environment that is coming to resemble a failed state.

"Iraqi politicians are progressively turning into warlords," Peter Harling, senior analyst with the Middle East Program of the Brussels, Belgium-based International Crisis Group. What has been unfolding in the south, he says, is a "very crude struggle over power and resources."

"Violence has become the routine means of interacting with the local population," Harling says of the militias, which have filled the power vacuum after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

"They see no interest in seeing a functional state emerge."

The south has always been relatively quiet compared with the mixed Baghdad and Diyala provinces and the largely Sunni Anbar province, where Sunni militants conducting large-scale terror attacks have emerged as the major foe of the United States.

But fighting has erupted between Shiite political factions in the southern cities of Basra, Diwaniya, Karbala, Nasiriya and Samawa in recent months, and U.S., British and other coalition forces have conducted raids on insurgents in those regions. [...]

The major movements in the south are the Sadrists; the Supreme Islamic Council in Iraq, the longtime Shiite group led by Iraqi politician Abdul Aziz al-Hakim; the Dawa Islamic Party, led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki; and the Fadhila Party, which holds great power in Basra.

And there are fighters, such as al-Sadr's Mehdi Army militia, aligned with such groups. There are splinter and rogue elements among these groups, and there are smaller entities as well.

This factionalism goes against the notion that Shiite communities are united, says Jon B. Alterman, director and senior fellow of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies' Middle East Program.

"They are unified when confronted with Sunni or Kurdish power, but within the Shia community there are a variety of parties, with a range of different leaderships, all competing for power and influence."

Alterman says he sees the emergence of "warlords" who "are staking out their claims to different parts of Iraq." [...]

[O]n the ground, Alterman says, "the central government is not central to how politics works anymore. What matters are guns and money and access to resources." [...]

"In a place bereft of services and security, people look to a leadership that can protect them and feed them," Alterman says. [...]

Pang calls the environment the "militarization of local politics."

"Militias have entrenched themselves into the fabric of the society of the southern region of Iraq. They've assumed control of the oil. They've assumed control of the customs. They've assumed control of the police," Pang says. [Emphasis added]

So much for the claim that the violence in Iraq is caused by a centuries-old vendetta between Sunnis and Shia. (Which never made sense anyway — why weren't they killing each other pre-Saddam?)

I just cannot see how this particular Humpty-Dumpty gets put back together again. Much more likely: it will spread. Chaos, suffering, and collapse. Brought on by a small gang of lunatics and fools in the Bush administration. Who will never pay for their crimes.

Proof that time travel is impossible: nobody from the future came back to strangle Dick Cheney at birth. Or maybe it's not impossible. Maybe it's just that Earth's humans won't be around long enough to learn how.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:51 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Eight Million Iraqis Need "Immediate Emergency Aid"

Iraq

The horror of what's unfolding in Iraq really is beyond imagining. Consider this (AP):

About 8 million Iraqis — nearly a third of the population — need immediate emergency aid because of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war, relief agencies said Monday.

Those Iraqis are in urgent need of water, sanitation, food and shelter, said the report by Oxfam and the NGO Coordination Committee network in Iraq.

The report said 15 percent of Iraqis cannot regularly afford to eat, and 70 percent are without adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003. It also said 28 percent of children are malnourished, compared with 19 percent before the 2003 invasion.

"Basic services, ruined by years of war and sanctions, cannot meet the needs of the Iraqi people," said Jeremy Hobbs, the director of Oxfam International. "Millions of Iraqis have been forced to flee the violence, either to another part of Iraq or abroad. Many of those are living in dire poverty."

The report said more than 2 million people — mostly women and children — have been displaced within Iraq, and 2 million Iraqis have fled the country as refugees, mostly to neighboring Syria and Jordan. [Emphasis added]

A nation destroyed.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:13 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 25, 2007

Can We Handle The Truth?

Iraq

This past Sunday, Firedoglake hosted a truly extraordinary online chat with a Dr. Maryam, an Iraqi pediatric oncologist who runs a refugee camp for Iraqi children orphaned by the American war.

She pulls no punches. This is a voice we haven't heard much here in the US, but it's one we desperately need to hear. Excerpts are below.

Brace yourselves.

Thank you for your welcome.

What shall we talk about today you and I?

....

I am in Europe buying and arranging for supplies of medications to be brought. When I am in Irak I live in and run a refugee camp for children whose parents have been murdered by the American war against my people. I will be back there in a few days. For obvious reasons I will not under any circumstances detail my movements to any American.

....

Q: In the days of Saddam, all Americans felt that the Iraqi people were good, and the Iraqi government was bad. Is there a similar feeling in Iraq about the American people and our government?

Stop telling lies to yourself American. We know that your racist brutal murdering war criminal troops came from your society and reflect its values. we know that because we see how they behave and have to bury their victims. If you are stupid enough to think we feel anything but hatred and contrempt for your soldiers and the country that sent them to make war on my people then you are a fool.

As to Saddam, bad though he was your country is far worse.

....

"The only thing these sand niggers understand is force and I’m about to introduce them to it."

[That quote] is from a senior American officer. It is a perfect example of how your troops regard us. Which is why we highlight it.

....

Q: If I were an Iraqi my thinking might go something like this. President Bush is doing these atrocities in my country. And the American people elected this man not once, but twice.

As I am an Iraki and as my job is to treat children maimed and deformed by the weapons your country uses and then prevented me from getting the medicines used to treat those cancers you will forgive me if I tell you that you too are telling lies to yourself. What we know is that when it comes murdering Iraki civilians that there is no difference between the cynical and corrupt party called the Democrats and the cynical and corrupt party called the Republicans. Both are infected with the belief that America has the right to behave as it wishes especially when the people being killed are not white.

....

Q: I don't think [Sunnis, Shia, and Kurds] lived in peace before. If they weren't fighting each other it's because Saddam enforced some semblance of order.

Wrong. We lived in peace for centuries.

And Saddam was no friend of the Kurds or the Shia.

So how came it that 60% of the officer corps was Shia? Saddam was brutal in his response to rebellion. He did not particularly care which sect you were a member of. What he was interested in was whether you were loyal to him or not.

....

How does it feel to know that your country "the shining city on the hill" is not only well into genocidal territory but has been for a long time.

....

Nobody cares what your stupid congress thinks or does. Your country is defeated the only question now is the scale of the defeat.

It is not for the loser to dictate terms. Until your troops leave the resistance will keep on killing them because that is the only thing that works with racist empires such as the American empire.

Irak is for the Irakis. The murdering pigs who have boiled my people alive in a sea of their own blood are the government and people of the USA. Expecting us to tolerate the presence of your war criminals in uniform on our soil is too fucking stupid to be worth refuting.

....

Al Maliki is a traitor to Islam and a traitor to Irak. He collaborates with the invaders.

....

There has been no electricity none in more than half of Baghdad for 10 days. In the rest of Baghdad 1 to 1½ hours per day.

....

Q: In your opinion, Maryam, why did America invade Iraq?

Because you're an empire now and you can make your own reality. Working really well isn't it?

....

[Because of the US use of depleted uranium weapons] I treat cases like this.

....

The problem in Irak is the presence of the invaders. It is not possible to even begin to reconstruct until that problem is solved. The violence is because the American invader is there. Not despite it. If as you claim, you want to help, then you tackle the root problem. Which is that your troops are in our country. Until then the violence will escalate. The attacks are to make the country ungovernable and they are working.

....

This is [my nephew's] reality. This is what America has created for his generation:

When I heard the bomb explode last Saturday the first thing I did was telephone my father. But there was no reply. Again and again and again I tried to phone him. My fingers hurt I stabbed them onto the buttons on my phone so hard. I fell onto the floor and prayed please let him not be dead. Please let it be that he died quick if he is dead.

In the time since he wrote that:

His brother Hussein Ibn Laith was killed by a bomb as he ran with his rescue team to the site of a bombing.

His parents were killed in the Arba'in massacres.

His younger brother was wounded in the Al Qhilani bombing as was Mohammed himself and his sister.

Aged 16, Mohammed is the head of his family.

I will let him speak about forgiveness:

Let Us Understand One Another You And I

O God! Pardon our living and our dead, the present and the absent, the young and the old, the males and the females.

I am a Muslim I am Iraki

What america does to Irakis especially to our children

Do not come to me talking of your feelings. Do not come to me asking for forgiveness. Who do you think you are?

I will not ever forgive or forget what your country has done to us. I will not ever forget or forgive what your country has done my family, my city, my country, my people.

Never.

My grandchildren's, grandchildren, will teach their grandchildren to hate America for what she has done to us. Never ever ever will I, or they, forget or forgive what your barbaric country has done to us.

Never.

If you read the whole thing, I think you'll be struck by how very hollow the questioner's protestations of innocence sound. Yes, our country is doing these things, but it's not us, blah blah blah. One of the haunting mysteries of the 20th century is how the German people allowed themselves to stand by as their leaders committed unspeakable crimes. But it's really not so hard to understand now, is it? Our culpability is all the greater because we have the German precedent to show us the consequences of inaction.

This all has a context. The US has been at war with Iraq's children since at least the first Gulf War. Please see this (including the comments). Please. And google "depleted uranium," if you dare.

"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever." — Thomas Jefferson

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 07:34 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

July 23, 2007

UNICEF: Catastrophic Conditions For Iraq's Children

Iraq

While US politicians posture and delay, the conditions under which Iraq's children are living, which were already horrific, are worsening. AFP:

Conditions for children in Iraq have deteriorated sharply in recent years as their humanitarian plight has fallen largely into neglect, a senior UNICEF official said Monday.

"I have no doubt whatsoever that the condition today is much worse," Dan Toole, acting deputy executive director of the UN Children's Fund, told journalists after being asked for a comparison with the situation under Saddam Hussein's regime.

"Children who have had to flee Iraq — and millions have fled — are much worse off than a year ago and they certainly are much worse off than they were three years ago," he added.

Toole said there were signs that the health and nutrition for Iraqi children was "changing for the worst", despite recently released two-year-old indicators that had shown signs of an improvement.

UNICEF said the information gleaned from people leaving Iraq, and from the agency's "quite limited" access within the country, indicated that the number of female-headed households has increased "dramatically" because mostly men have been killed in the violence there.

"Many of those women are too frightened to bring their children to health clinics, many are too frightened to send their children to school," he added

Only two-thirds of Iraqis have access to clean water, according to UNICEF.

"My concern is that the focus on Iraq is on the political situation, the security situation, it is not on the lives of Iraqis living day in, day out, with deprivation, with lack of food, with lack of medical supplies," he said.

"That says something about the attention of the world, the attention of our leaders," Toole added, urging a greater focus on the impact on children.

UNICEF says its aid programmes for children in Iraq have only received about one-third of the funding they need. [Emphasis added]

These things are happening in a real place, to real people. Imagine if they were your children. Iraqis may never forgive us. Can you blame them?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 20, 2007

Lying Liars' Lies

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  Politics

As they say, if you're not pissed off, you're not paying attention.

Well, this should help:

A nation of suckers, that's us.

[Thanks, Kevin]

Posted by Jonathan at 04:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 19, 2007

Iraq Vets Speak

Iraq

Chris Hedges and Laila al-Arian have a piece in The Nation that pulls together a number of accounts told them by Iraq veterans. It's a long piece (21 pages printed out), but an important read. As Gwynne Dyer wrote, "In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win." Here we see why. I've excerpted some snippets below:

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi," said Spc. Jeff Englehart, 26, of Grand Junction, Colorado..."You know, so what?... The soldiers honestly thought we were trying to help the people and they were mad because it was almost like a betrayal. Like here we are trying to help you, here I am, you know, thousands of miles away from home and my family, and I have to be here for a year and work every day on these missions. Well, we're trying to help you and you just turn around and try to kill us." [...]

Fighting in densely populated urban areas has led to the indiscriminate use of force and the deaths at the hands of occupation troops of thousands of innocents.

Many of these veterans returned home deeply disturbed by the disparity between the reality of the war and the way it is portrayed by the US government and American media. The war the vets described is a dark and even depraved enterprise, one that bears a powerful resemblance to other misguided and brutal colonial wars and occupations, from the French occupation of Algeria to the American war in Vietnam and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory. [...]

Much of the resentment toward Iraqis described to The Nation by veterans was confirmed in a report released May 4 by the Pentagon. According to the survey, conducted by the Office of the Surgeon General of the US Army Medical Command, just 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of marines agreed that civilians should be treated with dignity and respect. Only 55 percent of soldiers and 40 percent of marines said they would report a unit member who had killed or injured "an innocent noncombatant." [...]

The mounting frustration of fighting an elusive enemy and the devastating effect of roadside bombs, with their steady toll of American dead and wounded, led many troops to declare an open war on all Iraqis.

Veterans described reckless firing once they left their compounds. Some shot holes into cans of gasoline being sold along the roadside and then tossed grenades into the pools of gas to set them ablaze. Others opened fire on children. These shootings often enraged Iraqi witnesses. [...]

Raids

The American forces, stymied by poor intelligence, invade neighborhoods where insurgents operate, bursting into homes in the hope of surprising fighters or finding weapons. But such catches, they said, are rare. Far more common were stories in which soldiers assaulted a home, destroyed property in their futile search and left terrorized civilians struggling to repair the damage and begin the long torment of trying to find family members who were hauled away as suspects. [...]

"You go up the stairs. You grab the man of the house. You rip him out of bed in front of his wife. You put him up against the wall. You have junior-level troops, PFCs [privates first class], specialists will run into the other rooms and grab the family, and you'll group them all together. Then you go into a room and you tear the room to shreds and you make sure there's no weapons or anything that they can use to attack us.

"You get the interpreter and you get the man of the home, and you have him at gunpoint, and you'll ask the interpreter to ask him: 'Do you have any weapons? Do you have any anti-US propaganda, anything at all--anything--anything in here that would lead us to believe that you are somehow involved in insurgent activity or anti-coalition forces activity?'

"Normally they'll say no, because that's normally the truth," Sergeant Bruhns said. "So what you'll do is you'll take his sofa cushions and you'll dump them. If he has a couch, you'll turn the couch upside down. You'll go into the fridge, if he has a fridge, and you'll throw everything on the floor, and you'll take his drawers and you'll dump them.... You'll open up his closet and you'll throw all the clothes on the floor and basically leave his house looking like a hurricane just hit it.

"And if you find something, then you'll detain him. If not, you'll say, 'Sorry to disturb you. Have a nice evening.' So you've just humiliated this man in front of his entire family and terrorized his entire family and you've destroyed his home. And then you go right next door and you do the same thing in a hundred homes." [...]

"We scared the living Jesus out of them every time we went through every house," he said. [...]

Intelligence

In the thousand or so raids he conducted during his time in Iraq, Sergeant Westphal said, he came into contact with only four "hard-core insurgents." [...]

Arrests

"They were so sick and nervous. And sometimes, they were peeing on themselves. Can you imagine if people could just come into your house and take you in front of your family screaming? And if you actually were innocent but had no way to prove that? It would be a scary, scary thing." [...]

Spc. Patrick Resta...recalled his supervisor telling his platoon point-blank, "The Geneva Conventions don't exist at all in Iraq, and that's in writing if you want to see it." [...]

The Enemy

American troops in Iraq lacked the training and support to communicate with or even understand Iraqi civilians...Few spoke or read Arabic. They were offered little or no cultural or historical education about the country they controlled. Translators were either in short supply or unqualified. Any stereotypes about Islam and Arabs that soldiers and marines arrived with tended to solidify rapidly in the close confines of the military and the risky streets of Iraqi cities into a crude racism. [...]

In Iraq, Specialist Middleton said, "a lot of guys really supported that whole concept that, you know, if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want." [...]

Iraqi culture, identity and customs were, according to at least a dozen soldiers and marines interviewed by The Nation, openly ridiculed in racist terms, with troops deriding "haji food," "haji music" and "haji homes." In the Muslim world, the word "haji" denotes someone who has made the pilgrimage to Mecca. But it is now used by American troops in the same way "gook" was used in Vietnam or "raghead" in Afghanistan. [...]

"We were told from the first second that we arrived there, and this was in writing on the wall in our aid station, that we were not to treat Iraqi civilians unless they were about to die..." [...]

Convoys

[W]hen [convoys] of vehicles left their heavily fortified compounds they usually roared down the main supply routes, which often cut through densely populated areas, reaching speeds over sixty miles an hour. Governed by the rule that stagnation increases the likelihood of attack, convoys leapt meridians in traffic jams, ignored traffic signals, swerved without warning onto sidewalks, scattering pedestrians, and slammed into civilian vehicles, shoving them off the road. Iraqi civilians, including children, were frequently run over and killed. Veterans said they sometimes shot drivers of civilian cars that moved into convoy formations or attempted to pass convoys as a warning to other drivers to get out of the way. [...]

Following an explosion or ambush, soldiers in the heavily armed escort vehicles often fired indiscriminately in a furious effort to suppress further attacks, according to three veterans. The rapid bursts from belt-fed .50-caliber machine guns and SAWs (Squad Automatic Weapons, which can fire as many as 1,000 rounds per minute) left many civilians wounded or dead. [...]

Convoys did not slow down or attempt to brake when civilians inadvertently got in front of their vehicles. [...]

"...basically, your order is that you never stop." [...]

Patrols

Soldiers and marines who participated in neighborhood patrols said they often used the same tactics as convoys — speed, aggressive firing — to reduce the risk of being ambushed or falling victim to IEDs. Sgt. Patrick Campbell, 29, of Camarillo, California, who frequently took part in patrols, said his unit fired often and without much warning on Iraqi civilians in a desperate bid to ward off attacks.

"Every time we got on the highway," he said, "we were firing warning shots, causing accidents all the time. Cars screeching to a stop, going into the other intersection.... The problem is, if you slow down at an intersection more than once, that's where the next bomb is going to be because you know they watch. You know? And so if you slow down at the same choke point every time, guaranteed there's going to be a bomb there next couple of days. So getting onto a freeway or highway is a choke point 'cause you have to wait for traffic to stop. So you want to go as fast as you can, and that involves added risk to all the cars around you, all the civilian cars.

"The first Iraqi I saw killed was an Iraqi who got too close to our patrol," he said. "We were coming up an on-ramp. And he was coming down the highway. And they fired warning shots and he just didn't stop. He just merged right into the convoy and they opened up on him." [...]

The killing of unarmed Iraqis was so common many of the troops said it became an accepted part of the daily landscape. [...]

Checkpoints

The US military checkpoints dotted across Iraq...were often deadly for civilians. [...]

Sergeant Mejía recounted an incident in Ramadi in July 2003 when an unarmed man drove with his young son too close to a checkpoint. The father was decapitated in front of the small, terrified boy by a member of Sergeant Mejía's unit firing a heavy .50-caliber machine gun. By then, said Sergeant Mejía, who responded to the scene after the fact, "this sort of killing of civilians had long ceased to arouse much interest or even comment." [...]

"This unit sets up this traffic control point, and this 18-year-old kid is on top of an armored Humvee with a .50-caliber machine gun," he said. "This car speeds at him pretty quick and he makes a split-second decision that that's a suicide bomber, and he presses the butterfly trigger and puts 200 rounds in less than a minute into this vehicle. It killed the mother, a father and two kids. The boy was aged 4 and the daughter was aged 3. And they briefed this to the general. And they briefed it gruesome. I mean, they had pictures. They briefed it to him. And this colonel turns around to this full division staff and says, 'If these fucking hajis learned to drive, this shit wouldn't happen.'" [...]

Rules of Engagement

Some said they were simply told they were authorized to shoot if they felt threatened..."Basically it always came down to self-defense and better them than you..." [...]

"Cover your own butt was the first rule of engagement," Lieutenant Van Engelen confirmed. "Someone could look at me the wrong way and I could claim my safety was in threat." [...]

Sergeant Flatt recounted one incident in Mosul in January 2005 when an elderly couple zipped past a checkpoint. "The car was approaching what was in my opinion a very poorly marked checkpoint, or not even a checkpoint at all, and probably didn't even see the soldiers," he said. "The guys got spooked and decided it was a possible threat, so they shot up the car. And they literally sat in the car for the next three days while we drove by them day after day." [Emphasis added]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that when the US military went into Vietnam, they didn't know any better, at least not at first — for the sake of argument. What conceivable excuse is there this time? And yet here they are, taking the same evil, stupid path of least resistance. They will kill uncounted numbers of Iraqis, lay waste to a country, and it will all end in failure — and they don't care. Doing things correctly, carefully, judiciously, humanely is just too hard. Instead they careen around, running over civilians, ransacking homes, shooting up the countryside. And they wonder why people want them gone.

This time there can be no excuse. Knowing what we know and doing these things anyway — it's unspeakable. It's evil. And incredibly, incredibly dumb.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:31 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 18, 2007

That "Senior Leader Of Al Qaeda In Iraq"

Iraq  Politics

It was all over the news today: the US military captured a senior al Qaeda in Iraq leader. CNN:

The U.S. military on Wednesday announced the arrest of a senior leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, an insurgent who, the military said, is casting himself as a "conduit" between the top leaders of al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq.

But, in case you missed it, here's a little detail that didn't make the headlines: the guy was captured two weeks ago (July 4) and they only announced it today. He's supposedly this super-important al Qaeda guy, the "conduit" between global al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq, the demonstration of a significant link between Bin Laden and the insurgency, a supposed proof of something the administration has been dying to establish forever. And they only thought to mention it today.

Yesterday, it was the National Intelligence Estimate that trumpeted the al Qaeda threat. Today, it's this. Neatly timed to take the Republican filibuster of the Senate vote on a troop drawdown and blow it off the front pages. Funny how that works.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:13 PM | Comments (7) | Link to this  

July 17, 2007

Madness

Iraq

Stop what you're doing and go watch this. Complete and utter insanity. Vicious, pointless, criminal insanity. The curse of being born in a country that sits on one of the last great oil reserves in the desperate twilight of the Age of Oil.

While US politicians posture, it goes on and on and on. Shame on us all for not making it stop.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 10:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

USAF Steps Up Iraq Operations

Iran  Iraq

Air power cannot defeat the insurgency in Iraq. It's a blunt instrument that inevitably kills non-combatants (i.e., people like you and me), alienating the few remaining Iraqis who don't already hate US forces. For the US military, though, it's seductive; it seems like an easy technological fix to an otherwise insoluble problem. But it cannot, will not, work. Vietnam taught us that. Even so, the US Air Force is ramping up Iraq operations in a big way. AP (via Cryptogon):

Away from the headlines and debate over the "surge" in U.S. ground troops, the Air Force has quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces.

Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq. [...]

Inside spacious, air-conditioned "Kingpin," a new air traffic control center at this huge Air Force hub 50 miles north of Baghdad, the expanded commitment can be seen on the central display screen: Small points of light represent more than 100 aircraft crisscrossing Iraqi air space at any one time. [...]

Early this year, with little fanfare, the Air Force sent a squadron of A-10 "Warthog" attack planes — a dozen or more aircraft — to be based at Al-Asad Air Base in western Iraq. At the same time it added a squadron of F-16C Fighting Falcons here at Balad. Although some had flown missions over Iraq from elsewhere in the region, the additions doubled to 50 or more the number of workhorse fighter-bomber jets available at bases inside the country, closer to the action.

The reinforcement involved more than numbers. The new F-16Cs were the first of the advanced "Block 50" version to fly in Iraq, an aircraft whose technology includes a cockpit helmet that enables the pilot to aim his weapons at a target simply by turning his head and looking at it.

The Navy has contributed by stationing a second aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, and the reintroduction of B1-Bs has added a close-at-hand "platform" capable of carrying 24 tons of bombs.

Those big bombers were moved last year from distant Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean to an undisclosed base in the Persian Gulf. Since February, with the ground offensive, they have gone on Iraq bombing runs for the first time since the 2003 invasion. [...]

The demand for air support is heavy. On one recent day, at a briefing attended by a reporter, it was noted that 48 requests for air support were filled, but 16 went unmet.

"There are times when the Army wishes we had more jets," said F-16C pilot Lt. Col. Steve Williams, commander of the 13th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron, a component of Balad's 379th Air Expeditionary Wing.

In addition, the Air Force is performing more "ISR" work in Iraq — intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance. "We have probably come close to doubling our ISR platforms the past 12 months," said Col. Gary Crowder, a deputy air operations chief for the Central Command.

Those proliferating reconnaissance platforms include Predator drones, high-flying U2s and AWACS, the technology-packed airborne warning and control aircraft, three of which returned to the Persian Gulf in April after three years' absence.

The F-16Cs and other attack planes also do surveillance work with their targeting cameras, keeping watch on convoy routes, for example. By Oct. 1, Crowder said, all squadrons will have "ROVER" capability, able to download real-time aerial video to the laptop computers of troops on the ground — showing them, in effect, what's around the next corner.

"They love it. It's like having a security camera wherever you want it," said Col. Joe Guastella, the Air Force's regional operations chief.

Air Force engineers, meanwhile, are improving this centrally located home base, which supports some 10,000 air operations per week.

The weaker of Balad's two 11,000-foot runways was reinforced — for five to seven years' more hard use. The engineers next will build concrete "overruns" at the runways' ends. Balad's strategic ramp, the concrete parking lot for its biggest planes, was expanded last fall. The air traffic control system is to be upgraded again with the latest technology.

"We'd like to get it to be a field like Langley, if you will," said mission support chief Reynolds, referring to the Air Force showcase base in Virginia.

The Air Force has flown over Iraq for many years, having enforced "no-fly zones" with the Navy in 1991-2003, banning Iraqi aircraft from northern and southern areas of this country. Today, too, it takes a long view: Many expect the Army to draw down its Iraq forces by 2009, but the Air Force is planning for a continued conflict in which it supports Iraqi troops.

"Until we can determine that the Iraqis have got their air force to sufficient capability, I think the coalition will be here to support that effort," Lt. Gen. Gary North, overall regional air commander, said in an interview. The new Iraqi air force thus far fields only a handful of transports and reconnaissance aircraft — no attack planes.

North also echoed a common theme in today's Air Force: Some of the U.S. planes are too old. Some of his KC-135 air-refueling tankers date from 1956. Heavy use in Iraq and Afghanistan is cracking the wings of some A-10s, the Air Force says.

"We are burning these airplanes out," North said. "Our A-10s and our F-16s are rapidly becoming legacy systems." [Emphasis added]

One thing is clear: the US does not plan on pulling out its warplanes any time soon. Far from ramping down the air presence, they are busily ramping it up, building new facilities, adding aircraft.

And what in the world are long-range B-1B bombers, which cost something like a third of a billion dollars each, doing flying close air support against insurgents with AK-47s and homemade bombs? I hope the following story isn't a clue. Deutsche Welle (via Cryptogon):

The Ramstein air base in southwestern Germany, long the largest US nuclear storehouse in Europe, has been completely emptied of its atomic arsenal according to experts who say the weapons are out of the country.

This week the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists (FAS) said in a study that the US army had apparently completely removed its stock of an estimated 130 nuclear weapons from the Ramstein air base. [Emphasis added]

B-1B bombers and a bunch of repurposed nukes. Please say this has nothing to do with Iran.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:04 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 16, 2007

How The News Works

Humor & Fun  Iran  Iraq  Media

This is excellent.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 27, 2007

Legacy

Iraq

There are no words. WaPo:

Marwa Hussein watched as gunmen stormed into her home and executed her parents. Afterward, her uncle brought her to the Alwiya Orphanage, a high-walled compound nestled in central Baghdad with a concrete yard for a playground. That was more than two years ago, and for 13-year-old Marwa, shy and thin with walnut-colored eyes and long brown hair, the memory of her parents' last moments is always with her.

"They were killed," she said, her voice trailing away as she sat on her narrow bed with pink sheets. Tears started to slide down her face. As social worker Maysoon Tahsin comforted her, other orphans in the room, where 12 girls sleep, watched solemnly.

Iraq's conflict is exacting an immense and largely unnoticed psychological toll on children and youth that will have long-term consequences, said social workers, psychiatrists, teachers and aid workers in interviews across Baghdad and in neighboring Jordan.

"With our limited resources, the societal impact is going to be very bad," said Haider Abdul Muhsin, one of the country's few child psychiatrists. "This generation will become a very violent generation, much worse than during Saddam Hussein's regime."

Since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003, 4 million Iraqis have fled their homes, half of them children, according to the United Nations Children's Fund. Many are being killed inside their sanctuaries -- at playgrounds, on soccer fields and in schools. Criminals are routinely kidnapping children for ransom as lawlessness goes unchecked. Violence has orphaned tens of thousands. [...]

In a World Health Organization survey of 600 children ages 3 to 10 in Baghdad last year, 47 percent said they had been exposed to a major traumatic event over the past two years. Of this group, 14 percent showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. In a second study of 1,090 adolescents in the northern city of Mosul, 30 percent showed symptoms of the disorder. [...]

Many of the children [Iraqi psychiatrist] Abdul Muhsin treats have witnessed killings. They have anxiety problems and suffer from depression. Some have recurring nightmares and wet their beds. Others have problems learning in school. Iraqi children, he said, show symptoms not unlike children in other war zones such as Lebanon, Sudan and the Palestinian territories. [...]

"We adults are afraid of what's happening in Iraq. How do you think it will affect the children?" [...]

At Sadr General, as many as 250 children arrive for treatment every day, nearly double from last year. "We only treat the first 20 children who arrive and then we run out of drugs," Sahib said. There is no child psychiatrist on staff.

At the orphanage, Dina Shadi sleeps a few feet away from Marwa Hussein. Twelve-year-old Dina had recently received two telephone calls from relatives. She learned that her 17-year-old brother had been killed and that her aunt had been kidnapped and executed. [...]

"Now Dina expects another call with more bad news. She has a very dark image of the future. More and more, she's afraid of the future."

UNICEF officials estimate that tens of thousands children lost one or both parents to the conflict in the past year. If trends continue, they expect the numbers to rise this year, said Claire Hajaj, a UNICEF spokesperson in Amman, Jordan. [...]

At a primary school in the Zayuna neighborhood of Baghdad, three teachers sat in the head office lamenting how Iraq's sectarian strife had affected their classrooms. A quarter of their students had left for safer areas. Some parents were too scared to send their children to school, fearing attacks.

"Now, the young students when they enter the school, they ask their classmates whether they are Sunni or Shia," said Nagher Ziad Salih, 37, the school's principal.

"Yesterday, I was taking my 6-year-old grandson for a walk. He asked me 'Is this a Shia street or a Sunni street?' " said Um Amil, who asked that her full name not be used because she was afraid she could become a target. "I said: We are all Muslims. But he was still determined to know if this was street was Sunni or Shia."

"Such a child, when he grows up, what will he become?" she asked.

Salih said children quarreling on the playground now invoke the names of armed groups. "The child would say: I'll get the Mahdi Army to take revenge," she said. "The other kid would say back: My uncle is from the [Sunni] resistance and he'll take revenge against you."

The third teacher, Um Hanim, spoke up.

"Now the kid whose parent is killed by a Sunni or a Shia, what will be his future?" she said, also insisting that her full name not be used. "He will have a grudge inside him." [...]

Twenty-year-old Yasser Laith, short with a thin goatee and a cold stare, cannot sleep at night. When a rocket crashed into his family's house in the mostly Sunni neighborhood of Adhamiya in November, he crawled into the kitchen and curled up in fear.

"Whenever I hear an explosion, I start trembling," mumbled Laith, as he waited at Ibn Rushed hospital for a 10-day supply of anti-psychotic drugs.

Another day, intense clashes erupted on his street, and U.S. combat helicopters hovered over the area. Laith grabbed an AK-47 assault rifle, rushed to his roof and began firing into the sky.

"My father is ashamed of me. I wanted to show that I was as good as the others," Laith said with a half-crazed smile. "After that I felt satisfied."

Today, he takes pills to help control his violence and stop him from hitting his two younger sisters or abusing his parents. Several of his friends, he said, had joined the Sunni insurgency. He, too, was tempted, especially after learning that one of his friends had been killed by the Mahdi Army.

"I had the desire to seek revenge," Laith said, smiling again.

When Laith left the room to go to the bathroom, his 57-year-old mother, Sahira Asadallah, said she was scared that her son would commit a crime or join an insurgent group. She wondered how long Laith would have to take the drugs, then answered herself: "This will only end with the end of the war." [Emphasis added]

Actions have consequences. Iraq isn't some tv show. It's a real place where real people, millions of them children, are subjected to unspeakable suffering and terror, day in, day out. The inevitable result is a legacy of hatred and violence that will endure for generations. Among the people we supposedly were liberating.

And here in the US, the unspeakable Ann Coulter gets to go on television and say this:

We need to be less concerned about civilian casualties — we bombed more people in Hamburg in two days — I'd rather have their civilians die than our civilians — we should kill their people.

I want to scream.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:24 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

June 15, 2007

The Surge

Iraq

An average of 98 US troops per month were killed in Iraq over the past six months (Dec 06 through May 07). How does that compare with other six month periods of the war?

Each bar represents a six month period, with the bar at the right being the most recent.

Not a good trend.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:59 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 14, 2007

3400, 3500

Iraq  Media

The carnage continues in Iraq.

While I was gone from the blog, US troops deaths in Iraq passed the 3400 mark. Then 3500. US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 3513.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

230 US troops were killed in April and May, the worst two-month total of the entire war, a fact worthy of some public discussion, one might think.

The situation is deteriorating. Fox News responds by cutting its Iraq coverage, a policy Bill O'Reilly likes just fine. Yes, let's all shut our eyes, stick our fingers in our ears, and go "La la la la." As if this isn't all happening in a real place, to real people. Unspeakable.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:45 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 09, 2007

Support The Troops

Iraq  Politics

In case you haven't already seen this...

Posted by Jonathan at 05:58 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 03, 2007

The War Through Women's Eyes

Iraq

This is an absolutely devastating video made by two Iraqi women who spent three months travelling around Iraq, visiting other women and filming what they saw. Life as it's being lived today in Iraq, especially by Iraq's women. It's worse than you think.

Watch (via Sabbah):

There was a time when we were told the "liberation" of Iraq would mean liberation for Iraq's women. Watch the video and you'll see what an unspeakably grotesque lie that has turned out to be.

It's a humble, low-key amateur production, eloquent in its simplicity, and that makes it all the more heart-breaking. A truly stunning document of the insanity of the US war.

Often, we're led to believe that the suffering and violence are confined largely to Baghdad, that elsewhere in Iraq things are relatively peaceful, life relatively normal. Watch this film and you'll see that nothing could be further from the truth. Iraq is in ruins. The US has committed a crime of unimaginable proportions, a crime which continues, and deepens. Shame on us all.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 10:37 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 27, 2007

Kristol Gets Nailed

Iraq

Chickenhawk William Kristol gets a good talking to by an articulate, pissed-off military wife. Worth a listen.

[Thanks, Clay]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 26, 2007

Disintegrating Iraq

Iraq

Iraqi blogger Riverbend, writing about the wall that's being built around a "Sunni" area in Baghdad, and about the wreckage that is Iraq today. It's heart-breaking:

The wall, of course, will protect no one. I sometimes wonder if this is how the concentration camps began in Europe. The Nazi government probably said, "Oh look — we're just going to protect the Jews with this little wall here — it will be difficult for people to get into their special area to hurt them!" And yet, it will also be difficult to get out.

The Wall is the latest effort to further break Iraqi society apart. Promoting and supporting civil war isn't enough, apparently — Iraqis have generally proven to be more tenacious and tolerant than their mullahs, ayatollahs, and Vichy leaders. It's time for America to physically divide and conquer — like Berlin before the wall came down or Palestine today. This way, they can continue chasing Sunnis out of "Shia areas" and Shia out of "Sunni areas".

I always hear the Iraqi pro-war crowd interviewed on television from foreign capitals (they can only appear on television from the safety of foreign capitals because I defy anyone to be publicly pro-war in Iraq). They refuse to believe that their religiously inclined, sectarian political parties fueled this whole Sunni/Shia conflict. They refuse to acknowledge that this situation is a direct result of the war and occupation. They go on and on about Iraq's history and how Sunnis and Shia were always in conflict and I hate that. I hate that a handful of expats who haven't been to the country in decades pretend to know more about it than people actually living there.

I remember Baghdad before the war — one could live anywhere. We didn't know what our neighbors were — we didn't care. No one asked about religion or sect. No one bothered with what was considered a trivial topic: are you Sunni or Shia? You only asked something like that if you were uncouth and backward. Our lives revolve around it now. Our existence depends on hiding it or highlighting it — depending on the group of masked men who stop you or raid your home in the middle of the night.

On a personal note, we've finally decided to leave. I guess I've known we would be leaving for a while now. We discussed it as a family dozens of times. At first, someone would suggest it tentatively because, it was just a preposterous idea — leaving ones home and extended family — leaving ones country — and to what? To where? [...]

So we've been busy. Busy trying to decide what part of our lives to leave behind. Which memories are dispensable? We, like many Iraqis, are not the classic refugees — the ones with only the clothes on their backs and no choice. We are choosing to leave because the other option is simply a continuation of what has been one long nightmare — stay and wait and try to survive. [...]

The problem is that we don't even know if we'll ever see this stuff again. We don't know if whatever we leave, including the house, will be available when and if we come back. There are moments when the injustice of having to leave your country, simply because an imbecile got it into his head to invade it, is overwhelming. It is unfair that in order to survive and live normally, we have to leave our home and what remains of family and friends... And to what? [Emphasis added]

There may have been people in the White House and the Pentagon who actually believed that US troops would be greeted as liberators and accepted as the new de facto rulers of Iraq. Or maybe the game plan has always been to create such chaos that Iraqis would eventually demand partition of their own country. Or — perhaps most likely — both, with various factions working at cross-purposes. In any case, I think we need vehemently to resist the notion that if only the US had done this or that thing differently — short of immediately pulling out after the fall of Saddam, something that was never in the cards, just look at the enormous US embassy under construction in Baghdad — it all could have ended well. There isn't some "right" way to invade and occupy a nation of people who do not want you there. The problem isn't that the invasion was done wrong. The problem is that the invasion was done at all. And every day that US troops remain in Iraq, the failure and the unimaginable suffering only deepen.

The US has so much to answer for. If we don't redeem ourselves soon — assuming that redemption is still even possible — it seems inescapable that, one way or another, the US will pay a dark and heavy price. Call it karma, cause and effect. Or call it justice.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 09:55 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 20, 2007

The Failure Of Iraqification

Iraq

The Iraqification of the war — Iraqi troops "standing up" so US troops can "stand down" — has always been an absurdly impossible dream. Never happen. McClatchy Newspapers say the Pentagon's finally facing up to that fact, but unfortunately it's replacing it with an even more impossible dream: US troops single-handedly defeating the insurgents and gaining control of Iraq. Never happen. Excerpts:

Military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.

Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration's Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.

No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. "We are just adding another leg to our mission," Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.

But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren't authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq. [...]

Maj. Gen. Doug Lute, the director of operations at U.S. Central Command, which oversees military activities in the Middle East, said that during the troop increase, U.S. officers will be trying to determine how ready Iraqi forces are to assume control.

"We are looking for indicators where we can assess the extent to which we are fighting alongside Iraqi security forces, not as a replacement to them," he said. Those signs will include "things like the number of U.S.-only missions, the number of combined U.S.-Iraqi missions, the number where Iraqis are in the lead, the number of Joint Security Stations set up," he said.

That's a far cry from the optimistic assessments U.S. commanders offered throughout 2006 about the impact of training Iraqis.

President Bush first announced the training strategy in the summer of 2005.

"Our strategy can be summed up this way," Bush said. "As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." [...]

Throughout 2006, Casey and top Bush administration leaders touted the training as a success, asserting that eight of Iraq's 10 divisions had taken the lead in confronting insurgents. [...]

[But] in nearly every area where Iraqi forces were given control, the security situation rapidly deteriorated. The exceptions were areas dominated largely by one sect and policed by members of that sect.

In the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar, which Bush celebrated last year as an example of success, suspected Sunni Muslim insurgents set off a bomb last month that killed as many as 150 people, the largest single bombing attack of the war. Shiite Muslim mobs, including some police officers, pulled Sunnis from their homes and executed dozens afterward. U.S. troops were dispatched to restore order.

Earlier this month, U.S. forces engaged in heavy fighting in the southern city of Diwaniyah after Iraqi forces, who'd been given control of the region in January 2006, lost control of the city.

U.S. officials said they once believed that if they empowered their Iraqi counterparts, they'd take the lead and do a better job of curtailing the violence. But they concede that's no longer their operating principle. [...]

Many officials are vague about when the U.S. will know when troops can begin to return home. Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. is trying to buy "time for the Iraqi government to provide the good governance and the economic activity that's required."

One State Department official, who also asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the subject, expressed the same sentiment in blunter terms. "Our strategy now is to basically hold on and wait for the Iraqis to do something," he said. [Emphasis added]

This is what the surge is about: US troops shouldering aside the Iraqis. But we've seen this movie before, in Vietnam. There are plenty of differences between Iraq and Vietnam, but some things haven't changed. Once again, we see a succession of increasingly desperate plans, each touted as the answer, the one that will turn things around, and each diverging farther and farther from reality. Can-do planners see US "credibility" as being on the line, so they keep upping the ante — and sinking deeper and deeper into the quicksand. No general or politician wants to be the one to say it can't be done. They've got their egos and careers to consider. But it's Iraqis who pay the awful price.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:55 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 19, 2007

War Czar Execution Manager

Humor & Fun  Iraq

Posted by Jonathan at 07:33 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 18, 2007

Loan Wolf

Humor & Fun  Iraq  Politics

A great Jon Stewart bit on Paul Wolfowitz:

Posted by Jonathan at 04:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Today In Baghdad

Iraq

Violence in Baghdad Wednesday "killed at least 171 people and wounded scores" (CNN).

That's many times the death toll at Virginia Tech. The people of Iraq endure that every day. Day in, day out. Year in, year out. Because of the US.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:03 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 17, 2007

From Bad To Worse

Iraq

Iraq is going from bad to worse. First, the casualty rate among US troops is accelerating. Miami Herald:

Over the past six months, American troops have died in Iraq at the highest rate since the war began, an indication that the conflict is becoming increasingly dangerous for U.S. forces even after more than four years of fighting.

From October 2006 through last month, 532 American soldiers were killed, the most during any six-month period of the war. March also marked the first time that the U.S. military suffered four straight months of 80 or more fatalities. April, with 58 service members killed through Monday, is on pace to be one of the deadliest months of the conflict for American forces.

Senior American military officials attribute much of the increase to the Baghdad security crackdown, now in its third month. But the rate of fatalities was increasing even before a more aggressive strategy began moving U.S. troops from heavily fortified bases into smaller neighborhood outposts throughout the capital, placing them at greater risk of roadside bombings and small-arms attacks. [Emphasis added]

And the chaos is spreading outward from Iraq. James Zogby:

With the discovery of an Al Qaida cell in Morocco, and deadly suicide terrorist attacks in Algiers and the National Parliament in Baghdad, it is now clear that Bin Laden's cancerous group has metastasised, spawning affiliates and copy-cat groups across the region. What is also clear is that war in Iraq is aggravating this growth in two other ways.

On the one hand, the war itself, the occupation and the behaviour associated with it, have fuelled extremism. Of equally deadly consequence is the fact that Iraq is now playing the role once reserved for Afghanistan. Reports coming out of Morocco and Algeria, establish that hundreds of young men from both countries have travelled to Iraq for training and combat, and have returned to their home countries with evil intent. [...]

In Iraq, demonstrations led by Moqtada Al Sadr brought out hundreds of thousands of Iraqis calling for an end to the US presence in their country. In a surprising display of unity in Najaf, Sunni and Shiite clerics walked together, in the mass mobilisation. This outpouring came in response to Al Sadr's call to all Iraqis to cease fighting each other in sectarian attacks and to unite around a single cause: ending the United States' 'occupation' of Iraq. A possible contributing factor to this display of unity may be found in a US Pentagon report noting that casualties in Iraq have actually increased since the beginning of the Bush Administration's 'surge'. While it is true that violence has decreased in Baghdad, it is more than offset by killings in the rest of Iraq as insurgents and sectarian terrorists have dispersed to other locations.

But, Baghdad is still not safe, as was made clear on Thursday when a suicide bomber penetrated multiple layers of security to detonate his bomb in the cafeteria of the Iraqi Parliament building. All of this directly challenged the notion that the 'surge' is working. In Afghanistan things are no better; Taliban attacks are up, as are Nato casualties. A recent report by a former US army general claims that much of Afghanistan has reverted into a lawless narco-state. [Emphasis added]

An Iraqi group said to be linked to al-Qaeda says that Iraq has become a "university of terrorism." Irish Times:

The head of an al-Qaeda-linked group in Iraq said the country had become a "university of terrorism", producing highly qualified warriors, since the 2003 US-led invasion.

In an audio recording posted on the Internet today, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the self-styled Islamic State in Iraq, said his fighters were successfully confronting US forces in Iraq and have begun producing a guided missile called al-Quds 1 or Jerusalem 1.

"The largest batch of soldiers for jihad ... in the history of Iraq are graduating and they have the highest level of competence in the world," Baghdadi said. [...]

"We would like to inform the mujahideen all over the world, and especially in Iraq, that the Quds (Jerusalem) 1 rocket has gone into the phase of military production," Baghdadi said, adding that its length, weight, range and precision "matches those of world powers". [...]

"The fear of the American Marines has disappeared from the hearts of the people of the world, as the mujahideen have become thousands from the few they were after the fall of the infidel Baath regime," Baghdadi said. "These are just some of the achievements of four years of jihad." [Emphasis added]

I hate to think about where this is all heading, but it's hard to see any way that it doesn't become a whole lot worse before it gets any better. All the King's horses and all the King's men (what horses and men the King has left) can't put this Humpty-Dumpty together again.

Failed states don't spontaneously recover, and chaos only breeds more chaos in a self-reinforcing feedback loop. The Soviet Union once seemed impregnable; then it got tied down in Afghanistan, and things unravelled quite suddenly and unexpectedly. It's hard to imagine the US imploding the way the Soviets did, but we sure seem determined to follow in their footsteps. The USSR seemed stable and secure — until it wasn't anymore. Chaotic, nonlinear systems can shift to new equilibrium states quite suddenly and unexpectedly. The pace of change is accelerating; nothing lasts forever.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:51 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 16, 2007

Study: Iraq's Children Severely Traumatized By War

Iraq

Even if the war were to end today, which of course it won't, its legacy will be felt for generations. USA Today:

About 70% of primary school students in a Baghdad neighborhood suffer symptoms of trauma-related stress such as bed-wetting or stuttering, according to a survey by the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

The survey of about 2,500 youngsters is the most comprehensive look at how the war is affecting Iraqi children, said Iraq's national mental health adviser and author of the study, Mohammed Al-Aboudi.

"The fighting is happening in the streets in front of our houses and schools," Al-Aboudi said. "This is very difficult for the children to adapt to." [...]

Many Iraqi children have to pass dead bodies on the street as they walk to school in the morning, according to a separate report last week by the International Red Cross. Others have seen relatives killed or have been injured in mortar or bomb attacks.

"Some of these children are suffering one trauma after another, and it's severely damaging their development," said Said Al-Hashimi, a psychiatrist who teaches at Mustansiriya Medical School and runs a private clinic in west Baghdad. "We're not certain what will become of the next generation, even if there is peace one day," Al-Hashimi said.

The study was conducted last October in the Sha'ab district of northern Baghdad. The low- to middle-income neighborhood is inhabited by a mix of Shiites and Sunni Arabs. Al-Aboudi said he believes the sample was broadly representative of conditions throughout the capital. [...]

The study "shows the impact of the violence and insecurity on the children and on children's mental health," said Naeema Al-Gasseer, the Iraqi representative of the WHO. "They have fear every day." [Emphasis added]

The effects of early childhood trauma last a lifetime. They are extraordinarily difficult to overcome. And they will reverberate down the generations.

Look at that photo. That is the human reality of what the US has done and continues to do. It is unspeakable. It is insane. It is unforgivable. If you can look at that photo without wanting to weep, then you are made of sterner stuff than I.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

3300

Iraq

The carnage continues in Iraq.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 3302.

100 in just the past month.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

Update: [5:55 PM] Since just this morning, the count has jumped to 3308.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 12, 2007

Turning Baghdad Into A Prison

Iraq

Robert Fisk reports that the US is planning to seal off large portions of Baghdad as walled enclaves, with people's movements and activities tightly controlled. Excerpts:

Faced with an ever-more ruthless insurgency in Baghdad - despite President George Bush's "surge" in troops - US forces in the city are now planning a massive and highly controversial counter-insurgency operation that will seal off vast areas of the city, enclosing whole neighbourhoods with barricades and allowing only Iraqis with newly issued ID cards to enter.

The campaign of "gated communities" - whose genesis was in the Vietnam War - will involve up to 30 of the city's 89 official districts and will be the most ambitious counter-insurgency programme yet mounted by the US in Iraq.

The system has been used - and has spectacularly failed - in the past, and its inauguration in Iraq is as much a sign of American desperation at the country's continued descent into civil conflict as it is of US determination to "win" the war against an Iraqi insurgency that has cost the lives of more than 3,200 American troops. The system of "gating" areas under foreign occupation failed during the French war against FLN insurgents in Algeria and again during the American war in Vietnam. Israel has employed similar practices during its occupation of Palestinian territory - again, with little success. [...]

The latest "security" plan, of which The Independent has learnt the details, was concocted by General David Petraeus, the current US commander in Baghdad, during a six-month command and staff course at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas. Those attending the course - American army generals serving in Iraq and top officers from the US Marine Corps, along with, according to some reports, at least four senior Israeli officers - participated in a series of debates to determine how best to "turn round" the disastrous war in Iraq.

The initial emphasis of the new American plan will be placed on securing Baghdad market places and predominantly Shia Muslim areas. Arrests of men of military age will be substantial. The ID card project is based upon a system adopted in the city of Tal Afar by General Petraeus's men - and specifically by Colonel H R McMaster, of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment - in early 2005, when an eight-foot "berm" was built around the town to prevent the movement of gunmen and weapons. General Petraeus regarded the campaign as a success although Tal Afar, close to the Syrian border, has since fallen back into insurgent control.

So far, the Baghdad campaign has involved only the creation of a few US positions within several civilian areas of the city but the new project will involve joint American and Iraqi "support bases" in nine of the 30 districts to be "gated" off. From these bases - in fortified buildings - US-Iraqi forces will supposedly clear militias from civilian streets which will then be walled off and the occupants issued with ID cards. Only the occupants will be allowed into these "gated communities" and there will be continuous patrolling by US-Iraqi forces. There are likely to be pass systems, "visitor" registration and restrictions on movement outside the "gated communities". Civilians may find themselves inside a "controlled population" prison.

In theory, US forces can then concentrate on providing physical reconstruction in what the military like to call a "secure environment". But insurgents are not foreigners, despite the presence of al-Qa'ida in Iraq. They come from the same population centres that will be "gated" and will, if undiscovered, hold ID cards themselves; they will be "enclosed" with everyone else.

A former US officer in Vietnam who has a deep knowledge of General Petraeus's plans is sceptical of the possible results. "The first loyalty of any Sunni who is in the Iraqi army is to the insurgency," he said. "Any Shia's first loyalty is to the head of his political party and its militia. Any Kurd in the Iraqi army, his first loyalty is to either Barzani or Talabani. There is no independent Iraqi army. These people really have no choice. They are trying to save their families from starvation and reprisal. At one time they may have believed in a unified Iraq. At one time they may have been secular. But the violence and brutality that started with the American invasion has burnt those liberal ideas out of people ... Every American who is embedded in an Iraqi unit is in constant mortal danger." [...]

[A]nother former senior US officer has produced his own pessimistic conclusions about the "gated" neighbourhood project.

"Once the additional troops are in place the insurrectionists will cut the lines of communication from Kuwait to the greatest extent they are able," he told The Independent. "They will do the same inside Baghdad, forcing more use of helicopters. The helicopters will be vulnerable coming into the patrol bases, and the enemy will destroy as many as they can. The second part of their plan will be to attempt to destroy one of the patrol bases. They will begin that process by utilising their people inside the 'gated communities' to help them enter. They will choose bases where the Iraqi troops either will not fight or will actually support them.

"The American reaction will be to use massive firepower, which will destroy the neighbourhood that is being 'protected'." [Emphasis added]

Today's bombing attack inside the Iraqi parliament building underscores the utter lunacy of this plan. The insurgents will find ways around any security measures that are put in place. It's their country, their city, their neighborhood. They know the people, they speak the language, they can pick the time and place to attack.

To see how crazy this plan is, project forward into the future. What's the best-case scenario? The US puts a lid on the violence (not going to happen, but we're talking best-case here) and then maintains a brutal occupation forever? Like Israel in the West Bank? Forget it.

No permanent resolution can come from this plan. It's just a way to mark time and postpone the inevitable: an American defeat and withdrawal. It can't possibly work, and therefore it's madness.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:07 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 09, 2007

Get Me Rewrite!

Iran  Iraq  Media

A couple of months ago, the government line was that resurgents' use of EFPs was proof of high-level Iranian involvement. Remember this? CBS:

U.S. military officials charged on Sunday that the highest levels of the Iranian leadership ordered Shiite militants in Iraq to be armed with sophisticated armor-piercing roadside bombs that have killed more than 170 American forces. [...]

The deadly and highly sophisticated weapons the U.S. military said were coming into Iraq from Iran are known as "explosively formed penetrators," or EFPs.

But now Reuters says different:

"Iraqi army soldiers swept into the city of Diwaniya early this morning to disrupt militia activity and return security and stability of the volatile city back to the government of Iraq,” the US military said in a statement.

[Lieutenant-Colonel Scott] Bleichwehl said troops, facing scattered resistance, discovered a factory that produced "explosively formed penetrators" (EFPs), a particularly deadly type of explosive that can destroy a main battle tank and several weapons caches. [Emphasis added]

So the devices that couldn't possibly have come from anywhere but Iranian government sources are actually manufactured by insurgents in Iraq. Not surprising in itself: what don't they lie about? But the story doesn't end there. As Atrios noticed, the Washington Post online picked up the Reuters story, as captured by Google News:

Then almost immediately, the original version was down The Memory Hole, becoming instead:

The U.S. military said two U.S. soldiers died in separate roadside bombings in the east and west of Baghdad on Friday.

One of the bombs was an explosively formed projectile, a particularly deadly type of device which Washington accuses Iran of supplying Iraqi militants. [Emphasis added]

Like it was written by the Pentagon itself. Either it was, or the WaPo thinks it's their job to do the Pentagon's work without being asked. Either way, disgraceful.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Surge

Iraq

The Baghdad "surge" is producing a surge in troop deaths.

Already in the first 9 days of April, 47 US and British troops have been killed, an average of 5.22 per day. That's considerably higher than any month's average since the initial three weeks of the war.

For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 08:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 07, 2007

Iraq Mortality For Children Under Five: More Than 1 In 8

Iraq

The US war on Iraq has given us any number of reasons for sorrow and for shame. But this story is in a class by itself. If you have tears, prepare to shed them now. IPS:

"Iraq was known to be the best in healthcare in the region," Dr. Iyad Muhammad from Ramadi General Hospital told IPS. "Best doctors, hospitals, nurses and cheapest medicines. The situation now is the opposite." [...]

"Our situation now has become worse than during the sanctions period (in the 1990s after the first Gulf war) when more than one million died and we had very little medicine and supplies to treat them."

Iraq's health index has deteriorated to a level not seen since the 1950s, Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division and an Iraq specialist has said. [...]

"I appeared on a documentary concerning Iraqi hospitals, and that was the biggest mistake I ever committed," Dr. Rafi Jassim from Baghdad told IPS. "I was lucky to learn in proper time that militias were to raid my house that night. Now I am on the run just like any fugitive criminal, and my family faces the threat of a terrorist attack any moment."

A combination of sanctions, war and occupation has brought to Iraq the world's worst deterioration in child mortality rate. According to a report 'The State of the World's Children' released by UNICEF this year, Iraq's mortality rate for children under five was 50 per 1000 live births in 1990, and 125 [per 1000] in 2005, an annual average deterioration of 6.1 percent.

When the U.S.-led invasion was launched in 2003, the Bush administration pledged to cut Iraq's child mortality rate by half by 2005. Instead, the rate has worsened, now to 130 in 2006, according to Iraqi Health Ministry figures. [...]

"We have been exporters of medicines to Iraq, but we are not able to get any contract now to supply the Ministry of Health with medicines," Dr. Hammed al-Nuaimy, manager of a large medical supply company told IPS in Baghdad. "This is the case even though we always submit the best prices and brands of European origin."

Al-Nuaimy would not say why his company failed to get supply contracts despite competitive offers. "I leave it for you and your readers to answer," he said.

"We are being ignored by our government and by the Americans," 55-year-old Hammad Hussein from Fallujah told IPS on a visit to Baghdad. "The promises of a better life have just turned out to be ugly death."

Hussein added, "Our hospitals and clinics are paralysed and we do not find the simplest treatment, so we always have to buy medicines from the commercial market which means we have to sell something like a refrigerator or a TV set to cure a sick member of the family."

Sanaa Sulayman, studying for a biology degree at the University of Baghdad's science department told IPS that no one seems to look at health in Iraq from the environmental perspective.

"The huge amounts of explosives dropped on Iraq including those 'special weapons' like radioactive Depleted Uranium and white phosphorous have caused a dramatic increase in numbers of patients and severity of diseases," Sulayman said. "It is still getting worse by the day and no one seems to care."

A dentist from Fallujah told IPS that most Iraqis have been neglecting dental care because they are unable to afford it.

"Dental care is considered a luxury by Iraqis now, and they will not visit our clinics unless they have an intolerable toothache," said the doctor. "Most of them would ask for a tooth to be pulled rather than filling it because they cannot afford proper treatment."

The mental health situation is equally grim for Iraqis.

In a study 'Psychological effects of war on Iraqis' the Association of Iraqi Psychologists (AIP) reported in January 2007 that of 2,000 people interviewed in all 18 Iraqi provinces, 92 percent said they feared being killed in an explosion.

Sixty percent of those interviewed said the level of violence had caused them to have panic attacks, and this prevented them from going out because they feared they would be the next victims. [Emphasis added]

More than 1 child in 8 dies before age 5. The annual deterioration since 1990 of 6.1% is "a world record, well behind very poor and AIDS- affected Botswana." (Al-Ahram) Can Iraqis ever forgive us? Can we ever forgive ourselves?

As I have written before in connection with the economic sanctions that killed so many Iraqis, children especially: ultimately our collective failure is a failure of imagination. A failure to imagine the reality of hundreds of thousands of children killed. To imagine hundreds of thousands of little caskets, hundreds of thousands of mothers' hearts broken. This is happening in a real place, to real people. Imagine their sorrow and their rage.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:06 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 03, 2007

Iraqis Unimpressed By McCain Visit

Iraq  Politics

Baghdad residents were unimpressed with Senator McCain's Baghdad photo op. AP:

Iraqis in the capital said Tuesday that Sen. John McCain's account of a heavily guarded visit to a central market did not represent the current reality in Baghdad, with one calling it "propaganda."

Jaafar Moussa Thamir, a 42-year-old who sells electrical appliances at the Shorja market that the Republican congressmen visited on Sunday, said the delegation greeted some fellow vendors with Arabic phrases but he was not impressed.

"They were just making fun of us and paid this visit just for their own interests," he said. "Do they think that when they come and speak few Arabic words in a very bad manner it will make us love them? This country and its society have been destroyed because of them and I hope that they realized that during this visit."

Thamir said "about 150 U.S. soldiers and 20 humvees" accompanied the McCain delegation. [...]

"I didn't care about him, I even turned my eyes away," Thamir said. "We are being killed by the dozens everyday because of them. What were they trying to tell us? They are just pretenders."

Karim Abdullah, a 37-year-old textile merchant, said the congressmen were kept under tight security and accompanied by dozens of U.S. troops.

"They were laughing and talking to people as if there was nothing going on in this country or at least they were pretending that they were tourists and were visiting the city's old market and buying souvenirs," he said. "To achieve this, they sealed off the area, put themselves in flak jackets and walked in the middle of tens of armed American soldiers." [Emphasis added]

Fly in, use the war as a backdrop for campaign visuals, smile for the camera, tell the folks at home that up is down and black is white, fly out again. Can it get any more grotesque?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:43 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 02, 2007

War As Testosterone-Fueled Video Game

Iraq

Why the US is doomed in Iraq. A highly disturbing video (via ICH):

Exactly the wrong way to conduct a counterinsurgency war: the callous, undisciplined, indiscriminate killing of civilians. But it's pretty close to inevitable, as troops realize that what they're doing makes no sense and is, finally, unjust and dishonorable. They live with it by flipping a mental switch — the people around them aren't people. They're just targets. And at that point the war is already lost. Iraqis won't rest until US troops are out of their country. Not after stuff like this.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:50 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Cutting Off War Funds Versus "Supporting The Troops"

Iraq

Doonesbury explains.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 27, 2007

Bolton On BBC

Iraq

Things you won't hear on American tv:

[Via BuzzFlash]

Posted by Jonathan at 03:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 26, 2007

UK Ministry Of Defence Concluded Lancet Methodology Was Sound

Iraq

When a peer-reviewed study published last October in the Lancet concluded that the war had already killed 655,000 Iraqis, the number was dismissed out of hand by US and British authorities, who publicly bad-mouthed the study's methodology. Internal documents obtained by the BBC, however, show that UK's ministry of defence was advised that the study's methodology was sound. BBC:

The British government was advised against publicly criticising a report estimating that 655,000 Iraqis had died due to the war, the BBC has learnt.

Iraqi Health Ministry figures put the toll at less than 10% of the total in the survey, published in the Lancet.

But the Ministry of Defence's chief scientific adviser said the survey's methods were "close to best practice" and the study design was "robust".

Another expert agreed the method was "tried and tested". [...]

The Lancet medical journal published its peer-reviewed survey last October.

It was conducted by the John Hopkins School of Public Health and compared mortality rates before and after the invasion by surveying 47 randomly chosen areas across 16 provinces in Iraq.

The researchers spoke to nearly 1,850 families, comprising more than 12,800 people.

In nearly 92% of cases family members produced death certificates to support their answers. The survey estimated that 601,000 deaths were the result of violence, mostly gunfire.

Shortly after the publication of the survey in October last year Tony Blair's official spokesperson said the Lancet's figure was not anywhere near accurate.

He said the survey had used an extrapolation technique, from a relatively small sample from an area of Iraq that was not representative of the country as a whole.

President Bush said: "I don't consider it a credible report."

But a memo by the MoD's Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir Roy Anderson, on 13 October, states: "The study design is robust and employs methods that are regarded as close to "best practice" in this area, given the difficulties of data collection and verification in the present circumstances in Iraq."

One of the documents just released by the Foreign Office is an e-mail in which an official asks about the Lancet report: "Are we really sure the report is likely to be right? That is certainly what the brief implies."

The reply from another official is: "We do not accept the figures quoted in the Lancet survey as accurate."

In the same e-mail the official later writes: "However, the survey methodology used here cannot be rubbished, it is a tried and tested way of measuring mortality in conflict zones."

Asked how the government can accept the Lancet's methodology but reject its findings, the government has issued a written statement in which it said: "The methodology has been used in other conflict situations, notably the Democratic republic of Congo.

"However, the Lancet figures are much higher than statistics from other sources, which only goes to show how estimates can vary enormously according to the method of collection.

"There is considerable debate amongst the scientific community over the accuracy of the figures."

In fact some of the British government criticism of the Lancet report post-dated Sir Roy's comments.

Speaking six days after Sir Roy praised the study's methods, British foreign office minister Lord Triesman said: "The way in which data are extrapolated from samples to a general outcome is a matter of deep concern...." [...]

If the Lancet survey is right, then 2.5% of the Iraqi population - an average of more than 500 people a day - have been killed since the start of the war. [Emphasis added]

Most people don't understand statistical sampling, so they tend to form an opinion based on a sort of rough average of all the comments they happen to hear. If pretty much everybody who gets on tv says one kind of number, a study like the Lancet study can't make much of a dent in how people think. It seems like too much of an outlier. No matter that most of the numbers being thrown around have little scientific basis, certainly not the kind of scientific basis the Lancet number has: the Lancet number gets shouted down.

It may be that the Lancet figure is too high. But a rough head count of what statistically-illiterate pundits and spin doctors say is not the way to make that determination. Especially when they have already lied about everything else.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:13 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Army Deploys Seriously Injured Troops

Iraq

Salon reports that the Army has been sending seriously injured troops to its desert training base to inflate unit readiness stats. Some seriously injured troops have even been deployed to Iraq. Excerpts:

Last November, Army Spc. Edgar Hernandez, a communications specialist with a unit of the Army's 3rd Infantry Division, had surgery on an ankle he had injured during physical training. After the surgery, doctors put his leg in a cast, and he was supposed to start physical therapy when that cast came off six weeks later.

But two days after his cast was removed, Army commanders decided it was more important to send him to a training site in a remote desert rather than let him stay at Fort Benning, Ga., to rehabilitate. In January, Hernandez was shipped to the National Training Center at Fort Irwin, Calif., where his unit, the 3,900-strong 3rd Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division, was conducting a month of training in anticipation of leaving for Iraq in March.

Hernandez says he was in no shape to train for war so soon after his injury. "I could not walk," he told Salon. ..."I was told by my doctor and my physical therapist that this was crazy." [...]

[W]hen he got to California, he was led to a large tent where he would be housed. He was shocked by what he saw inside: There were dozens of other hurt soldiers. Some were on crutches, and others had arms in slings. Some had debilitating back injuries. And nearby was another tent, housing female soldiers with health issues ranging from injuries to pregnancy.

Hernandez is one of a dozen soldiers who stayed for weeks in those tents who were interviewed for this report, some of whose medical records were also reviewed by Salon. All of the soldiers said they had no business being sent to Fort Irwin given their physical condition. In some cases, soldiers were sent there even though their injuries were so severe that doctors had previously recommended they should be considered for medical retirement from the Army.

Military experts say they suspect that the deployment to Fort Irwin of injured soldiers was an effort to pump up manpower statistics used to show the readiness of Army units. With the military increasingly strained after four years of war, Army readiness has become a critical part of the debate over Iraq. Some congressional Democrats have considered plans to limit the White House's ability to deploy more troops unless the Pentagon can certify that units headed into the fray are fully equipped and fully manned.

Salon recently uncovered another troubling development in the Army's efforts to shore up troop levels, reporting earlier this month that soldiers from the 3rd Brigade had serious health problems that the soldiers claimed were summarily downgraded by military doctors at Fort Benning in February, apparently so that the Army could send them to Iraq. Some of those soldiers were among the group sent to Fort Irwin to train in January.

After arriving at Fort Irwin, many of the injured soldiers did not train. "They had all of us living in a big tent," confirmed Spc. Lincoln Smith, who spent the month there along with Hernandez and others....His records list his problems as "permanent" and recommend that he be considered for retirement from the Army because of his health. [...]

The soldiers who were at Fort Irwin described a pitiful scene. "You had people out there with crutches and canes," said an Army captain who was being considered for medical retirement himself because of serious back injuries sustained in a Humvee accident during a previous combat tour in Iraq. [...]

Military experts point to the brigade's readiness statistics, including "unit status reports" that carefully track personnel numbers and are sent up through the Army's chain of command. "There are a number of factors used to establish whether a unit is mission-capable," explained John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, an independent organization that studies military and security issues. "One of them is the extent to which it is fully manned," he said. Pike says he suspects the injured soldiers were camped out at Fort Irwin so that on paper, at least, "the unit would have a sufficient head count to be mission-capable." [...]

But injured soldiers from the brigade were not just shuttled to California; some were sent on to Iraq. Earlier this month Salon reported that on Feb. 15, shortly after returning from Fort Irwin to Fort Benning, 75 injured soldiers from the 3rd Brigade lined up for screenings at the troop medical clinic. Some of the soldiers there that day described cursory meetings with a division surgeon — meetings designed to downgrade their health problems, the soldiers said, so that they could be deployed to the war zone. Records for some of those soldiers show doctors had previously concluded that those soldiers could not wear body armor because of serious skeletal and other injuries.

A military official knowledgeable about the training in California in January and the medical processing of the injured soldiers at Fort Benning in February told Salon that commanders were taking desperate actions to meet an accelerated deployment schedule dictated by President Bush's so-called surge plan for securing Baghdad. [...]

The New York Times reported on March 20 that of the 20 Army brigades not currently deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, only one has enough equipment or soldiers to be sent quickly into combat. [Emphasis added]

Unbelievably grotesque, and a real sign of desperation.

All to protect the egos of the fools at the top.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:59 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

March 24, 2007

Fooling The Eye In The Sky

Future  Iraq

Seven US Marines and a Navy medic are accused of the cold-blooded murder of a disabled Iraqi police officer named Hashim Ibrahim Awad. What's remarkable is the steps they allegedly took to fool surveillance by unmanned aerial vehicles, making the murder look like a firefight. Wired (via Xymphora):

As they carried out the killing of an Iraqi civilian, seven Marines and a Navy medic used their understanding of the military's airborne surveillance technology to spoof their own systems, military hearing testimony charges. [...]

The case is remarkable for the fact that the killers nearly got away with their alleged crime right under the eye of the military's sophisticated surveillance systems. According to testimony, at least three times the warriors took deliberate, and apparently effective, measures to trick the unmanned aerial vehicles — UAVs in military parlance — that watch the ground with heat-sensitive imaging by night, and high-resolution video by day. [...]

The killing took place in the early morning darkness of April 26, when a "snatch party" of three Marines and a medic set out to kill and make an example of a suspected insurgent named Saleh Gowad, who'd been captured and released many times, according to testimony. Not finding him, they went next door and seized the sleeping Awad from his home, while the four remaining squad members waited nearby.

They men allegedly flexicuffed Awad's hands and marched him about a half-mile to a bomb crater, where they bound his feet and positioned him with a stolen shovel and an AK-47. Then they returned to an attack position and shot him.

On the way, according to testimony, the forward party took at least three steps to disguise its actions from aerial surveillance, steps that initially persuaded investigators the killing was justified. One Marine went forward and dug around in the crater. At the same time, the three other troops crouched with Awad behind a low wall in what [an attorney] described as a squad in a typical military posture.

They held that pose as the surveillance UAV passed over, creating an infrared tableau of four troops watching a bomber dig a hole along the road.

After the UAV passed, and they dodged being seen by a U.S. helicopter, the four rose from behind the wall to march Awad to the crater, according to the medic's testimony. While they were moving Awad the final 125 yards to his death, according to Bacos, they heard the UAV return. Cpl. Trent Thomas quickly wrapped himself around Awad so that the two men would appear as a single person on the heat-reactive infrared sensors, according to testimony.

Then they put Awad in the hole where the Marine had posed with the shovel seconds before, backed off and signaled. Six of the eight troops opened fire — staging a firefight with a bomb-planting insurgent.

"Congratulations, we just got away with murder, gents," the squad leader told them, according to Bacos' testimony. [...]

Steps similar to those the alleged killers apparently took may someday be a routine part of planning a crime, as U.S. law enforcement agencies clamor to put UAVs over U.S. airspace for domestic surveillance. [Emphasis added]

Welcome to the future, which is already in progress.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:27 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

March 21, 2007

Time To Leave

Iraq

Lawrence Korb, Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, responds to Bush's speech on the war:

In a speech yesterday to mark the fourth anniversary of the war in Iraq, President Bush defended his decision to topple Saddam and offered a challenge to his critics. "It can be tempting," Bush said, "to look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that your best option is to pack up and go home." But, he continued, "the consequences for American security would be devastating."

Bush has it backwards. In order to protect the security interests and to wage the global war on terror more effectively, the US must withdraw its military forces from Iraq as soon as possible. It can make the most of the withdrawal by announcing publicly that it will immediately begin a phased redeployment that will be completed in the next 18 months, and adding that we will not maintain any permanent bases in Iraq.

Embracing such a strategy will have five advantages. First, it will put the US in control of its own destiny. Without such a plan for getting out by a certain date, this country will remain hostage to events on the ground. If the green zone were to be shelled by mortars, causing a large number of casualties, or if the Ayatollah Sistani were to be assassinated, unleashing even more violence, the American public would most likely demand a much more rapid — but much less thoroughly-considered — withdrawal.

Second, the timetable will give the Iraqi political leaders an incentive as well as a reasonable period in which to make the compromises necessary to create an Iraqi nation that its security forces would be willing to fight and die for. As long as the Iraqi leaders know that the US will not "stand down until they stand up", they will not feel compelled to make the difficult choices about how to share the oil revenues equitably, balance the powers of the central and regional government and safeguard minority rights. And by remaining 18 months, or until mid-2008, the US can fulfill its moral responsibility to the Iraqi people for overthrowing their government without a realistic plan for dealing with the aftermath.

Third, the US withdrawal will undermine the power of the 1,300 al-Qaida fighters in Iraq. The vast majority of the small numbers of Iraqis who support these terrorists do so because they share the common objective of forcing us to leave. Once it is clear that we are leaving that support will dry up.

Fourth, it will put the six nations bordering Iraq on notice that the future of Iraq will be their responsibility — as well as ours — and they must become more constructively involved in preventing Iraq from becoming a failed state.

Fifth, the phased withdrawal will allow the US to relieve the strain on our overstretched ground forces. The vast majority of the Army brigades in Iraq have not had the required two years between deployments that are necessary to train and equip them properly for the next mission. At least four of the brigades now in Iraq have not even had a year between deployments. The withdrawal will also allow the US to bring its Army National Guard back to the States to focus on homeland defense. [...]

To make the most of the withdrawal, the US must also undertake a diplomatic surge to complement the strategic redeployment of its military forces in the region. This diplomatic surge will involve appointing a special envoy (with the stature of a former secretary of state) and charging him or her with getting all six of Iraq's neighbors involved in working with us to stabilize Iraq. While the interests of all these nations are not identical to ours, none of them wants to live with an Iraq that becomes a failed state. [Emphasis added]

Carl Oglesby wrote a very interesting little book thirty years ago called The Yankee and Cowboy War that looked at various seemingly-unrelated upheavals in American political life as the surface tremors accompanying an ongoing tectonic power struggle ruthlessly pitting Northeast Establishment banking and Wall Street money (Yankees) against upstart Sun Belt oil and aerospace money (Cowboys). The Council on Foreign Relations is, of course, the foreign policy group for the Yankee Establishment, while George Bush is the quintessential Cowboy politician. It may be interesting, as the rest of Bush's term plays out, to watch events through Oglesby's lens.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:31 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 20, 2007

Iraq: A "Deepening Nightmare"

Iraq

Patrick Cockburn is one of the very few Western journalists in Iraq who knows first-hand what's happening on the ground. On the fourth anniversary of the invasion, he writes:

Four years ago, in the middle of the US invasion, I drove safely from Arbil in northern Iraq to Baghdad. There were heaps of discarded weapons beside the road, and long lines of former Iraqi soldiers walking home. Signs of battle were few, aside from the hulks of burned-out tanks, but they all seemed to have been hit by US aircraft after their crews had fled.

If I tried to make the same journey today, I would be killed or kidnapped long before I reached Baghdad. Kurdish ministers in the Iraqi government dare not travel by road between the capital and their homeland. Three bodyguards of the Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, were ambushed and killed when they tried to do so a month ago.

Tony Blair and George Bush still occasionally imply that the picture of Iraq as a war-torn hell is an exaggeration by the media. They suggest, though not as forcibly as they did a couple of years ago, that parts of the country are relatively peaceful. Nothing could be more untrue.

In reality, the violence is grossly understated. The Baker-Hamilton report by senior Republicans and Democrats, led by James Baker, took a single day last summer, when the US army reported 93 acts of violence in Iraq, and asked American intelligence to re-examine the evidence. They found the real figure was 1,100--the US military had deliberately understated the violence by factor of over 10. [...]

Most [ordinary Iraqis] wanted rid of Saddam Hussein because they expected a better life after his fall. Since they had oil reserves comparable to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, Iraqis felt, why could they not have an equivalent standard of living to Saudis and Kuwaitis?

In fact almost every aspect of Iraqi day-to-day life has got worse over the last four years. In May 2003, people in Baghdad were getting 16 to 24 hours of electricity a day. Today the official figure is just six hours a day — and even that is on the optimistic side. In a city with one of the hottest climates in the world, it is catastrophic when fridges, freezers or air conditioners cannot be used.

There are 4.8 million Iraqi children under the age of five, who have lived most of their lives since the fall of Saddam Hussein. UNICEF figures show that 20 per cent of them are so severely malnourished that their growth is stunted.

Under Saddam Hussein most Iraqis worked for the state. This worked well while he had oil revenues to pay them, but after 1990, UN sanctions meant that millions of people who had enjoyed a middle-class standard of living became totally impoverished, and four years ago more than half of Iraqis were unemployed. One of the worst scandals of the occupation is that they still are — although billions of dollars have been spent, billions were stolen.

For all the money supposedly being spent on developing the economy, there were no cranes to be seen in Baghdad except a cluster in the Green Zone, at work on a vast new American embassy.

But whatever the material failings of life, over the last four years it is the lack of security that has dominated everything else for Iraqis. By the end of 2003 I could already see mothers becoming hysterical at a school near my Baghdad hotel, because if they could not find their children they immediately feared that they had been kidnapped.

Since 2003, Iraqi life has become drenched by violence. Many Iraqis now carry two sets of papers, to pass through Sunni and Shia areas, but often it is not enough. The UN, using figures from Baghdad morgue and the Health Ministry, says 3,462 civilians were killed in Iraq in November and 2,914 in December. Many died at the hands of death squads, picked up on the street or caught at checkpoints. [...]

People in Baghdad used to say that under Saddam Hussein, life was fairly safe if you kept out of politics. This was true of crime: during the war of 1991 I was once stranded in the semi-desert between Baghdad and Mosul when my car broke down, because the petrol in the tank had been watered down. I travelled on to Mosul, hitching lifts from farmers without any threat to my safety. If I did that today, I would be stopped and probably murdered at one of the official or unofficial checkpoints on the road. [Emphasis added]

A million children under the age of five who are so malnourished that their growth is stunted. As a percentage of population, that's equivalent to more than 10 million children in the US. Imagine the resulting anguish and rage. Even if the war were to end today, its effects will be felt for years, if not for generations.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 03:16 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 15, 2007

3200

Iraq

The carnage continues in Iraq.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 3203.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:12 AM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

March 08, 2007

Worst Case Scenario

Global Guerrillas  Iraq

Rolling Stone convened a panel of experts and asked them about Iraq. All agreed that the war is lost. The only question is how bad is it going to get. The experts: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard Clarke, Nir Rosen, General Tony McPeak, Senator Bob Graham, Ambassador Chas Freeman, Paul Pillar, Michael Scheuer, Juan Cole.

Best case scenario: Civil war in Iraq and a stronger al Qaeda. Most likely scenario: Years of ethnic cleansing and war with Iran. Worst case scenario: World War III. A few quotes:

Graham: I believe the chance that the chaos in Iraq could bring countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia into the mix is in the forty to fifty percent range. The big danger is what I call the August 1914 Syndrome. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand in Sarajevo — what would have been in the scale of history a minor event — set in motion activities that turned out to be beyond the ability of the Western powers to control. And they ended up in one of the most brutal wars in man's history by accident. If the Saudis come in heavily on the side of the Sunnis, as they have threatened to do, and the Iranians — directly or through shadow groups like Hezbollah — become active on behalf of the Shiites, and the Turks and the Kurds get into a border conflict, the flames could spread throughout the region. The real nightmare beyond the nightmare is if the large Islamic populations in Western Europe become inflamed. Then it could be a global situation.

Rosen: Iraq will be the battleground where the Sunni-Shia conflict will be fought, but it won't be limited to Iraq. It will spread. Pandora's box is open. We didn't just open it, we opened it and threw fuel into it and threw matches into it. You'll soon see Sunni militias destabilizing countries like Jordan and Syria — where the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood is very strong. It took about ten years for the Palestinians to become politicized and militarized when they were first expelled from Palestine. You're likely to see something like that occurring in the huge Iraqi refugee populations in Syria and Jordan. King Abdullah of Jordan is resented for being an American stooge and an accomplice with Israel. I'm convinced that the monarchy in Jordan will fall as a result of this, and Israel will be confronted with a frontline state on its longest border with an Arab country.

Scheuer: I can't help but think we've signed Jordan's death warrant. The country is already on a simmering boil because of the king's oppression of Islamists. It could turn into a police state like Egypt, or an incoherent, revolving-door-type government like Lebanon is becoming now.

Rosen: You're going to see borders changing, governments falling. Lebanon is already on the precipice. Throughout the region, government officials are terrified. Nobody knows how to stop it. This is World War III. How far will it spread? Anywhere there are Islamic movements, like in Somalia, in Sudan, in Yemen. Pakistan has always had Sunni-Shia fighting. The flow of Iraqi refugees will at some point affect Europe. [...]

McPeak: This is a dark chapter in our history. Whatever else happens, our country's international standing has been frittered away by people who don't have the foggiest understanding of how the hell the world works. America has been conducting an experiment for the past six years, trying to validate the proposition that it really doesn't make any difference who you elect president. Now we know the result of that experiment [laughs]. If a guy is stupid, it makes a big difference. [Emphasis added]

Too bad generals don't speak that frankly before they retire.

In some ways, they may be underestimating the dangers. People still tend to think in terms of nation-state actors, but globalization melts borders. Globalization supports a free flow of people, funding, ideas, ideologies, techniques and technologies (including techniques and technologies for guerrilla war), and it weakens people's loyalty to the nation-state. More and more, people identify with their religious, ethnic, or tribal group. So on one level, globalization unites the world, but, paradoxically, it atomizes it at the same time. All of this is a recipe for a decentralized, entrepreneurial, "open source" form of war by what John Robb calls "global guerrillas" not acting on any nation-state's behalf. As in Iraq. August, 1914 may not be the best analogy. More like, Lord of the Flies.

Pandora's box, indeed.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:13 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 07, 2007

Seven Countries In Five Years

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iran  Iraq  Politics

I'm astonished that this hasn't been all over the news. On February 27, Amy Goodman interviewed General Wesley Clark. Clark said this:

About ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work for me, and one of the generals called me in. He said, "Sir, you've got to come in and talk to me a second." I said, "Well, you're too busy." He said, "No, no." He says, "We've made the decision we're going to war with Iraq." This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, "We're going to war with Iraq? Why?" He said, "I don't know." He said, "I guess they don't know what else to do." So I said, "Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to al-Qaeda?" He said, "No, no." He says, "There's nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with Iraq." He said, "I guess it's like we don't know what to do about terrorists, but we've got a good military and we can take down governments." And he said, "I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail."

So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. I said, "Are we still going to war with Iraq?" And he said, "Oh, it's worse than that." He reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said, "I just got this down from upstairs" — meaning the Secretary of Defense's office — "today." And he said, "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don’t show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!" [Emphasis added]

It seems inconceivable that Clark is just making this up. So I guess it's official: we're in the hands of complete and utter lunatics. Seven countries — seven unprovoked, preemptive wars — in five years. They think they're Hitler, or Napoleon, or Alexander the Great — with nukes. In their minds, the Republic is over; it's Empire time.

People who think like this, what are the chances they're going to accept defeat in Iraq quietly? If you're not scared yet, you should be.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:06 PM | Comments (4) | Link to this  

March 06, 2007

It Didn't Start With Dubya

Iraq  Politics

Before Bush's lies about Iraq's WMD, there were Clinton's lies, as former chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter reminds us:

From January 1993 until my resignation from the United Nations in August 1998, I witnessed first hand the duplicitous Iraq policies of the administration of Bill Clinton, the implementation of which saw a President lie to the American people about a threat he knew was hyped, lie to Congress about his support of a disarmament process his administration wanted nothing to do with, and lie to the world about American intent, which turned its back on the very multilateral embrace of diplomacy as reflected in the resolutions of the Security Council...and instead pursued a policy defined by the unilateral interests of the Clinton administration to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

I personally witnessed the Director of the CIA under Bill Clinton, James Woolsey, fabricate a case for the continued existence of Iraqi ballistic missiles in November 1993 after I had provided a detailed briefing which articulated the UN inspector's findings that Iraq's missile program had been fundamentally disarmed. I led the UN inspector's investigation into the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, Hussein Kamal, in August 1995, and saw how the Clinton administration twisted his words to make a case for the continued existence of a nuclear program the weapons inspectors knew to be nothing more than scrap and old paper. I was in Baghdad at the head of an inspection team in the summer of 1996 as the Clinton administration used the inspection process as a vehicle for a covert action program run by the CIA intending to assassinate Saddam Hussein.

I twice traveled to the White House to brief the National Security Council in the confines of the White House Situation Room on the plans of the inspectors to pursue the possibility of concealed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, only to have the Clinton national security team betray the inspectors by failing to deliver the promised support, and when the inspections failed to deliver any evidence of Iraqi wrong-doing, attempt to blame the inspectors while denying any wrong doing on their part. [...]

In February 1998 the Clinton administration backed a diplomatic effort undertaken by then-Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, to help get the weapons inspection process back on track (inspections had been stalled since January 1998, when a team I led was prevented by the Iraqis from carrying out its mission because, as the Iraqis maintained, there were too many Americans and British on the team implementing the unilateral policy of regime change instead of the mandated task of disarmament)...[President Clinton] initially supported the Annan mission, not so much because it paved a path towards disarmament, but rather because it provided a cover for legitimizing regime change.

I sat in the office of then US Ambassador to the United Nations, Bill Richardson, as the United States cut a deal with then-United Nations Special Commission Executive Chairman Richard Butler, where the timing and actions of an inspection team led by myself (a decision which was personally approved by Bill Clinton) would be closely linked to a massive US aerial bombardment of Iraq triggered by my inspection. I was supposed to facilitate a war by prompting Iraqi non-compliance. Instead, I did my job and facilitated an inspection that pushed the world closer to a recognition that Iraq was complying with its disarmament obligation. As a reward, I was shunned from the inspection process by the Clinton administration.

In April 1998 Bill Clinton promised Congress that his administration would provide all support necessary to the UN inspectors. In May 1998 his National Security Team implemented a new policy which turned its back on the inspectors, seeking to avoid supporting a disarmament process which undermined the policies of regime change so strongly embraced by Bill Clinton and his administration. When I resigned in August 1998 in protest over the duplicitous policies of Bill Clinton's administration, I was personally attacked by the Clinton administration in an effort to divert attention away from the truth about what they were doing regarding Iraq. Four months later Bill Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq, Operation Desert Fox. [...]

It turned out Saddam was in fact already disarmed. And it turned out that...President Bill Clinton...knew this when he ordered the bombing of Iraq in 1998. [Emphasis added]

As I've noted before, Bill Clinton probably killed more Iraqis than George Bush ever has (although Bush is far from done). Clinton killed via sanctions, quietly, off-camera, not via bullets and bombs.

But Ritter's article is aimed directly at Hillary Clinton. I cut that part out just because I wanted to bring Bill Clinton's role into sharp focus. But in 2002 Hillary voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq, and she, of all people, knew better.

Weapons inspections work. They are a highly sophisticated technical enterprise. We're supposed to picture a collection of hapless Inspector Clouseaus bumbling around aimlessly, but that's not how it works. Inspections rely on teams of highly skilled scientists and technicians, armed with a variety of extraordinarily sensitive sensors, satellite and aircraft surveillance, and so on. The inspectors knew Iraq had no WMDs. Clinton knew it. Bush knew it. Hillary knew it, but still she voted for war.

What we need now is peace. Let's not settle for less. We can do better than Hillary Clinton.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 10:49 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

February 27, 2007

Are We Being Played?

Iraq  Politics

Digby had an interesting post yesterday on ways the Senate Dems are soft-pedaling Iraq, supposedly out of fear that Joe Lieberman will jump to the GOP, thereby ending the Democratic majority and (supposedly) putting the Republicans in control of Senate committees.

Except for one thing. As Digby points out, WaPo and MediaMatters have reported that the current Senate's organizing rules don't require the Democrats to relinquish control if they lose their majority. To regain control, the Republicans would have to pass new organizing rules, something that the Dems could — and presumably would — filibuster.

It's hard not to conclude, therefore, that Lieberman is being used as a convenient excuse by timid Senate Democrats who don't want to stick their necks out on Iraq. Yes, politics is a devious game, but there's a war on. The country needs principled and decisive action, not phony political theater.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:10 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 24, 2007

Everlasting Shame

Iraq

Iraqi blogger Riverbend, who had not been heard from for a while, writes a heart-breaking post from Baghdad:

It takes a lot to get the energy and resolution to blog lately. I guess it's mainly because just thinking about the state of Iraq leaves me drained and depressed. But I had to write tonight.

As I write this, Oprah is on Channel 4 (one of the MBC channels we get on Nilesat), showing Americans how to get out of debt. Her guest speaker is telling a studio full of American women who seem to have over-shopped that they could probably do with fewer designer products. As they talk about increasing incomes and fortunes, Sabrine Al-Janabi, a young Iraqi woman, is on Al Jazeera telling how Iraqi security forces abducted her from her home and raped her. You can only see her eyes, her voice is hoarse and it keeps breaking as she speaks. In the end she tells the reporter that she can't talk about it anymore and she covers her eyes with shame.

She might just be the bravest Iraqi woman ever. Everyone knows American forces and Iraqi security forces are raping women (and men), but this is possibly the first woman who publicly comes out and tells about it using her actual name. Hearing her tell her story physically makes my heart ache. Some people will call her a liar. Others (including pro-war Iraqis) will call her a prostitute — shame on you in advance. [...]

They abducted her from her house in an area in southern Baghdad called Hai Al Amil. No — it wasn't a gang. It was Iraqi peace keeping or security forces — the ones trained by Americans? You know them. She was brutally gang-raped and is now telling the story. Half her face is covered for security reasons or reasons of privacy. I translated what she said below.

"I told him, 'I don't have anything [I did not do anything].' He said, 'You don't have anything?' One of them threw me on the ground and my head hit the tiles. He did what he did — I mean he raped me. The second one came and raped me. The third one also raped me. [Pause — sobbing] I begged them and cried, and one of them covered my mouth. [Unclear, crying] Another one of them came and said, 'Are you finished? We also want our turn.' So they answered, 'No, an American committee came.' They took me to the judge.

Anchorwoman: Sabrine Al Janabi said that one of the security forces videotaped/photographed her and threatened to kill her if she told anyone about the rape. Another officer raped her after she saw the investigative judge. [...]

[Sabrine:] [Crying] He picked up a black hose, like a pipe. He hit me on the thigh. [Crying] I told him, 'What do you want from me? Do you want me to tell you rape me? But I can't... I'm not one of those ***** [Prostitutes] I don't do such things.' So he said to me, 'We take what we want and what we don't want we kill. That’s that.' [Sobbing] I can't anymore... please, I can't finish."

I look at this woman and I can't feel anything but rage. What did we gain? I know that looking at her, foreigners will never be able to relate. They'll feel pity and maybe some anger, but she's one of us. She’s not a girl in jeans and a t-shirt so there will only be a vague sort of sympathy. Poor third-world countries — that is what their womenfolk tolerate. Just know that we never had to tolerate this before. There was a time when Iraqis were safe in the streets. That time is long gone. We consoled ourselves after the war with the fact that we at least had a modicum of safety in our homes. Homes are sacred, aren't they? That is gone too. [...]

And yet, as the situation continues to deteriorate both for Iraqis inside and outside of Iraq, and for Americans inside Iraq, Americans in America are still debating on the state of the war and occupation — are they winning or losing? Is it better or worse.

Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It's worse. It's over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq's first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile. [Emphasis added]

There was a time when we were told the American occupation of Iraq would improve the lot of Iraq's women. Do you remember? A particularly grotesque and bitter lie in the long list of lies. We are fools if we think there won't be consequences — for years, decades, generations to come.

These are real events, happening to real people. It's unspeakable. Shame on us. Everlasting shame.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:18 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

February 15, 2007

Hard To Be This Wrong About Anything

Iraq

You really have to work at it to be this wrong. AP:

Some of the planning by Gen. Tommy Franks and other top military officials before the 2003 invasion of Iraq envisioned that as few as 5,000 U.S. troops would remain in Iraq by December 2006, according to documents obtained by a private research organization.

Slides obtained by the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act contain a PowerPoint presentation of what planners projected to be a stable, pro-American and democratic Iraq after the ouster of Saddam Hussein. [...]

"First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions." [Emphasis added]

What a bunch of arrogant, self-deluded fools.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:46 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

February 07, 2007

Preemptive Strike?

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iran  Iraq

You know things are bad when former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski starts to sound like the sanest guy in the room. Here's an excerpt from Brzezinski's testimony last week before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran — though gaining in regional influence — is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. [...]

One should note here also that practically no country in the world shares the Manichean delusions that the Administration so passionately articulates. The result is growing political isolation of, and pervasive popular antagonism toward the U.S. global posture. [Emphasis added]

The section highlighted in red above clearly suggests that the White House may seek to use a terrorist incident as a pretext to push the country into war with Iran. Possibly even that the White House may fabricate such an incident. An amazing suggestion for a national-security insider like Brzezinski to make in open testimony. Draw your own conclusions, but it seems to me that Brzezinski knew exactly what he was doing. It was a prepared statement, and Brzezinski's too careful and experienced an operator not to understand how his words would be taken. Note also the quotation marks around "defensive."

In the Q&A, Brzezinski had more to say along these lines. Barry Grey (via RI):

Following his opening remarks, in response to questions from the senators, Brzezinski reiterated his warning of a provocation.

He called the senators' attention to a March 27, 2006 report in the New York Times on "a private meeting between the president and Prime Minister Blair, two months before the war, based on a memorandum prepared by the British official present at this meeting." In the article, Brzezinski said, "the president is cited as saying he is concerned that there may not be weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq, and that there must be some consideration given to finding a different basis for undertaking the action."

He continued: "I'll just read you what this memo allegedly says, according to the New York Times: 'The memo states that the president and the prime minister acknowledged that no unconventional weapons had been found inside Iraq. Faced with the possibility of not finding any before the planned invasion, Mr. Bush talked about several ways to provoke a confrontation.'

"He described the several ways in which this could be done. I won't go into that... the ways were quite sensational, at least one of them.

"If one is of the view that one is dealing with an implacable enemy that has to be removed, that course of action may under certain circumstances be appealing. I'm afraid that if this situation in Iraq continues to deteriorate, and if Iran is perceived as in some fashion involved or responsible, or a potential beneficiary, that temptation could arise." [Emphasis added]

The "sensational" provocation that Brzezinski alluded to was this (NYT):

"The U.S. was thinking of flying U2 reconnaissance aircraft with fighter cover over Iraq, painted in U.N. colours," the memo says, attributing the idea to Mr. Bush. "If Saddam fired on them, he would be in breach."

As I say, draw your own conclusions, but one has to ask why someone like Brzezinski would want to open this particular can of worms in public. It may have been a sort of preemptive strike: an attempt to create enough suspicion before the fact that the White House would be discouraged from trying to carry out the kinds of provocations Brzezinski warned about.

None of this received any coverage in the major US media.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:19 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

February 06, 2007

3100

Iraq

The carnage continues in Iraq.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 3101.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:15 PM | Comments (26) | Link to this  

February 05, 2007

Cognitive Dissonance

Iran  Iraq  Politics

While administration rhetoric against Iran grows more heated, a new US National Intelligence Estimate finds it "not likely" that Iran is a significant cause of violence in Iraq. Seattle Times:

The Bush administration is escalating its confrontation with Iran, sending an additional aircraft carrier and minesweepers into the Persian Gulf as it accuses the Islamic regime of arming Shiite Muslim militias in Iraq for attacks on U.S. troops.

A new U.S. intelligence estimate Friday, however, concluded that Iranian and other outside meddling is "not likely" a major cause of the bloodshed in Iraq, and a new McClatchy analysis of U.S. casualties in Iraq found that Sunni Muslim insurgents, not Iranian-backed Shiites, have mounted most — but not all — attacks on American forces.

The Bush administration, which made exaggerated or incorrect claims about Iraq's weapons programs and ties to al-Qaida to justify its 2003 invasion of Iraq, hasn't provided evidence to back up its charges. [...]

"The vast majority of Americans who are being killed are still being killed by IEDs [improvised explosive devices] set by Sunnis," said Kenneth Pollack, a former CIA and White House expert on Persian Gulf affairs. [...]

"The evidence that I am seeing does not seem to support the level of rhetoric, let alone the military actions" the administration is taking, Pollack said. [...]

On Friday, the National Intelligence Council, comprising the top U.S. intelligence analysts, released an assessment of the Iraq crisis that said "lethal support" from Iran to Shiite militants "clearly intensifies" the conflict, but isn't a significant factor.

"Iraq's neighbors influence, and are influenced by, events in Iraq, but the involvement of these outside actors is not likely to be a major driver of violence or the prospects for stability because of the self-sustaining" sectarian strife, said the analysis, known as a National Intelligence Estimate.

Intelligence officials said they have strong evidence of Iranian support for Iraqi Shiite militias, especially the Mahdi Army. The question is how great a role they're playing in the conflict.

"No one sees a problem," said a U.S. defense official who requested anonymity because the issue involves top-secret intelligence. [Emphasis added]

The analysts who generated the NIE have seen whatever evidence exists. If they haven't seen any evidence that Iran is playing a significant role in Iraq, it's because there isn't any evidence.

No one should be giving the White House the benefit of the doubt on this. Not after all the lies they told us to sell their attack on Iraq. The penalty for lying is not to be believed.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:26 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 02, 2007

Fool Me Once

Global Guerrillas  Iran  Iraq  Politics

The influence of Israel (via AIPAC) on US politics is enormous, and that influence is pushing us towards war with Iran. The Democrats are, if anything, more in AIPAC's debt than the Republicans. On Iraq, the Dems are making gestures, at least, of opposition, but Iran is another story. Digby has a very important post on this subject. It deserves to be read in full, but let me just highlight a few things.

First, Hillary Clinton speaking the other night at an AIPAC dinner (IHT):

Calling Iran a danger to the U.S. and one of Israel's greatest threats, U.S. senator and presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said "no option can be taken off the table" when dealing with that nation.

"U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons," the Democrat told a crowd of Israel supporters. "In dealing with this threat ... no option can be taken off the table."

And John Edwards, speaking in Israel (RawStory):

Although Edwards has criticized the war in Iraq, and has urged bringing the troops home, the former senator firmly declared that "all options must remain on the table," in regards to dealing with Iran, whose nuclear ambition "threatens the security of Israel and the entire world."

"Let me be clear: Under no circumstances can Iran be allowed to have nuclear weapons," Edwards said. "For years, the US hasn’t done enough to deal with what I have seen as a threat from Iran. As my country stayed on the sidelines, these problems got worse."

Their rhetoric is utterly indistinguishable from the White House's. So much for the opposition party. Digby says he's "starting to get agitated" about the Democrats' approach to Iran. He calls it "discouraging," a misguided political strategy. But it goes way beyond just a strategy. It's who the Democrats are. Unfortunately.

All the hysteria about Iran getting a bomb is wildly overblown. As Jacques Chirac put it:

"Where would Iran drop this bomb? On Israel?" he asked. "It would not have gone off 200 metres into the atmosphere before Tehran would be razed to the ground."

Iran doesn't want to nuke Israel. The Iranians want a deterrent, so they won't be attacked by the US and/or Israel. The US attack on Iraq — but not North Korea — has proved the importance of a deterrent. Especially, if you've been designated a member of the "Axis of Evil." In any case, international inspections could keep a rein on an Iranian weapons program. But, as was the case with Iraq, the US refuses to take yes for an answer and let inspections do their work.

The final, horrifying irony is that an attack on Iran is certain to be far more dangerous and destructive to Israel than would be a situation where Iran is sitting with a bomb or two as a deterrent. As Digby says:

It is very unfortunate that it came to this. But you also have to recognise that as unpalatable as it might be to have another nuclear armed nation in a volatile region, it doesn't really take us much closer to the end of the world or even the end of Israel, despite all the kooky talk coming from Ahmadinejad.

Attacking Iran, however, just might. The repurcussions of such a move would cut the last frayed ties with many allies, finally destroy all of our moral authority and convince the world that we are a super-power to be contained, not an international leader that can be relied upon to behave rationally. It is a disasterous strategic move on virtually all levels that only someone with a puerile "might makes right" strategic vision would even contemplate.

As John Robb says, a war between the US/Israel and Iran "would quickly destabilize every state in the Middle East and allow them to fall prey to open source war like Iraq." I.e., we'd have not just one Iraq on our hands, but many. Failed states, torn apart by tribal guerrillas, jihadists, and criminal gangs, as in Iraq. It's hard to imagine what centripetal force would ever put those Humpty-Dumptys back together again. There are right-wingers in Israel — and here in the US — who embrace that scenario: if the other nations in the Middle East collapse, Israel will be left to dominate the region. But it's lunacy. Once those atomizing forces are put in motion, chaos will be inexorable. These people are playing with matches in a world of gasoline.

But more and more people seem to buy that Iran is "on the brink" of getting nukes (plural), that that's "unacceptable," that the Iranians are madmen, worse than Hitler, etc., etc. Why? Because that's what they're saying on the teevee? It's exactly the same script that was used to sell Iraq, but for some reason a lot of people think this time it's on the level. Please.

The people telling us what to think about Iran are the same people who lied through their teeth to get us into Iraq. They are the same people who were absolutely wrong about what the outcome of that would be. Everything they have ever said on the subject was a lie or wrong. Everything.

What are we, suckers?

Posted by Jonathan at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

The Great War Powers Flip-Flop

Iraq  Politics

This post by Glenn Greenwald is fascinating.

The wingnuts love to say that President Clinton "emboldened" terrorists by "cutting and running" from Somalia after the Black Hawk Down incident in 1993. Something I didn't realize, pardon my ignorance, was that it was Republican senators who forced Clinton to withdraw by setting troop withdrawal deadlines and threatening further restrictions. The same Republican senators who today say Congress lacks the power to limit troop deployments to Iraq.

Leading the way, the great flip-flopper himself, John McCain, who in 1993 said:

Dates certain, Mr. President, are not the criteria here. What is the criteria and what should be the criteria is our immediate, orderly withdrawal from Somalia. And if we do not do that and other Americans die, other Americans are wounded, other Americans are captured because we stay too long — longer than necessary — then I would say that the responsibilities for that lie with the Congress of the United States who did not exercise their authority under the Constitution of the United States and mandate that they be brought home quickly and safely as possible. [Emphasis added]

As Glenn Greenwald says, the Constitution hasn't changed since 1993.

[Thanks, Ken]

Posted by Jonathan at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 31, 2007

Parry: US-Israeli Attack On Iran May Be Imminent

Iran  Iraq

Robert Parry is part of a dying breed in the US: a true investigative reporter. Among other things, Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra revelations while working for AP and Newsweek in the 1980s. He's continued writing about covert ops and national security matters to this day. In other words, he's a responsible guy with sources. Here's what he wrote today.

First, an attack on Iran may be imminent:

While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George W. Bush’s war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft carrier strike force to arrive in the region — and for a propaganda blitz to stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.

One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after consulting with Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of powerful bunker-busting ordnance.

Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran war plan has expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had been that Israeli warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S. forces in reserve in case of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy anticipates a major U.S. military follow-up to an Israeli attack, the source said.

Both sources used the same word "crazy" in describing the plan to expand the war to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said that attacking Iran could touch off a regional — and possibly global — conflagration.

"It will be like the TV show '24'," the American military source said, citing the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly into the United States.

Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking Iran, he offered similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the months before invading Iraq in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear that he had set a course for war nine months to a year before the Iraq invasion.

In other words, Bush's statements that he has no plans to "invade" Iran and that he's still committed to settle differences with Iran over its nuclear program diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt. [Emphasis added]

As if that weren't bad enough, Parry writes that the situation in Iraq is worse than we know:

The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq is seen as another factor pressing on Bush to act quickly against Iran.

Other sources with first-hand knowledge of conditions in Iraq have told me that the U.S. position is even more precarious than generally understood. Westerners can't even move around Baghdad and many other Iraqi cities except in armed convoys.

"In some countries, if you want to get out of the car and go to the market, they'll tell you that it might be dangerous," one experienced American cameraman told me. "In Iraq, you will be killed. Not that you might be killed, but you will be killed. The first Iraqi with a gun will shoot you, and if no one has a gun, they'll stone you."

While U.S. war correspondents in most countries travel around in taxis with "TV" taped to their windows, Western journalists in Iraq move only in armed convoys to and from specific destinations. They operate from heavily guarded Baghdad hotels sometimes with single families responsible for security since outsiders can't be trusted.

The American cameraman said one European journalist rebelled at the confinement, took off on her own in a cab — and was never seen again.

Depression also is spreading among U.S. intelligence officials who monitor covert operations in Iraq from listening stations sometimes thousands of miles away. The results of these Special Forces operations have been so horrendous that morale in the intelligence community has suffered. [Emphasis added]

Meanwhile, the LA Times reports today the US Air Force and Navy warplanes are stepping up aggressive patrols along the Iraq-Iran border. It's hard not to suspect that the purpose is to create a provocation that can lead to an incident that will be used to justify an attack. Excerpt:

The Air Force is preparing for an expanded role in Iraq that could include aggressive new tactics designed to deter Iranian assistance to Iraqi militants, senior Pentagon officials said.

The efforts could include more forceful patrols by Air Force and Navy fighter planes along the Iran-Iraq border to counter the smuggling of bomb supplies from Iran, a senior Pentagon official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because he was discussing future military plans.

Such missions also could position the Air Force to strike suspected bomb suppliers inside Iraq to deter Iranian agents that U.S. officials say are assisting Iraqi militias, outside military experts said. [Emphasis added]

Maybe this is all a big game of chicken with the Iranians. But given all the White House lies about Iraq, who is going to believe anything they say about Iran? What is not clear is what can be done to stop them — even though the country is overwhelmingly against widening the war. A crazy spot to be in in a democracy.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 02:27 PM | Comments (10) | Link to this  

January 30, 2007

Feingold: Congress Needs To Break "Taboo"

Iraq

Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold:

Americans are not looking to Congress to pass symbolic measures, they are looking to us to stop the President's failed Iraq policy. That is why we must finally break this taboo that somehow Congress can't talk about using its power of the purse to end the war in Iraq. The Constitution makes Congress a co-equal branch of government. It's time we start acting like it. We have a moral responsibility, as well as a responsibility to the brave troops whose lives are on the line, to end the war. We can and must force the President to safely redeploy our troops so that we can get back to focusing on those who attacked us on 9/11. [...]

I want everyone to be clear on exactly what my proposal will do. The first and most important thing to know is that my plan does not cut funding for the troops. Our troops will continue to receive the salaries, equipment, training and protection they need. What I am proposing is ending funds for the continued deployment of U.S. forces in Iraq six months after the enactment of the bill. This will require the President to safely redeploy troops from Iraq by that date. My bill does provide exceptions to allow for specific types of military missions within Iraq past the six-month deadline, such as targeted counter-terrorism efforts, the protection of American personnel and infrastructure, and a limited number of troops needed to help train Iraqi security forces. But these will be limited forces used for specific missions.

Suggestions that our troops will be left in the lurch couldn't be further from the truth. My proposal would bring the troops out of harm's way.

Congress has used this power several times before, most recently in Somalia and in Bosnia in the 1990s. Nevertheless, I'm sure the White House and others will resort to their usual intimidation tactics to try to paint this proposal as not supporting the troops. I'd like to hear from the President exactly how sending 21,500 more U.S. troops into a civil war supports them. We must not let this administration continue to intimidate like it did in the lead-up to war. [Emphasis added]

Attaboy Russ. Makes me proud that I live in Wisconsin.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:54 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 28, 2007

Clinton: US Should Withdraw Before End Of Bush Term

Iraq  Politics

Hillary Clinton has finally taken a position on Iraq that seems like a step in the right direction. AP:

Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday that President Bush should withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq before he leaves office, asserting it would be "the height of irresponsibility" to pass the war along to the next commander in chief.

"This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy," the Democratic senator from New York said her in initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

A clever move, politically. Creates a timetable without seeming to pick an arbitrary date out of the air. Defines the war as Bush's war and, by extension, the GOP's war. Gives Hillary a way to hammer Bush and the eventual Republican candidate from now through election day.

Bush is determined to foist the war onto his successor. Even if he succeeds in that, the war must be seen as Bush's failure, since that's what it is. The danger in Clinton's position, however, is that it could be taken as giving Bush two more years to try to "win".

Posted by Jonathan at 06:30 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 22, 2007

Al-Sadr Interview

Iraq

When we hear someone praised or vilified, it's a good idea to stop and consider the source. Ask: what axe is being ground. It's not foolproof, but it's helpful. So, for example, when wealthy Wall Streeters never tire of telling us what a genius Alan Greenspan was, the rest of us might want to look to our wallets.

Which brings us to the much vilified Moqtada al-Sadr, the target of the US escalation in Iraq. US authorities tells us what a bad man he is, but they're hardly a credible source. What does al-Sadr himself say? Here's an interview with al-Sadr conducted by Renato Cabrile for the Italy's La Repubblica. From the translation at Dark Mirror:

Caprile: So how did it come about that al Maliki, whose government until recently included no less than six ministers from your movement, suddenly came to the conclusion that the religious militias, and yours most of all, are the real problem that must be solved?

Al Sadr: "Between [al Maliki] and myself there have never been very warm relations. I always suspected he was manipulated and I never trusted him. We have only met on a couple of occasions. On the most recent of which he said to me "you are the backbone of the country," and then he confessed that he was "obliged" to fight us. Obliged, you understand.

Caprile: The fact remains that your people are about to be struck with an iron fist.

Al Sadr: The operation has already started. Last night they already arrested over four hundred of my men. It is not us they want to destroy, but Islam — we are only an obstacle. For the time being, we shall not put up any resistance against them.

Caprile: Do you mean that you will hand in your weapons?

Al Sadr: During [the holy month of] Muharram the Quran forbids us to kill. So let them kill us if they want to, for a true believer there is no better time to die: Paradise is assured. But God is generous, not all of us shall die. After Muharram the tide will turn.

Caprile: Some say that the army and police are heavily infiltrated by your men and that the marines would never be able to disarm you on their own.

Al Sadr: The truth is exactly the opposite: it's our militia that's swarming with spies. And in any case, it's not a hard task to infiltrate a people's army. And these are the very same people who have been committing unworthy deeds to discredit the Mahdi Army. There are at least four armies ready to strike us. One is a "shadow force" which no-one ever talks about, trained under the most secret conditions in the Jordanian desert by the Americans. And then there's the private army of Allawi himself, that infidel who will soon take Maliki's place, which is readying itself for the fray in the former military airport of Muthanna. Then there are the Kurdish peshmergas, and lastly there are the American regular troops.

Caprile: If what you say is true, you have no hope of standing up to them.

Al Sadr: We too are very many. We represent the majority of the country, who do not want Iraq to become what Allawi is dreaming of: a secular state, a slave to the western powers.

Caprile: For the last week you have been officially in the crosshairs. The government maintains that without their leader the religious militias [would be] militarily weakened.

Al Sadr: I am aware of this. This is why I moved my family to a safe place. I even made my will, and I keep constantly on the move, making sure that only a few people know exactly where I am. But even if I should die, the Mahdi Army would still continue to exist. Men can be killed, faith and ideas cannot.

Caprile: It has been said that amongst the crowd watching Saddam's execution you too were present. Is this true?

Al Sadr: This is absolute rubbish. If I'd been there they'd have killed me too. As for Saddam, I certainly shed no tears for the man who massacred my family and tens of thousands of my people. But if it had been up to me, I'd have had him executed in a public square so all the world could see.

Caprile: Even if you weren't there, can you deny that the execution room was full of your men?

Al Sadr: No, those were not my men. They were people paid to discredit me. To make it seem I was the person really responsible for that hanging. The proof lies in the fact — just listen to the audio — that when they recited my prayer they left out some essential parts. A mistake that not even a single child in Sadr City would ever have made. The aim was to make it seem Moqtada was the real enemy of the Sunnis. And they succeeded. Some time back, I was received with full honours in Saudi Arabia. But straight after that charade under the gallows my spokesman al Zarqani, who was making the pilgrimage to Mecca, was arrested. An all too explicit way to make me understand that I was no longer listed amongst their friends.

Caprile: In any case, the war between you and the Sunnis goes on.

Al Sadr: It is true that we are all Muslims and we are all sons of the same land, but they must first distance themselves from the Saddamists, from the radical groups, from Bin Laden's men, as well as repeating their "No" to the Americans. All we're asking is for the ulemas to accept these conditions of ours. They haven't yet done so.

Caprile: Can it really be true that there is nothing but blood in Iraq' future?

Al Sadr: If the future is a country split in three, I cannot see any alternative. That is what Bush wants so he can control us more easily, but it's certainly not what the Iraqis want. In my opinion, there is only one possible way a solution can be reached: immediate withdrawal by the Americans. [Emphasis added]

Sounds like a nationalist who wants the foreign occupiers out. No wonder he's the boogeyman. Of course he has his own axe to grind. Still, why can't we hear more of al-Sadr's side of the story?

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:58 PM | Comments (5) | Link to this  

January 21, 2007

Newsweek Poll

Iraq  Politics

The latest Newsweek poll is a doozy.

Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq:
Approve: 24%
Disapprove: 70%

Trust more to make decisions about Iraq:
Bush: 32%
Democratic leaders in Congress: 55%

US making progress in Iraq:
Making progress: 24%
Losing ground: 67%

US troop levels in Iraq:
Increase: 23%
Decrease: 50%
Same: 18%

Bush's "surge" plan:
Favor: 26%
Oppose: 68%

Democrats in Congress block funding for Bush's "surge" plan:
Should: 46%
Should not: 46%

The level of support for blocking funding for the troop "surge" is remarkable, considering that it's a question of withholding funding in the middle of a war.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:32 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 17, 2007

Cakewalk

Humor & Fun  Iran  Iraq

Tom Tomorrow, from April Fool's Day, 2003.

[Via Atrios]

Posted by Jonathan at 09:28 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 15, 2007

Iraq Fuels "Worldwide Surge In Islamic Radicalism" (Duh)

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

Newsweek:

Intel director John Negroponte gave Congress a sobering assessment last week of the continued threats from groups like Al Qaeda and Hizbullah. But even gloomier comments came from Henry Crumpton, the outgoing State Department terror coordinator. An ex-CIA operative, Crumpton told Newsweek that a worldwide surge in Islamic radicalism has worsened recently, increasing the number of potential terrorists and setting back U.S. efforts in the terror war. "Certainly, we haven't made any progress," said Crumpton. "In fact, we've lost ground." He cites Iraq as a factor; the war has fueled resentment against the United States. [Emphasis added]

As has been obvious from day one.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Gratitude

Iraq  Politics

From Scott Pelley's 60 Minutes interview of President Bush:

PELLEY: Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an apology for not doing a better job?

BUSH: That we didn't do a better job or they didn't do a better job?

PELLEY: Well, that the United States did not do a better job in providing security after the invasion.

BUSH: Not at all. I am proud of the efforts we did. We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the American people a huge debt of gratitude, and I believe most Iraqis express that. I mean, the people understand that we've endured great sacrifice to help them. That's the problem here in America. They wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's significant enough in Iraq.

Wow. How creepy is that?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:22 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 13, 2007

Bringing Terri Schiavo Back From The Dead

Iraq

John Aravosis has a plan for bringing Terri Schiavo back from the dead.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:41 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Rice: Bush Authorized Raids On Iranians

Global Guerrillas  Iran  Iraq

Condoleezza Rice says Bush personally authorized aggressive raids against Iranian targets in Iraq. NYT:

A recent series of American raids against Iranians in Iraq was authorized under an order that President Bush decided to issue several months ago to undertake a broad military offensive against Iranian operatives in the country, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday.

"There has been a decision to go after these networks," Ms. Rice said in an interview with The New York Times in her office on Friday afternoon, before leaving on a trip to the Middle East.

Ms. Rice said Mr. Bush had acted "after a period of time in which we saw increasing activity" among Iranians in Iraq, "and increasing lethality in what they were producing." She was referring to what American military officials say is evidence that many of the most sophisticated improvised explosive devices, or I.E.D.'s, being used against American troops were made in Iran.

Ms. Rice was vague on the question of when Mr. Bush issued the order, but said his decision grew out of questions that the president and members of his National Security Council raised in the fall.

The administration has long accused Iran of meddling in Iraq, providing weapons and training to Shiite forces with the idea of keeping the United States bogged down in the war. Ms. Rice's willingness to discuss the issue seemed to reflect a new hostility to Iran that was first evident in Mr. Bush's speech to the nation on Wednesday night, in which he accused Tehran of providing material support for attacks on American troops and vowed to respond.

Until now, despite a series of raids in which Iranians have been seized by American forces in Baghdad and other cities in Iraq, administration officials have declined to say whether Mr. Bush ordered such actions.

The White House decision to authorize the aggressive steps against Iranians in Iraq appears to formalize the American effort to contain Iran's ambitions as a new front in the Iraq war. Administration officials now describe Iran as the single greatest threat the United States faces in the Middle East, though some administration critics regard the talk about Iran as a diversion, one intended to shift attention away from the spiraling chaos in Iraq.

In adopting a more confrontational approach toward Iran, Mr. Bush has decisively rejected recommendations of the Iraq Study Group that he explore negotiations with Tehran as part of a new strategy to help quell the sectarian violence in Iraq. [...]

In the view of American officials, Iran is engaged in a policy of "managed chaos" in Iraq. Its presumed goal, both policymakers and intelligence officials say, is to raise the cost to the United States for its intervention in Iraq, in hopes of teaching Washington a painful lesson about the perils of engaging in regime change.

Toward this end, American officials charge, Iran has provided components, including explosives and infrared triggering devices, for sophisticated roadside bombs that are designed to penetrate armor. They have also provided training for several thousand Shiite militia fighters, mostly in Iran. Officials say the training is carried out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security. [...]

This week, American forces in Iraq conducted at least two raids against suspected Iranian operatives, including the raid in Erbil. The United States is currently detaining several individuals with Iranian passports who were picked up in those raids. [...]

A defense official said Friday that such raids would continue. "We are going to be more aggressive," he said, referring to the suspected Iranian operatives. [Emphasis added]

There seems to be a fundamental misconception at work here: that if insurgents are succeeding against the US military, there has to be a nation-state behind them, pulling the strings. This is 19th century thinking in a 21st century world. See the previous post.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:37 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

All The King's Men

Global Guerrillas  Iraq

John Robb, of Global Guerrillas, sees globalization as a force that fosters the disempowerment and, eventually, the disintegration of nation-states. Globalization is the atomizing context within which Iraq is disintegrating, and Iraq is but one example. So long as US leaders (and leaders of nation-states generally) fail to face up to the new world in which they're living, they're doomed to fail. Which brings us to Robb's take on Bush's "new" plans for Iraq:

[T]he failure of these periodic efforts [to tweak tactics in Iraq] may be due to an inability to revisit a key assumption upon which the present US effort is based: that strong states tend to form naturally if provided the right minimalist conditions. I believe the opposite is true: that states, once broken, tend to remain hollow and in perpetual failure. The reason is that in the current environment minimalist conditions yield social disintegration (we will see this minimalist/disintegration paradigm repeated world-wide, even in the absence of war, as globalization continues to rapidly grow and spread — which fatally undermines any argument that the success of globalization means that "we win," if "we" means the US and nation-states in general) and the ascendent military power...is in the hands of those [global guerrillas] who would disrupt the state rather than form it. If this revised assumption is correct, it is safe to conclude that building a stable Iraq would require a level of effort that is beyond our ability to provide... [Emphasis added]

Globalization and global communications networks dissolve borders. As that happens, people's loyalties shift from nations to things that still have meaning in a world without borders: tribes, religious and ideological groups, like-minded communities. When a nation breaks down, it's pretty much Humpty Dumpty time. All the King's men — even 20,000 more of them — can't put Humpty Dumpty together again.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:17 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 11, 2007

Prepping For A Wider War

Iran  Iraq

Investigative journalist Robert Parry looks at Bush's words — and, more importantly, his deeds — and sees a clear pattern of preparation for a wider war. Parry:

At a not-for-quotation pre-speech briefing on Jan. 10, George W. Bush and his top national security aides unnerved network anchors and other senior news executives with suggestions that a major confrontation with Iran is looming.

Commenting about the briefing on MSNBC after Bush's nationwide address, NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert said "there's a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue – in the country and the world – in a very acute way."

Russert and NBC anchor Brian Williams depicted this White House emphasis on Iran as the biggest surprise from the briefing as Bush stepped into the meeting to speak passionately about why he is determined to prevail in the Middle East.

"The President's inference was this: that an entire region would blow up from the inside, the core being Iraq, from the inside out," Williams said, paraphrasing Bush.

Despite the already high cost of the Iraq War, Bush also defended his decision to invade Iraq and to eliminate Saddam Hussein by arguing that otherwise "he and Iran would be in a race to acquire a nuclear bomb and if we didn't stop him, Iran would be going to Pakistan or to China and things would be much worse," Russert said.

If Russert's account is correct, there could be questions raised about whether Bush has lost touch with reality and may be slipping back into the false pre-invasion intelligence claims about Hussein threatening the United States with "a mushroom cloud." [...]

While avoiding any overt criticism of Bush's comments about an imaginary Iraqi-Iranian arms race, Russert suggested that the news executives found the remarks perplexing.

"That's the way he sees the world," Russert explained. "His rationale, he believes, for going into Iraq still was one that was sound." [...]

In his prime-time speech, Bush injected other reasons to anticipate a wider war. He used language that suggested U.S. or allied forces might launch attacks inside Iran and Syria to "disrupt the attacks on our forces" in Iraq.

"We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria," Bush said. "And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."

Bush announced other steps that could be interpreted as building a military infrastructure for a regional war or at least for air strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities.

"I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region," Bush said. "We will expand intelligence sharing and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies."

Though most news accounts of Bush's speech focused on his decision to send about 21,500 additional U.S. troops to Iraq – on top of the 132,000 already there – Bush's comments about his regional strategy could ultimately prove more significant.

Militarily, a second aircraft carrier strike force would do little to interdict arms smuggling across the Iran-Iraq border. Similarly, Patriot anti-missile batteries would be of no use in defeating lightly armed insurgent forces and militias inside Iraq.

However, both deployments would be useful to deter – or defend against – retaliatory missile strikes from Iran if the Israelis or the United States bomb Iran's nuclear facilities or stage military raids inside Iranian territory. [...]

In other words, the deployments would fit with Israel or the United States bombing Iran's nuclear sites and then trying to tamp down any Iranian response.

Another danger to American interests, however, would be pro-Iranian Shiite militias in Iraq seeking revenge against U.S. troops. If that were to happen, Bush's escalation of troop levels in Iraq would make sense as a way to protect the Green Zone and other sensitive targets.

So, Bush's actions and rhetoric over the past several weeks continue to mesh with a scenario for a wider regional war – a possibility that now mainstream journalists, such as Tim Russert, are beginning to take seriously.

Other data points are aiming in that same direction.

On Jan. 4, Bush ousted the top two commanders in the Middle East, Generals John Abizaid and George Casey, who had opposed a military escalation in Iraq. Bush also removed Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte, who had stood by intelligence estimates downplaying the near-term threat from Iran's nuclear program.

Bush appointed Admiral William Fallon as the new chief of Central Command for the Middle East despite the fact that Fallon, a former Navy aviator and currently head of the Pacific Command, will oversee two ground wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The choice of Fallon makes more sense if Bush foresees a bigger role for two aircraft carrier groups off Iran's coast. [...]

McConnell is seen as far more likely than Negroponte to give the administration an alarming assessment of Iran's nuclear capabilities and intentions in an upcoming National Intelligence Estimate. To the consternation of neoconservatives, Negroponte has splashed cold water on their heated rhetoric about the imminent threat from Iran. [...]

Bush reportedly has been weighing his military options for bombing Iran's nuclear facilities since early 2006. But he has encountered resistance from the top U.S. military brass, much as he has with his plans to escalate U.S. troop levels in Iraq.

As investigative reporter Seymour Hersh wrote in The New Yorker, a number of senior U.S. military officers were troubled by administration war planners who believed "bunker-busting" tactical nuclear weapons, known as B61-11s, were the only way to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities buried deep underground. [...]

"Bush and [Vice President Dick] Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," one former senior intelligence official said.

But one way to get around the opposition of the Joint Chiefs would be to delegate the bombing operation to the Israelis. Given Israel's powerful lobbying operation in Washington and its strong ties to leading Democrats, an Israeli-led attack might be more politically palatable with the Congress. [...]

While some observers believe Israel or the Bush administration may be leaking details of the plans as a way to frighten Iran into accepting international controls on its nuclear program, other sources indicate that the preparations for a wider Middle Eastern war are very serious and moving very quickly. [Emphasis added]

The country's moving one way — as witness the November elections, the national opinion polls, and the Establishment position represented by the Iraq Study Group — and the White House neocons another. And they sure seem to be in a hurry. They appear determined to get into a war with Iran, and they must know their time is running out. 2008 is just around the corner.

It's not clear at this point that anyone can or will stand in their way. All the discussion of the troop "surge" may just be so much misdirection — a red herring to distract us while the wider war takes shape.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:23 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Orwell Lives

Iraq

BBC:

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has warned that the US will take action against countries destabilising Iraq.

Bombing of Washington, DC to begin forthwith.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:20 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 07, 2007

Mission Accomplished

Energy  Iraq  Peak Oil

"Respectable" opinion has it that only naive ex-hippies are so simple-minded as to believe that the US attacked Iraq for its oil. Whatever. But read this. The Independent:

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big [US and British] oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Opponents say Iraq, where oil accounts for 95 per cent of the economy, is being forced to surrender an unacceptable degree of sovereignty.

Proposing the parliamentary motion for war in 2003, Tony Blair denied the "false claim" that "we want to seize" Iraq's oil revenues. He said the money should be put into a trust fund, run by the UN, for the Iraqis, but the idea came to nothing. The same year Colin Powell, then Secretary of State, said: "It cost a great deal of money to prosecute this war. But the oil of the Iraqi people belongs to the Iraqi people; it is their wealth, it will be used for their benefit. So we did not do it for oil."

Supporters say the provision allowing oil companies to take up to 75 per cent of the profits will last until they have recouped initial drilling costs. After that, they would collect about 20 per cent of all profits, according to industry sources in Iraq. But that is twice the industry average for such deals.

Greg Muttitt, a researcher for Platform, a human rights and environmental group which monitors the oil industry, said Iraq was being asked to pay an enormous price over the next 30 years for its present instability. "They would lose out massively," he said, "because they don't have the capacity at the moment to strike a good deal."

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister, Barham Salih, who chairs the country's oil committee, is expected to unveil the legislation as early as today...The Iraqi government hopes to have the law on the books by March.

Several major oil companies are said to have sent teams into the country in recent months to lobby for deals ahead of the law, though the big names are considered unlikely to invest until the violence in Iraq abates.

James Paul, executive director at the Global Policy Forum, the international government watchdog, said: "It is not an exaggeration to say that the overwhelming majority of the population would be opposed to this. To do it anyway, with minimal discussion within the [Iraqi] parliament is really just pouring more oil on the fire." [Emphasis added]

Iraq's reserves are one of the last great untapped sources of inexpensive conventional oil left on Earth. The profits involved will be almost unimaginable, especially as world oil production peaks, driving prices skyward.

Pop quiz. Now that US and British oil majors are getting a 30-year lock on those profits, what are the chances that the US and Britain will walk away and leave all that money lying on the table? Or will they, as Big Gav put it, "fight on in Iraq until the end of the oil age"? It doesn't take a naive ex-hippie to know the answer to that one.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:02 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

January 06, 2007

"Grand Strategy At Its Worst"

Iraq

The coming escalation in Iraq — more specifically, in Baghdad — is the height of folly, says former Pentagon analyst Franklin Spinney at CounterPunch:

Sun Tzu said avoid protracted war and attack cities as a last resort.

President Bush has managed to do the opposite in Iraq. Now he is about to escalate his long-war strategy with a door to door assault on Baghdad. The aim will be to cleanse Baghdad's neighborhoods of insurgents and local militias. But as Patrick Cockburn has shown, most of these militias are allied to the different factions of the Iraqi government we put into place.

Once the Battle of Baghdad starts, and casualties and frustrations mount, the US military will do what it always does: it will fall back on a technology-intensive firepower strategy.

But militias and insurgents will not cooperate by standing and fighting. Our adversaries will not provide the kind of targets so conveniently assumed by the Pentagon in the computer models it uses to sell its high-cost hi-tech weapons to Congress and the American people. The local fighters will counter with hit and run raids on US forces.

The increasing rubblization of Baghdad will create more opportunities for dispersing, for ambushing, and for mining. As the German's learned in Stalingrad, and we should have learned at Monte Cassino, the irregularity of rubble makes it easier for defenders to hide in or disappear into the environmental background, or what the Pentagon antiseptically calls the "urban battle space."

Couple this battlespace with the rising sea of intelligence support provided by increasingly hostile local residents, and it is likely that the US forces will be bogged down in a highly destructive unending battle.

Given the dubious nature of Mr. Bush's real motives for invading Iraq and our military's predilection for substituting firepower for ideas, the strategy of providing greater security to Baghdad's local population by destroying their city is an oxymoronic fantasy that will increase division at home, embolden adversaries, alienate allies and uncommitted nations, and make it impossible to end this conflict on favorable terms that do not sow the seeds for future conflict.

This is grand strategy at its worst.

But then, we have seen how fantasies come easily to the armchair strategists careening around the hall of mirrors that is Versailles on the Potomac. [Emphasis added]

US forces are increasingly engaged in fighting militias associated with, as Spinney says, "different factions of the Iraqi government we put into place." Think about what that means. The US claims that it's bringing democracy to Iraq. But, more and more, the people the US is fighting are forces of the very government Iraqis voted into office.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:43 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

January 04, 2007

Olbermann On "Sacrifice" And The "White Noise" Of Endless War

Iraq  Media  Politics

As Bush prepares to sell a troop surge escalation in Iraq in terms of "sacrifice", Keith Olbermann provides blistering commentary:

One of Olbermann's best. Just outstanding.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 01, 2007

Gasoline On The Fire

Iraq

The hanging of Saddam Hussein was carried out in such a thuggish, barbaric, and chaotic manner that it defies belief. It seemed like an improvised lynching, not a state execution.

A cell phone video shows the execution to be a Shiite affair, complete with chants of "Muqtada, Muqtada." Saddam is the most dignified guy in the room, and the manner of his execution is sure to make him a martyr in the eyes of some.

AP reports that Sunni outrage is building. Excerpt:

Enraged crowds protested the hanging of Saddam Hussein across Iraq's Sunni heartland Monday, as a mob in Samara broke the locks off a bomb-damaged Shiite shrine and marched through carrying a mock coffin and photo of the dictator.

The demonstration in the Golden Dome, shattered in a bombing by Sunni extremists 10 months ago, suggests that many Sunni Arabs may now more actively support the small number of Sunni militants fighting the country's Shiite-dominated government. The Feb. 22 bombing of the shrine triggered the current cycle of retaliatory attacks between Sunnis and Shiia, in the form of daily bombings, kidnappings and murders. [...]

Until Saddam's execution Saturday, most Sunnis sympathized with militants but avoided taking a direct role in the sectarian conflict — despite attacks by Shiite militia that have killed thousands of Sunnis or driven them from their homes. The current Sunni protests, which appear to be building, could signal a spreading militancy.

Sunnis were not only outraged by Saddam's hurried execution, just four days after an appeals court upheld his conviction and sentence. Many were also incensed by the unruly scene in the execution chamber, captured on video, in which Saddam was taunted with chants of "Muqtada, Muqtada, Muqtada."

The chants referred to Muqtada al-Sadr, a firebrand Shiite cleric who runs one of Iraq's most violent religious militias. He is a major power behind the government of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Many Sunnis are also upset that Saddam was put to death the day that Sunni celebrations began for Eid al-Ahda, a major Muslim festival. The judge who first presided over the case that resulted in Saddam's death sentence said the former dictator's execution at the start of Eid was illegal according to Iraqi law, and contradicted Islamic custom.

The law states that "no verdict should implemented during the official holidays or religious festivals," said Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin, a Kurd. [Emphasis added]

Everything about the execution seems designed, deliberately or not, to inflame sectarian enmity between Sunnis and Shiites. It is gasoline on the flames. Barbaric and disastrous.

(See also: Baghdad blogger Riverbend and Glenn Greenwald.)

Posted by Jonathan at 09:46 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 31, 2006

3000

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 3000.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

December was the deadliest month for US troops in more than two years.

Americans want out — approval for the war is under 30% — but Bush prepares to send more troops.

New Year's resolution: Voting isn't enough. We must act. We need to make the political cost of continuing the war too great for Washington to bear. We must resist.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:54 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 29, 2006

Widening The War

Iran  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East

Two important items from Swoop. First, regarding the White House's Middle East counteroffensive following the November elections and the Iraq Study Group recommendations. Swoop:

During his current consultations on the new strategy for Iraq, President Bush has told those advising him that he is not interested in any proposals that do not involve "success." "Anyone who does not believe in victory should leave the room right now," was how he began one consultation session. Top National Security Council officials are describing the Iraq Study Group as "discredited" and "dead and buried." Instead a new policy is taking shape. Based on recent discussions between former Saudi Ambassador to Washington Prince Bandar bin Sultan and NSC Middle East Director Elliott Abrams, this policy foresees a central role for Saudi Arabia as a supplier of money and weapons to local conflicts involving Iranian surrogates. This is already happening in Lebanon, where anti-Hezbollah groups are receiving substantial Saudi help. Israeli intelligence officials are also encouraging these moves. "What we are seeing here," a second NSC official commented, "is the Administration's counter-attack to the ISG. Bush wants to negotiate from strength not weakness. He is trying to create new facts on the ground. This is an ambitious strategy. If it works, it allows us to recover much of the ground that Iraq has cost us. The opposite is also true. This strategy could double our losses. The key point here is that the Administration is still playing for a win in the Middle East. It is not leaving quietly." [Emphasis added]

Second, on Iran. It's not just a question of Iran's nuclear program. Far from it. Swoop:

A change of emphasis is taking place in the US approach to Iran. State Department officials tell us that they now see the nuclear weapons issue as just one aspect of a more all-encompassing competition with Iran. "It is clear that Iran is challenging us for mastery of the Middle East. Lebanon, Syria, the peace process, terrorism, energy: We are always bumping up against Iranian meddling. The stakes go far beyond nuclear weapons. It is clear that we have to orientate our policy so that we can teach Iran a decisive lesson." Support for this policy of long-term confrontation with Iran extends widely inside the Administration and Washington’s political elites. How this confrontation expresses itself remains undecided, with the military option still confined to the group around Vice-President Cheney and his circle. This group is, however, actively seeking international support. Privately the conservative Arab leaders of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council are urging the US to mount a broad counter to Iran. [Emphasis added]

Joshua Landis at SyriaComment speculates that the White House is using Saudi Arabia as a cutout to fund covert action in the Middle East, à la Iran-Contra. Excerpt:

The NSC diehards and Bandar (with Israeli coordination) have been working on a covert action program, the purpose of which is to strike back at Iran through surrogates, with the arrangements made in such a way as to obviate the need for a Presidential Covert Action Finding, which in today's Washington could not be kept secret. The Saudis would play the role of paymasters and prospective unindicted co-conspirators in case the operation is exposed (which seems to be the likely outcome). [...]

The sudden unannounced departure of Saudi Ambassador Prince Turki suggests that Saudi Arabia will be the financier of this operation. Prince Bandar bin Sultan's return to Washington in the form of his young protégé, Adel al-Jubeir. Polished and American-educated, Mr. Jubeir, 44, once worked for Prince Bandar when he was ambassador to Washington. Over the past few months, we know that Prince Bandar has been visiting Washington frequently, staying at the Hay Adams Hotel and visiting people at the White House. He was not notifying Prince Turki of these visits, which has been a flagrant and insulting breach of diplomatic protocol, to say nothing of its personal discourtesy to his own brother-in-law.

Another curiosity has been the repeated rumors of a meeting between Bandar and some unidentified Israelis, time and place unspecified. (The strongest rumor was that one meeting took place in Amman last summer.) The rumors have been persistent, and deserve some credence. [Emphasis added]

So, the American people think they got their message across in the November elections, and following the Iraq Study Group report they think Bush's current round of policy discussions is aimed at doing what everybody else wants: extricating the US from Iraq. But if the stories above are accurate, what's happening is quite the opposite: Bush is raising the stakes, widening the war, counter-attacking with "victory" — whatever that may mean — still the goal. It's crazy, but when has that ever stopped them?

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 04:26 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 27, 2006

Call It What It Is: Escalation

Iraq

Democrats took control of the House and Senate largely because voters want out of Iraq. Even the Iraq Study Group said it's time to start thinking about getting out. So, Bush's response? Surge. Escalate. Retired Army General Jack Keane and AEI's Fred Kagan, in WaPo:

Reports on the Bush administration's efforts to craft a new strategy in Iraq often use the term "surge" but rarely define it. Estimates of the number of troops to be added in Baghdad range from fewer than 10,000 to more than 30,000. Some "surges" would last a few months, others a few years.

We need to cut through the confusion. Bringing security to Baghdad — the essential precondition for political compromise, national reconciliation and economic development — is possible only with a surge of at least 30,000 combat troops lasting 18 months or so. Any other option is likely to fail.

The key to the success is to change the military mission — instead of preparing for transition to Iraqi control, that mission should be to bring security to the Iraqi population. Surges aimed at accelerating the training of Iraqi forces will fail, because rising sectarian violence will destroy Iraq before the new forces can bring it under control. [...]

Success in Iraq today requires a well-thought-out military operation aimed at bringing security to the people of Baghdad as quickly as possible — a traditional counterinsurgency mission. [Emphasis added]

"Surge" is pure marketing. The proper term is: escalation. And it's going to happen, voters be damned.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 24, 2006

What Atrios Said

Iraq

Sad, but true.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:06 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 21, 2006

Record Number Of Bodies Recovered In Baghdad

Iraq

Iraq continues its slide into the abyss. LAT:

The bodies of 76 unidentified people were recovered Wednesday in Baghdad, police said, the highest 24-hour toll for the anonymous slayings that have become a grim part of life in the capital.

All of the victims were men between the ages of 20 and 50. Although they died violently, all shot with automatic weapons, the men were not slain execution-style — no handcuffs or blindfolds, morgue staff members said. Only a few showed signs of torture. [Emphasis added]

It is impossible for most of us to imagine what it is like to live under such hellish conditions, but, as always, it is incumbent on us to try. These events are happening in a real place, to real people, and it's only going to get worse.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:12 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

December 20, 2006

"Unbelievably Rapid" Escalation Of Violence

Iraq

It just keeps getting worse. WaPo:

The Pentagon said yesterday that violence in Iraq soared this fall to its highest level on record and acknowledged that anti-U.S. fighters have achieved a "strategic success" by unleashing a spiral of sectarian killings by Sunni and Shiite death squads that threatens Iraq's political institutions.

In its most pessimistic report yet on progress in Iraq, the Pentagon described a nation listing toward civil war, with violence at record highs of 959 attacks per week, declining public confidence in government and "little progress" toward political reconciliation.

"The violence has escalated at an unbelievably rapid pace," said Marine Lt. Gen. John F. Sattler, director of strategic plans and policy for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who briefed journalists on the report. "We have to get ahead of that violent cycle, break that continuous chain of sectarian violence...That is the premier challenge facing us now."

The rapid spread of violence this year has thrown the government's future into jeopardy, Pentagon officials said.

"The tragedy of Iraq is that in February in Samarra, the insurgents achieved what one could call a partial strategic success -- namely, to trigger what we've been dealing with ever since, which is a cycle of sectarian violence, that indeed is shaking the institutions," Peter W. Rodman, assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs, said at the briefing.

He was referring to the Feb. 22 bombing of the Askariya mosque, a holy Shiite shrine, in the ethnically mixed city of Samarra north of Baghdad. [Emphasis added]

People still talk like there's a military solution out there somewhere, but they're kidding themselves. More troops won't help.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:50 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 18, 2006

Our Tinhorn Napoleon

Iraq

All this talk of a US "troop surge" in Iraq, as if the November elections never happened. It's crazy, it's outrageous — and it's doomed to end very, very badly. Juan Cole:

[Consider] the Iraq War Coup now being conducted by W. You thought that the American people had spoken [in the November elections]? They want the troops out? They want to be extracted from the quagmire? Too bad.

You see, we do not have a democracy, with the Bush administration in power. We have an elective dictatorship. The elections are like lotteries. Many of them don't even reflect the popular vote or the general will. The Rehnquist Coup of 2000...And the incumbents feel they owe nothing to the electorate, nothing whatsoever. They have the Power. They act as they please. The rest of us are just onlookers.

So Bush's response to the clear public demand for a change of course and a disengagement? It is to run to Henry Kissinger's apron strings. And what does the Butcher of Chile and Indonesia urge? That Bush should put another 40,000 US troops into Iraq!

The problem is that Iraq is a 500,000 troop problem. Another 40,000 are just going to anger locals. And, apparently, they would be sicced on the Shiite Mahdi Army in hopes of permanently crippling the Sadr Movement headed (in part) by Muqtada al-Sadr. And maybe they'd be used in a new offensive against the Sunni Arab guerrillas.

Let me explain why it won't work. It won't work because Iraqis are now politically and socially mobilized. This means that they have the social preconditions for effective political and paramilitary action (they are largely urban, literate, connected by media, etc.) And they are politically savvy and well-connected. They are well armed, gaining in military experience, and well financed through petroleum and antiquities smuggling and through cash infusions from supporters abroad. The Mahdi Army fighters can be defeated by the US military, as happened twice in 2004. But they cannot be made to disappear, as they were not in 2004. That is because they are an organic movement springing from the Shiite poor, and are the paramilitary arm of a large social movement with a national network and ideology. [...]

I am not saying that popular protests cannot be crushed. They can and have been. I am saying that when you have a whole country that is politically mobilized and has substantial resources, a crack-down is likely doomed unless it is almost genocidal. [...]

The US is not going to commit the half a million troops it would take to have a chance of winning in Iraq. Nor is it going to use genocidal methods to strike absolute terror into the hearts of the Iraqi people.

The Iraq situation has gone beyond the point where 40,000 troops can retrieve it. And that is if we even had 40,000 troops to put into Iraq and keep them there any length of time, which we do not.

In fact, since most of the "coalition of the willing" troops have now left (Italy, Spain, etc.), one of the two US divisions would only be putting the number of Coalition soldiers back up to what it was earlier in the Occupation, when things were also not going well.

The fact is that if provincial elections were held today, the Sadr Movement would sweep to power in all the Shiite provinces (with the possible exception of Najaf itself). It is increasingly the most popular political party among Iraq's Shiite majority. For the US to cut the Sadrists out of power in parliament and then fall on them militarily would just throw Iraq into turmoil. It would increase the popularity of the Sadrists, and ensure that they gain nationalist credentials that will ensconce them for perhaps decades.

The "surge" tactic is being generated by Rupert Murdoch's Weekly Standard and by Frederick W. Kagan and Bill Kristol, i.e. by the same plutocratic American Enterprise Institute (Likudnik Central) that brought you the Iraq War with champagne toasts in the first place.

Kagan has a recent book on Napoleon. Napoleon's most prominent characteristic was his willingness to waste his troops' lives lightly. [...]

Bush is the Napoleon of our age, trampling on whole peoples, a Jacobin Emperor mouthing the slogans of liberty and popular sovereignty while crushing and looting those he "liberated." [...]

And you thought a mere election would make a difference. No one had to elect the American Enterprise Institute. No one needs to crown the emperor, he can do it himself. Welcome to Year 1 of the Empire. [Emphasis added]

The November elections were a referendum on Iraq, but you'd never know it. Not by what the Republicans are doing — or the Democrats either. People want to believe elections will change things, but like the Wobblies used to say, if voting really mattered, it would be illegal. It's going to take a lot more than voting, a lot more.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:35 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

December 16, 2006

A Clarification

Iraq

Sometimes, in trying to keep posts succinct and focused, I can overdo it. One of the hazards of blogging. In a post last Monday, I wrote:

There's a kind of collective mental illness at work when people can get away with suggesting that the Iraq war is not about oil. As if the US would have even noticed (let alone invaded) Iraq were it located in a part of the world where the principal export was, say, bean sprouts.

I first wrote "had nothing to do with oil", then changed to "is not about oil" in the interests of brevity. Unfortunately, it came out sounding like I was saying the war was only about oil, and anybody who disagrees with me is mentally ill. Not what I meant.

I do think the oil of Iraq, and of the Middle East generally, was and is a prime motivation for the US war. But I also think a confluence of other interests were served. PNAC neocons wanted an opportunity to stun the rest of the world into a state of "shock and awe" at US military power (that didn't work out too well). The Halliburtons and Raytheons of the world stood to make a whole lot of money. Bush/Rove Republicans thought war would give them a permanent lock on power. And, certainly not least, a hard-core faction of pro-Israel neocons sought to advance the agenda of Israel's right wing. Honest observers can differ on how they rank the relative influence of these interest groups, but I think they're all real, all important.

My crack about "collective mental illness" referred to the massive level of denial that lets American politicians and media celebrities get away with talking about the war as a well-intentioned, if misguided, campaign to bring democracy to the Middle East (among other putative "good guy" motives), as if the US military were some kind of "bizarre armed charity", as Nicholas von Hoffman put it. Talk about divorced from reality. If Americans knew any history, which they mostly don't, they'd know how the US reacts when foreign voters choose the "wrong" leader (see, for example, Mossadegh, Arbenz, Allende, Chavez). So much for US "democratizing."

Posted by Jonathan at 05:09 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

December 15, 2006

UK Knew Iraq Had No WMD

Iraq

UK's Independent has published testimony given by Carne Ross in 2004 to the Butler Inquiry that looked at pre-war intelligence on Iraqi WMD leading up to the war. It's damning. The UK knew Iraq had no WMD and had known for years. And in discussions with their US counterparts, it was apparent that the US knew as well. An excerpt:

I am in the Senior Management Structure of the FCO [UK's ministry of foreign affairs]...I was First Secretary in the UK Mission to the United Nations in New York from December 1997 until June 2002. I was responsible for Iraq policy in the mission, including policy on sanctions, weapons inspections and liaison with UNSCOM and later UNMOVIC.

During that time, I helped negotiate several UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq, including resolution 1284 which, inter alia, established UNMOVIC (an acronym I coined late one New York night during the year-long negotiation). I took part in policy debates within HMG and in particular with the US government. I attended many policy discussions on Iraq with the US State Department in Washington, New York and London. [...]

I read the available UK and US intelligence on Iraq every working day for the four and a half years of my posting. This daily briefing would often comprise a thick folder of material, both humint and sigint. I also talked often and at length about Iraq's WMD to the international experts who comprised the inspectors of UNSCOM/UNMOVIC, whose views I would report to London. In addition, I was on many occasions asked to offer views in contribution to Cabinet Office assessments, including the famous WMD dossier (whose preparation began some time before my departure in June 2002).

During my posting, at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests. On the contrary, it was the commonly-held view among the officials dealing with Iraq that any threat had been effectively contained. I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed). (At the same time, we would frequently argue, when the US raised the subject, that "regime change" was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos.)

Any assessment of threat has to include both capabilities and intent. Iraq's capabilities in WMD were moot: many of the UN's weapons inspectors (who, contrary to popular depiction, were impressive and professional) would tell me that they believed Iraq had no significant materiel. With the exception of some unaccounted-for Scud missiles, there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW, BW or nuclear material. [...]

Iraq's ability to launch a WMD or any form of attack was very limited. There were approx 12 or so unaccounted-for Scud missiles; Iraq's airforce was depleted to the point of total ineffectiveness; its army was but a pale shadow of its earlier might; there was no evidence of any connection between Iraq and any terrorist organisation that might have planned an attack using Iraqi WMD (I do not recall any occasion when the question of a terrorist connection was even raised in UK/US discussions or UK internal debates). [...]

I quizzed my colleagues in the FCO and MOD [Ministry of Defense] working on Iraq on several occasions about the threat assessment in the run-up to the war. None told me that any new evidence had emerged to change our assessment; what had changed was the government's determination to present available evidence in a different light. I discussed this at some length with David Kelly in late 2002, who agreed that the Number 10 WMD dossier was overstated.

The claims that the White House was misled by an "intelligence failure" on Iraqi WMD have always been ridiculous on their face. From the first Gulf War on, the US had complete control of Iraqi airspace and constantly monitored Iraq from both aircraft and satellites. UN inspectors installed a variety of highly sensitive and sophisticated detectors on the ground that monitored the air for even the tiniest traces of chemicals associated with WMD development. The US and UK tightly controlled imports into Iraq. As Scott Ritter has explained in detail — but nobody listens — UN inspections were thorough and highly technical operations. Etc., etc.

This testimony by Carne Ross is confirmation. It deserves to be treated as a bombshell, but of course it won't be, not here in the US anyway.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:40 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Flyover Statement

Humor & Fun  Iraq

The Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi, who brought us Tough Day, Great Opportunity, one of TDS's best bits ever, is back with another good one. It's not on YouTube yet, but you can watch it here. Check it out.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:10 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 13, 2006

"Iraq Is Beyond Repair"

Iraq

Patrick Cockburn is one of the very best Western journalists working in Iraq. Here's his take on where things stand in the aftermath of the ISG report:

During the Opium Wars between Britain and China in the 19th century, eunuchs at the court of the Chinese emperor had the problem of informing him of the repeated and humiliating defeat of his armies. They dealt with their delicate task by simply telling the emperor that his forces had already won or were about to win victories on all fronts.

For three and a half years White House officials have dealt with bad news from Iraq in similar fashion. Journalists were repeatedly accused by the US administration of not reporting political and military progress on the ground. Information about the failure of the US venture was ignored or suppressed.

Manipulation of facts was often very crude. As an example of the systematic distortion, the Iraq Study Group revealed last week that on one day last July US officials reported 93 attacks or significant acts of violence. In reality, it added, "a careful review of the reports...brought to light 1,100 acts of violence".

The 10-fold reduction in the number of acts of violence officially noted was achieved by not reporting the murder of an Iraqi, or roadside bomb, rocket or mortar attacks aimed at US troops that failed to inflict casualties. I remember visiting a unit of US combat engineers camped outside Fallujah in January 2004 who told me that they had stopped reporting insurgent attacks on themselves unless they suffered losses as commanders wanted to hear only that the number of attacks was going down. As I was drove away, a sergeant begged us not to attribute what he had said: "If you do I am in real trouble." [...]

In December 2004 the CIA station chief in Baghdad said that the insurgency was expanding and was "largely unchallenged" in Sunni provinces. Mr Bush's response was: "What is he, some kind of a defeatist?" A week later the station chief was reassigned.

A few days afterwards, Colonel Derek Harvey, the Defence Intelligence Agency's senior intelligence officer in Iraq, made much the same point to Mr Bush. He said of the insurgency: "It's robust, it's well led, it's diverse." According to the US political commentator Sidney Blumenthal, the President at this point turned to his aides and asked: "Is this guy a Democrat?" [...]

[The false picture of Iraq] has been exposed as a fraud by the Iraq Study Group.

Long-maintained myths tumble. For instance, the standard stump speech by Mr Bush or Tony Blair since the start of the insurgency has been to emphasise the leading role of al-Qa'ida in Iraq and international terrorism. But the group's report declares "al-Qa'ida is responsible for a small portion of violence", adding that it is now largely Iraqi-run. Foreign fighters, their presence so often trumpeted by the White House and Downing Street, are estimated to number only 1,300 men in Iraq. As for building up the Iraqi army, the training of which is meant to be the centrepiece of US and British policy, the report says that half the 10 planned divisions are made up of soldiers who will serve only in areas dominated by their own community. And as for the army as a whole, it is uncertain "they will carry out missions on behalf of national goals instead of a sectarian agenda".

Given this realism it is sad that its authors, chaired by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, share one great misconception with Mr Bush and Mr Blair. This is about the acceptability of any foreign troops in Iraq. Supposedly US combat troops will be withdrawn and redeployed as a stiffening or reinforcement to Iraqi military units. They will form quick-reaction forces able to intervene in moments of crisis.

"This simply won't work," one former Iraqi Interior Ministry official told me. "Iraqis who work with Americans are regarded as tainted by their [own] families. Often our soldiers have to deny their contact with Americans to their own wives. Sometimes they balance their American connections by making contact with the insurgents at the same time."

Mr Bush and Mr Blair have always refused to take on board the simple unpopularity of the occupation among Iraqis, though US and British military commanders have explained that it is the main fuel for the insurgency. The Baker-Hamilton report notes dryly that opinion polls show that 61 per cent of Iraqis favour armed attacks on US forces. Given the Kurds overwhelmingly support the US presence, this means three-quarters of all Arabs want military action against US soldiers.

The other great flaw in the report is to imply that Iraqis can be brought back together again. The reality is that the country has already broken apart. In Baghdad, Sunnis no longer dare to visit the main mortuary to look for murdered relatives because it is under Shia control and they might be killed themselves. The future of Iraq may well be a confederation rather than a federation, with Shia, Sunni and Kurd each enjoying autonomy close to independence.

There are certain points on which the White House and the authors of the report are dangerously at one. This is that the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki can be bullied into trying to crush the militias (this usually means just one anti-American militia, the Mehdi Army), or will bolt from the Shia alliance. In the eyes of many Iraqis this would simply confirm its status as a US pawn. As for talking with Iran and Syria or acting on the Israel-Palestinian crisis it is surely impossible for Mr Bush to retreat so openly from his policies of the past three years, however disastrous their outcome. [Emphasis added]

As Gwynne Dyer noted, "In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win." But every imperial power thinks it will be the exception. Even after a Vietnam. The lessons of history are no match for imperial arrogance.

So millions of Iraqis are trapped in a living hell that drags on and on simply to pander to the egos and careers of American politicians and generals. There are no words.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:31 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 11, 2006

It's Still About The Oil

Energy  Iraq

You'd never know it by the media coverage, but the Iraq Study Group report has a lot to say about the disposition of Iraq's oil. Antonia Juhasz, author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time, noticed. LAT:

While the Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

The report makes visible to everyone the elephant in the room: that we [sic] are fighting, killing and dying in a war for oil. It states in plain language that the U.S. government should use every tool at its disposal to ensure that American oil interests and those of its corporations are met.

It's spelled out in Recommendation No. 63, which calls on the U.S. to "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and to "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies." This recommendation would turn Iraq's nationalized oil industry into a commercial entity that could be partly or fully privatized by foreign firms.

This is an echo of calls made before and immediately after the invasion of Iraq.

The U.S. State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group, meeting between December 2002 and April 2003, also said that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war." Its preferred method of privatization was a form of oil contract called a production-sharing agreement. These agreements are preferred by the oil industry but rejected by all the top oil producers in the Middle East because they grant greater control and more profits to the companies than the governments. The Heritage Foundation also released a report in March 2003 calling for the full privatization of Iraq's oil sector. One representative of the foundation, Edwin Meese III, is a member of the Iraq Study Group. Another, James J. Carafano, assisted in the study group's work.

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

This is a crucial issue, with trillions of dollars at stake, because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed. Recommendation No. 26 of the Iraq Study Group calls for a review of the constitution to be "pursued on an urgent basis." Recommendation No. 28 calls for putting control of Iraq's oil revenues in the hands of the central government. Recommendation No. 63 also calls on the U.S. government to "provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law."

This last step is already underway. The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.

Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq's oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be "very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." The law would implement production-sharing agreements. [...]

In July, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq. [...]

All told, the Iraq Study Group has simply made the case for extending the war until foreign oil companies — presumably American ones — have guaranteed legal access to all of Iraq's oil fields and until they are assured the best legal and financial terms possible.

We can thank the Iraq Study Group for making its case publicly. It is now our turn to decide if we [sic] wish to spill more blood for oil. [Emphasis added]

There's a kind of collective mental illness at work when people can get away with suggesting that the Iraq war is not about oil. As if the US would have even noticed (let alone invaded) Iraq were it located in a part of the world where the principal export was, say, bean sprouts.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:41 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 08, 2006

Taibbi: Baker-Hamilton A "Classic Bullshit-Cloud"

Iraq

Matt Taibbi unloads on the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group in his usual gonzo style. RollingStone:

What a fiasco this whole Baker-Hamilton episode is, with all its attendant leaks and media manipulations — a veritable symphony of Typical Washington Bullshit. It has all the hallmarks of the pusillanimous, cover-your-ass mentality that rules our nation's capital, where all problems are political problems and actual real emergencies never make it to the desk of anyone who matters. [...]

Baker-Hamilton from the very start was a classic bullshit-cloud in the proud tradition of those damnable congressional "studies" we hear about from time to time, in which "bipartisan panels" are convened to much fanfare and packed off to the wilds of suburban Virginia for years of intellectually masturbatory activity — the usual solution, whenever House or Senate leaders are faced with a genuinely thorny political issue that offers no easy or obvious solutions, i.e. a problem that can't be simply blamed on one or the other political party, but which needs actual fixing.

Whenever one of those issues pops up, Washington politicians generally find themselves at a loss. They don't know what to do. For the vast majority of these buffoons, their expertise lies elsewhere. These guys know how to spread their legs for campaign contributors, raid the budget for redundant public works projects and worm their way onto the six o'clock news wearing a hardhat or a Cubs cap — but the average elected official knows very little about actually solving real political problems, because in most cases that's not what got him elected. [...]

And so, when faced with an unsolvable or seemingly unsolvable political conundrum, most politicians feel there's only one thing to do. You appear onstage with your rival party's leader, embrace him, announce that you're going to find a "bipartisan" solution together, and then nominate a panel of rotting political corpses who will spend 18 months, a few dozen million dollars, many thousands of taxpayer-funded air miles, and about 130,000 pages of impossibly verbose text finding a way for both parties to successfully take the fork in the road and blow off the entire issue, whatever it was.

It's important, when you nominate your panel, to dig up the oldest, saggiest, rubberiest, most used-up political whores on the Eastern seaboard to take up your cause. That way, you can be sure that the panel will know its place and not address any extraneous issues in its inquiry — like, for instance, whose fault a certain war is, or whether the whole idea of a "War on Terrorism" needs to be rethought, or whether the idea of preemptive defense as a general strategy is viable at all...Your panel should contain people who are not experts or interested parties in the relevant field (since experts or interested parties might be tempted to come up with real, i.e. politically dangerous solutions), but it should contain people who are recognizable political celebrities whose names will lend weight to your whole enterprise, although not for any logical reason.

Baker-Hamilton was a classic whore-panel in every sense. None were Middle East experts. None had logged serious time in Iraq, before or after the invasion. All of them had influential friends on both sides of the aisle all over Washington, parties in the future they wanted to keep getting invites to, ambitions yet to be realized. You could assign Jim Baker, Lee Hamilton, Sandra Day O'Connor and Vernon Jordan, Jr. to take on virtually any problem and feel very confident that between the four of them, they would find a way to avoid the ugly heart of any serious political dilemma. If the missiles were on the way, and nuclear Armageddon was just seconds off, those four fossils would find a way to issue a recommendation whose headline talking points would be something like "heightened caution," dialogue with Sweden, and a 14 percent increase in future funding for the Air Force.

Hence the conclusions of the Baker-Hamilton report were predetermined virtually from the start. We could all have expected that the group's only unequivocal conclusions would restate the obvious — that we need an eventual withdrawal of troops, that there needs to be more "robust regional diplomacy," that Iraqi forces need to assume more of the security burden, and that there will be no hope of a political solution without some cooperation from Syria and Iran. Duh! Because the really thorny questions are the specifics: when do we leave, and, more importantly, what do we offer Iran and Syria in return for their cooperation, what horrifying inevitable humiliation will we be prepared to suffer at their hands, and what form will talks with those gloating countries take? [...]

In essence, all Baker-Hamilton accomplished was a very vague admission that Bush's Iraq adventure is somehow irrevocably fucked and that we have to get our troops out of that country as soon as possible, a conclusion that was obvious to the entire world two long years ago. But even this pathetically timid intellectual assertion was deemed too controversial to risk unveiling before the 2006 midterm elections, and it's obvious now that both parties have decided to wait until 2008 to deal with the more important questions of "when" and "how." [...]

We may soon have to face this fact: With the midterm elections over, and George Bush already a lame duck, the Iraq war is no longer an urgent problem to anyone on the Hill who matters. The Democrats are in no hurry to end things because it will benefit them if Iraq is still a mess in '08; just as they did this fall, they'll bitch about the war without explicitly promising to end it at any particular time. George Bush has already run his last campaign and he's not about to voluntarily fuck up his legacy with a premature surrender or a humiliating concession to Syria or Iran. At least publicly, John McCain is going to head into '08 siding with those in the military who believe the problem is a lack of troops.

For the Iraq disaster to end, someone among these actors is going to have to make a difficult decision — admit defeat, invite a bloody civil war, lose face before a pair of rogue terror-supporting states — and it's obvious that none of them is ever going to do that, not until there's absolutely no choice. [Emphasis added]

Republicans don't want to admit they screwed up. Democrats don't want to let Republicans off the hook. Nobody wants responsibility for the war's aftermath. So the war drags on and on. But of course it's not just a political game. Real people are stuck in a real-world living hell. Thousands die each month. All so American politicians and generals can protect their egos and careers. Could anything be more obscene?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:38 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

December 03, 2006

2900

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2900.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Bill O'Reilly's Question

Activism  Iraq  Politics

Stan Goff is somebody worth reading and listening to. He's a veteran of the US Army Rangers, Airborne, Delta Force, and Special Forces, who served in Vietnam, El Salvador, Grenada, Panama, Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Somalia, and Haiti. Which is to say, he's seen imperialism up close in a way few of us ever will. Now he's a very determined, very smart, and very thoughtful activist, working against war, patriarchy, and empire. Here's a post of his on a question of Bill O'Reilly's:

There is nothing more tragically amusing than watching the right-wing catch liberals off guard.

Bill O'Reilly has caught the whole crew flat-footed with one of those trick questions: Do you want the United States to win in Iraq? Set aside for the moment that this ignores the fact that the US government has already lost in Iraq, and that the question is constructed a little like, "Yes or no, have you stopped beating your wife?"

This is pissing off the Democratic Party establishment because it is outing them, the same way Republicans outed John Kerry by stating, quite accurately, that Kerry supported the war when the national blood was up. Not a single public official will answer this question the way it needs to be answered if we want go on record saying that the lives of people from abroad are as valuable as American lives.

O'Reilly needs his bluff called.

Do you want the United States to win in Iraq?

ANSWER: No.

The US occupation force in Iraq is there with a malignant purpose. It was sent there to install a puppet government and establish permanent US bases as part of the post-Cold War re-disposition of an imperial military. The invasion and occupation was illegal and immoral; and it has been characterized by the slaughter of innocents by US forces, by premeditated murder and rape, by prisoner abuse, by the systematic humiliation of the people who live there, by the destruction of whole cities, and at the material, mental, and moral expense of the people who — for a host of reasons — find themselves in the US military. The Iraqis have a right to defend themselves, and a right to fight invaders.

Moreover, the US reliance on the miltiary to prop up its domestic economy and justify the future employment of militarism against other people is a net negative in the world. It is also a net negative for the US people, as opposed to defense contractors and politicians. One way to inhibit the future use of military invasion and occupation as a tool of US control over other peoples' lives and economies is to learn the hard way — by accepting the humility that comes with divesting of our overweaning naitonalist pride, our self-delusion of superiority, and our belief that we have the right to direct the affairs of the whole damn world (using soldiers, of course...none of the engineers of these adventures suffer a day of discomfort).

Not only do I not want the US to "win" in Iraq — whatever that is supposed to look like. More importantly, Bill, the US has already lost. What I want is, I want the US to acknowledge its loss sooner than later. Because the Bill O'Reillys and George Bush's of the world are not paying the price; and neither are the Democrats who are wringing their hands when they are confronted with the terrible specter of their own inescapable national chauvinism.

You're acting like cornered rats. Oh me, oh my, yes, we want to win, but it's complicated. Your complication is your desire to further your shitty careers by avoiding the uncomplicated truth. I'm glad Bill O’Reilly put Democrats' asses on the spot. You are walking over the bodies of the dead when you equivocate.

The price of this standing defeat is being paid right now, today, by Americans and Iraqis inside Iraq. And the civil war there now is not being quelled by the American presence; it is being catalyzed by it.

Bring them home now. [Emphasis added]

Amen to that. Dennis Kucinich aside, where is the Democrat with the courage and heart to say such things?

(See also this, from a year and a half ago.)

Posted by Jonathan at 04:11 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

December 01, 2006

Lind: No Amount Of Additional US Troops Will Help

Iraq  Politics

Fourth Generation War expert William S. Lind explains why putting more US troops in Iraq is doomed to fail:

The latest serpent at which a drowning Washington Establishment is grasping is the idea of sending more American troops to Iraq. Would more troops turn the war there in our favor? No.

Why not? First, because nothing can. The war in Iraq is irredeemably lost. Neither we nor, at present, anyone else can create a new Iraqi state to replace the one our invasion destroyed. Maybe that will happen after the Iraqi civil was is resolved, maybe not. It is in any case out of our hands.

Nor could more American troops control the forces driving Iraq's intensifying civil war. The passions of ethnic and religious hatred unleashed by the disintegration of the Iraqi state will not cool because a few more American patrols pass through the streets. Iraqis are quite capable of fighting us and each other at the same time.

A second reason more troops would make no difference is that the troops we have there now don't know what to do, or at least their leaders don’t know what they should do. For the most part, American troops in Iraq sit on their Forward Operating Bases; in effect, we are besieging ourselves. Troops under siege are seldom effective at controlling the surrounding countryside, regardless of their number.

When American troops do leave their FOBs, it is almost always to run convoys, which is to say to provide targets; to engage in meaningless patrols, again providing targets; or to do raids, which are downright counterproductive because they turn the people even more strongly against us, where that is possible. Doing more of any of these things would help us not at all.

More troops might make a difference if they were sent as part of a change in strategy, away from raids and "killing bad guys" and toward something like the Vietnam war's CAP program, where American troops defended villages instead of attacking them. But there is no sign of any such change of strategy on the horizon, so there would be nothing useful for more troops to do.

Even a CAP program would be likely to fail at this stage of the Iraq war, which points to the third reason more troops would not help us: more troops cannot turn back the clock. For the CAP or "ink blot" strategy to work, there has to be some level of acceptance of the foreign troops by the local people. When we first invaded Iraq, that was present in much of the country.

But we squandered that good will with blunder upon blunder. How many troops would it take to undo all those errors? The answer is either zero or an infinite number, because no quantity of troops can erase history. The argument that more troops in the beginning, combined with an ink blot strategy, might have made the Iraq venture a success does not mean that more troops could do the same thing now.

The clinching argument against more troops also relates to time: sending more troops would mean nothing to our opponents on the ground, because those opponents know we could not sustain a significantly larger occupation force for any length of time. So what if a few tens of thousands more Americans come for a few months? The U.S. military is strained to the breaking point to sustain the force there now. Where is the rotation base for a much larger deployment to come from?

The fact that Washington is seriously considering sending more American troops to Iraq illustrates a common phenomenon in war. As the certainty of defeat looms ever more clearly, the scrabbling about for a miracle cure, a deus ex machina, becomes ever more desperate — and more silly. Cavalry charges, Zeppelins, V-2 missiles, kamikazes, the list is endless. In the end, someone finally has to face facts and admit defeat. The sooner someone in Washington is willing to do that, the sooner the troops we already have in Iraq will come home — alive. [Emphasis added]

What's maddening — and disgusting — is the way wars are prolonged and intensified simply to serve the egos and ambitions of individual politicians and generals. It's hard to believe anyone would be willing to prolong a war just to advance his own career (McCain) or save himself from personal embarrassment (Bush), but we see it all the time. Sociopaths in high places.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:32 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 30, 2006

Colin Powell: Call It Civil War

Iraq

CNN's Hala Gorani (via ThinkProgress):

Well, within the context of the leaders conference in Dubai and also within the context of this debate, this semantics debate, over whether to call what is going on on in Iraq a civil war, the former Secretary of State Colin Powell says he thinks we can call it a civil war and added if he were still heading the State Department, he probably would recommend to the Bush administration that those terms should be used in order to come to terms with the reality on the ground.

This White House coming to terms with reality? Not going to happen.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:20 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

November 28, 2006

Marines: Anbar Is Lost

Iraq

A Marine Corps intel report has concluded that Anbar province is pretty much lost. WaPo:

The U.S. military is no longer able to defeat a bloody insurgency in western Iraq or counter al-Qaeda's rising popularity there, according to newly disclosed details from a classified Marine Corps intelligence report that set off debate in recent months about the military's mission in Anbar province.

The Marines recently filed an updated version of that assessment that stood by its conclusions and stated that, as of mid-November, the problems in troubled Anbar province have not improved, a senior U.S. intelligence official said yesterday. "The fundamental questions of lack of control, growth of the insurgency and criminality" remain the same, the official said.

The Marines' August memo, a copy of which was shared with The Washington Post, is far bleaker than some officials suggested when they described it in late summer. The report describes Iraq's Sunni minority as "embroiled in a daily fight for survival," fearful of "pogroms" by the Shiite majority and increasingly dependent on al-Qaeda in Iraq as its only hope against growing Iranian dominance across the capital.

True or not, the memo says, "from the Sunni perspective, their greatest fears have been realized: Iran controls Baghdad and Anbaris have been marginalized." Moreover, most Sunnis now believe it would be unwise to count on or help U.S. forces because they are seen as likely to leave the country before imposing stability.

Between al-Qaeda's violence, Iran's influence and an expected U.S. drawdown, "the social and political situation has deteriorated to a point" that U.S. and Iraqi troops "are no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency in al-Anbar," the assessment found. In Anbar province alone, at least 90 U.S. troops have died since Sept. 1. [...]

"Despite the success of the December elections, nearly all government institutions from the village to provincial levels have disintegrated or have been thoroughly corrupted and infiltrated by Al Qaeda in Iraq," or a smattering of other insurgent groups, the report says. [...]

[Report author Col. Peter] Devlin wrote that attacks on civilians rose 57 percent between February and August of this year. "Although it is likely that attack levels have peaked, the steady rise in attacks from mid-2003 to 2006 indicates a clear failure to defeat the insurgency in al-Anbar."

Devlin suggested that without the deployment of an additional U.S. military division — 15,000 to 20,000 troops — plus billions of dollars in aid to the province, "there is nothing" U.S. troops "can do to influence" the insurgency. [Emphasis added]

The threat of pogroms. A daily fight for survival. US/Iraqi forces no longer capable of militarily defeating the insurgency. This isn't how Marines normally talk. It must really be a hell on earth.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:08 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 27, 2006

"This Is Civil War"

Iraq

Michael Ware has long been one of the truly indispensable Western journalists reporting from Iraq. He never dissembles, never engages in euphemism. Watch this (via Atrios):

It just keeps spinning out of control, ratcheting up and up. It's pretty much impossible to imagine how it can better before it gets very much worse.

The US has so much to answer for.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 22, 2006

Hortatory Talk

Humor & Fun  Iraq

General Shinseki and the Iraq war's only instance of 20/20 foresight. Jon Stewart:

Posted by Jonathan at 12:51 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

The "Take This War And Shove It" Act

Iraq

PoorMan (via Atrios) has a brilliant suggestion:

[Let's] introduce a bill to let soldiers get a General Discharge, no strings attached, if they give two week's notice. Call it "The Take This War And Shove It Act".

If a war isn't important enough or viable enough to retain the support of the people who have to fight it, why should they be forced to continue? Are they not free citizens of a republic?

Ok, it's never going to happen. But the very idea sure clears away the cobwebs.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:11 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Just A Few Months More

Iraq

Fabius Maximus samples statements by pundits and public officials regarding the time horizon in Iraq:

“And it is not knowable if force will be used, but if it is to be used, it is not knowable how long that conflict would last. It could last, you know, six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.”
February 7, 2003
Donald Rumsfeld, then-Secretary of Defense
Speaking at a “TownHall Meeting” held at Aviano Air Base, Italy

"I think the next few months will be crucial."
July 3, 2003
Senator Pat Roberts (Republican - Kansas)

"Looking at what we have today in Iraq and also in Afghanistan, and looking at the whole region and how infectious it can be for positive or for widespread trouble in the world, I think we may be going through a series of weeks and months that are crucial to the future history of freedom and stability. The determination of the British people, the Royal Airforce (RAF) and the Battle of Britain and Dunkirk success, if it was a success, probably saved not just Britain, but the Western world at that time. I am convinced that there is going to have to be a determination by the American people, military, particularly American military, quality and quantity, not just presence but capability, and a confidence in the Iraqi people that they can have a stable and representative government.
July 10, 2003
Representative Ike Skelton (Democrat - Missouri)
Speaking at a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee

[Question: When you speak of victory, how do you define it today in Iraq?]

MCCAIN: Probably when the people of Iraq are governing themselves. That's probably the best benchmark, and that probably could happen sooner rather than later, as far as being directly related to the return of the basic services – the electricity, the water, the sanitation, the law enforcement – those kinds of things. … And I'm not sure how long it would be, but I don't think that we have time on our side. I think it's critical that we act quickly by sending more troops there. And if not, we run the risk of the Iraqi people turning against us.

[Question: Are you thinking 6 to 12 months? Or do you think that's dreaming at this point?]

MCCAIN: I don't know because I don't know how quickly we're going to act in the form of sending troops. I don't know how quickly we're going to be able to provide them with the security. So, it's sort of up to us. But I would argue that the next three to six months will be critical.
September 10, 2003
Sen. John McCain (Republican - Arizona)
Speaking on CNN’s “American Morning”

"The next six months in Iraq – which will determine the prospects for democracy-building there – are the most important six months in U.S. foreign policy in a long, long time."
November 30, 2003
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

"The next six to seven months are critical."
December 1, 2003
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (Democrat - NY)
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

"The important thing is to realize we are about to enter into a very critical six months … We have got to get on top of the security situation properly and we have got to manage the transition. Both of those things are going to be difficult."
January 4, 2004
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair
Speaking during a surprise visit to Iraq

"Iraq now faces a critical moment."
May 24, 2004
President Bush
Speaking at the United States Army War College

"What I absolutely don't understand is just at the moment when we finally have a UN-approved Iraqi-caretaker government made up of – I know a lot of these guys – reasonably decent people and more than reasonably decent people, everyone wants to declare it's over. I don't get it. It might be over in a week, it might be over in a month, it might be over in six months, but what's the rush? Can we let this play out, please?"
June 3, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on National Public Radio’s “Fresh Air”

“The next few months will be critical as the new government must establish security, continue to rebuild Iraq’s infrastructure, and prepare the Iraqi people for national elections scheduled for January 2005.”
July 22, 2004
Senator Richard G. Lugar (Republican – Indiana)
Statement to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

"What we're gonna find out, Bob, in the next six to nine months is whether we have liberated a country or uncorked a civil war."
October 3, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS's “Face the Nation”

"Improv time is over. This is crunch time. Iraq will be won or lost in the next few months. But it won't be won with high rhetoric. It will be won on the ground in a war over the last mile."
November 28, 2004
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“There are rare occasions when two distinct geopolitical processes reach a pivot point at the same time, that precise place where the evolution of a process takes a critical turn. Last week saw three such points. In Iraq, the security network around the guerrilla leadership appeared to be breaking wide open.”
March 1, 2005
George Friedman, Stratfor

“As the political process evolves, further government victories could be in the offing. Intense negotiations on the formation of the Cabinet, involving the United Iraqi Alliance, Kurdish List, Sunnis and other factions, have already begun. With Sunnis incorporated into a new government, progress on the political front likely will lead to further success on the battlefield as U.S. and Iraqi forces continue to keep pressure on the insurgents with raids, arrests and all-out offensive operations. These developments ultimately will support the U.S. strategy of turning the combat burden over to an emboldened and maturing Iraqi army.”
March 23, 2005
Stratfor

“Washington has moved beyond the military stage of the U.S.-jihadist war and is now in the phase of negotiated settlements.”
April 6, 2005
Stratfor

"I think the next nine months are critical."
June 29, 2005
Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
Speaking on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered”

“This attack probably will be instrumental in turning the Iraqis against the militants, especially the transnational jihadists who are not only seen as using the general insurgency in Iraq for their cause (which has very little to do with the Sunni community's grievances or Iraqi nationalism), but now seem to have reached the point where they will not shirk from killing children as part of their attack plans.”
July 13, 2005
Stratfor

“I think the next 18 months are crucial."
July 18, 2005
General Barry R. McCaffrey, retired
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

“I have long been invested with ensuring the development of a peaceful, democratic Iraq. We are nearing the resolution of that process, and the next months will be critical.”
August 4, 2005
Ambassador John Bolton, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations
Statement to the Security Council

“But the fact is these next six months are going to be very critical in Iraq, not just the constitution writing, referendum, the election, but also within that six months' period, we're going to see whether the Iraqis are really going to be capable of defending themselves, governing themselves and supporting themselves.”
August 18, 2005
Senator Chuck Hagel (Rep- Nebraska)
Speaking on CNN’s “Situation Room”

"I think we're in the end game now…. I think we're in a six-month window here where it's going to become very clear and this is all going to pre-empt I think the next congressional election – that's my own feeling –  let alone the presidential one."
September 25, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on NBC's “Meet the Press”

“The next 75 days are going to be critical for what happens”
September 29, 2005
General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq
Testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee

"… Maybe the cynical Europeans were right. Maybe this neighborhood is just beyond transformation. That will become clear in the next few months as we see just what kind of minority the Sunnis in Iraq intend to be. If they come around, a decent outcome in Iraq is still possible, and we should stay to help build it. If they won't, then we are wasting our time."
September 28, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“And the developments over the next several months will be critical – as General Casey and General Abizaid and the secretary made very clear over the course of last week – as the constitutional referendum in the mid part of this month, the general elections in mid-December and then the subsequent formation of a new government all take place.”
October 5, 2005
Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, Former Commander, Multi-National Transition Command Iraq and NATO Training Mission Iraq
News Briefing

As always, whenever the Bush administration helps to pull off an election in Iraq, you have to hand it to them. Poor job on occupation, no doubt, but this thing keeps muddling through. … Meanwhile, a lot of Sunnis are shifting from fighting the system altogether to working within the political process. This is crucial. … Iraq is doing just fine given all poorly planned occupation (F to the neocons, C+ to the officers doing their best in a crappy situation on the ground).
October 17, 2005
Thomas P. M. Barnett

“We are entering a make or break six month period, and I want to talk about the steps we must take if we hope to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that's not permanently torn by irrepressible conflict. …

“To those who suggest we should withdraw all troops immediately – I say No. A precipitous withdrawal would invite civil and regional chaos and endanger our own security. But to those who rely on the overly simplistic phrase "we will stay as long as it takes," who pretend this is primarily a war against Al Qaeda, and who offer halting, sporadic, diplomatic engagement, I also say – No, that will only lead us into a quagmire. …

“To undermine the insurgency, we must instead simultaneously pursue both a political settlement and the withdrawal of American combat forces linked to specific, responsible benchmarks. At the first benchmark, the completion of the December elections, we can start the process of reducing our forces by withdrawing 20,000 troops over the course of the holidays. …”
October 26, 2005
Senator John Kerry (Democrat – Mass)
Speech at Georgetown University

“And we're seeing a lot of them [officials from the Iraqi government] because this is a critical time in Iraq going into the elections, and it is very important that these elections produce an outcome, that it reflects the will of the Iraqi people, that results in a government – that is broadly based, drawing from all elements of the Iraqi society, that gets stood up quickly and is a strong government that can take the kinds of difficult, economic and security decisions that the new government is going to have.”
November 10, 2005
Steve Hadley, National Security Advisor
Comments at White House Press Briefing

"We've got, I think, six months."
Nov. 17, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
Quoted in the Washington Post on November 30, 2005

“Instead, we need to refocus our attention on our mission — of our mission on preserving America’s fundamental interests in Iraq. And there are two of them, in my view. One, we must ensure that Iraq does not become what it was not before the war — emphasize “was not before the war” — a haven for terrorists, a jihadist stronghold. And we must do what we can to prevent a full-blown civil war that runs the risk of turning into a regional war. To accomplish that more limited mission and to begin redeploying our troops responsibly, it seems to me we have to make significant, measurable progress toward three goals, and you only have about the next six months to demonstrate that progress.”
November 21, 2005
Senator Joseph Biden (Democrat - Delaware)
Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations

“What the debate is telling us is that we have come to a defining moment in the war and in U.S. policy toward the war. … The administration's position in Iraq is complex but not hopeless. Its greatest challenge is in Washington, where Bush's Republican base of support is collapsing. If it collapses, then all bets will be off in Iraq. Bush's challenge is to stabilize Washington. In fact, from his point of view, Baghdad is more stable than Washington right now. …”
November 21, 2005
George Friedman of Stratfor

“I served in the last year of World War II in the Navy. Franklin D. Roosevelt did just exactly that. In his fireside talks, he talked with the people, he did just that. I think it would be to Bush's advantage. It would bring him closer to the people, dispel some of this concern that understandably our people have about the loss of life and limb, the enormous cost of this war to the American public, and we've got to stay firm for the next six months. It is a critical period, as Joe and I agree, in this Iraqi situation to restore full sovereignty in that country and that enables them to have their own armed forces to maintain their sovereignty. …

[Question: “What happens if not enough Iraqis step forward to defend their country?”]

“At that point then we have to come to the realization that the program has not met the target and we have to determine what we're going to do. I would not want to posture what that decision would be. You'll have to wait. You shouldn't speculate. We'll have to wait for those six months.”
November 27, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
Speaking on NBC’s “Meet the Press”

“But it was necessary for the president to go out and reinforce to our troops and the other coalition forces and to the world that we have a resolve in these next four to six months in Iraq which are critical to bring about achievement of our goals. … We should not at this time in these critical four to six months be worrying about a timetable to withdraw or even talking about it.”
November 30, 2005
Senator John W. Warner (Republican -Virginia)
PBS “Online Newhour”

"[The Iraq elections are] necessary, not sufficient … [the] next six months are going to tell the story. Two important things. What’s the government going to look like? If it’s Mr. Mahdi who ends up representing the SCIRI Party, who’s aligned with Iran, then we got a real problem.
December 18, 2005
Senator Joseph Biden, Jr. (Democrat - Delaware)
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

"We've teed up this situation for Iraqis, and I think the next six months really are going to determine whether this country is going to collapse into three parts or more or whether it's going to come together."
December 18, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS’ “Face the Nation”

"We're at the beginning of I think the decisive I would say six months in Iraq, OK, because I feel like this election – you know, I felt from the beginning Iraq was going to be ultimately, Charlie, what Iraqis make of it."
December 20, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on PBS's Charlie Rose Show

"The only thing I am certain of is that in the wake of this election, Iraq will be what Iraqis make of it – and the next six months will tell us a lot. I remain guardedly hopeful."
December 21, 2005
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist

“We have reached a crucial test in Iraq. … Whatever the explanation, this is the crucial moment. The elections were held and a political track was set. If this offensive derails the negotiations, it will be a defining moment in the war. If the negotiations go forward anyway – for any of the reasons discussed above – then the probability of a drawdown in the war in 2006 is very real. In the end, the reasons for the offensive are less clear than its potential significance. As they say, this is it.”
January 6, 2006
Stratfor

"I think that we're going to know after six to nine months whether this project has any chance of succeeding. In which case, I think the American people as a whole will want to play it out or whether it really is a fool's errand."
January 23, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on the Oprah Winfrey Show

"I think we're in the end game there, in the next three to six months, Bob. We've got for the first time an Iraqi government elected on the basis of an Iraqi constitution. Either they're going to produce the kind of inclusive consensual government that we aspire to in the near term, in which case America will stick with it, or they're not, in which case I think the bottom's going to fall out."
January 31, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on CBS; program is uncertain and not been verified.

"I think we are in the end game. The next six to nine months are going to tell whether we can produce a decent outcome in Iraq."
March 2, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on NBC's “Today”

“Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Iraq, told the Security Council in an open briefing this morning that the next six months in Iraq are going to be critical.”
March 15, 2006
http://www.un.org/News/ossg/hilites/hilites_arch_view.asp?HighID=522

“If there is ever going to be an end game in Iraq, we are now in it. Operation Swarmer, launched Thursday, seemed designed to attack jihadists in the Sunni regions. The key to the U.S.-Sunni conversation has been getting the Sunnis into the political process and, as a result, getting the Sunnis to help liquidate the jihadists. If Swarmer was launched on the basis of Sunni intelligence, and if that intelligence turns out to be accurate, it will be a key event in recent Iraqi history. Those are big "ifs," of course. At the same time, if the Sunnis are joining the political process, then it is time for Iran to negotiate its final price on Iraq, and that appears now to be happening. Taken together, this is not the end, but the beginning of the end game, and success is not guaranteed.”
“The Beginning of the End Game”
Mar 17, 2006
Stratfor

"Can Iraqis get this government together? If they do, I think the American public will continue to want to support the effort there to try to produce a decent, stable Iraq. But if they don't, then I think the bottom is going to fall out of public support here for the whole Iraq endeavor. So one way or another, I think we're in the end game in the sense it's going to be decided in the next weeks or months whether there's an Iraq there worth investing in. And that is something only Iraqis can tell us."
April 23, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on “CNN Late Edition with Wold Blitzer”

"Well, I think that we're going to find out, Chris, in the next year to six months – probably sooner – whether a decent outcome is possible there, and I think we're going to have to just let this play out."
May 11, 2006
Thomas Friedman, New York Times foreign affairs columnist
Speaking on MSNBC's “Hardball”

“We would say that the next six weeks, rather than months, will show us where things are.”
“Core Issues in Iraq”
May 22, 2006
Stratfor

“The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency – or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the deal holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful. Thus, we are at a break point – at least for the Americans.”
“Break Point”
May 23, 2006
George Friedman, Stratfor

“The next six months will be critical in terms of reining in the danger of civil war. If the government fails to achieve this, it will have lost its opportunity.”
June 7, 2006
Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq
Interviewed in Der Spiegel

“Second, international oil companies have been waiting for two things before investing in the Iraqi oil complex: a domestically chosen, internationally acceptable representative government, and an end to the insurgency. The first has happened; the second may finally be in sight.”
“Iraq: The Implications of Al-Zarqawi's Death”
June 08, 2006
Stratfor

“If we are right and this is the tipping point, then things just tipped toward a political settlement. This will become clearer over the next few days. Violence will certainly not disappear, but it should reduce itself rather rapidly if the Sunni and Shiite leadership have put out the word. We thought this was the week for something to happen, and something has. Now to find out if it was what we were waiting for, and to find out if it will work.”
Jun 09, 2006
“Al-Zarqawi and the Tipping Point”
Stratfor

“This is a decisive period for everyone and everyone knows it. The next six months will determine the future of Iraq.”
October 5, 2006
General George Casey, Commanding General of coalition forces in Iraq
Official statement after a 39-nation meeting in Warsaw to discuss “the challenges facing Iraq and the US-led coalition."

"Time is short, level of violence is great and the margins of error are narrow. The government of Iraq must act. The government of Iraq needs to show its own citizens soon and the citizens of the United States that it is deserving of continued support. The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation and delivering basic services."
September 19, 2006
Lee Hamilton, former Congressman (Democrat – Indiana), member of the Iraq Study Group

“The next six months are likely to be critical in determining whether the situation in Iraq turns worse or whether we may yet salvage a measure of political stability that addresses our long-term security interests in the region.“
Rep. Mark Udall (Democrat - Colorado)
June 22, 2006

These people don't know what they're doing. They have no idea where we're headed or what needs to be done. They're clueless. Utterly clueless, but that doesn't stop them from lecturing the rest of us, endlessly.

Why is anyone still listening to them?

Posted by Jonathan at 11:41 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

November 20, 2006

McCain: Send More Troops

Iraq  Politics

People need to get it through their heads that John McCain is a dangerous man. A Cheney with charm. Now he wants to send "an overwhelming number" of additional US troops to Iraq. IHT:

"I believe the consequences of failure are catastrophic," said McCain. "It will spread to the region. You will see Iran more emboldened. Eventually, you could see Iran pose a greater threat to the state of Israel." [...]

McCain, a front-running Republican presidential hopeful for 2008, said the U.S. must send an overwhelming number of troops to stabilize Iraq or face more attacks — in the region and possibly on American soil.

"The consequences of failure are so severe that I will exhaust every possibility to try to fix this situation. Because it's not the end when American troops leave. The battleground shifts, and we'll be fighting them again," McCain said. "You read Zarqawi, and you read bin Laden. ... It's not just Iraq that they're interested in. It's the region, and then us." [Emphasis added]

Part of what this is about is Israel's impact on US politics. But McCain's record generally is one of the most conservative records in the Senate. People confuse his personal likability with his poliicies and beliefs. A dangerous mistake.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:54 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 13, 2006

Bechtel Takes The Money And Runs

Iraq

Halliburton's not the only company with friends in high places that is making a killing in Iraq. There's also construction giant Bechtel, who has picked up $2.3 billion for accomplishing next to nothing. Now they're leaving. IPS News:

The decision of the giant engineering company Bechtel to withdraw from Iraq has left many Iraqis feeling betrayed. In its departure they see the end of remaining hopes for the reconstruction of Iraq. [...]

Bechtel, whose board members have close ties to the Bush administration, announced last week that it was done with trying to operate in the war-torn country. The company has received 2.3 billion dollars of Iraqi reconstruction funds and U.S. taxpayer money, but is leaving without completing most of the tasks it set out to.

On every level of infrastructure measurable, the situation in Iraq is worse now than under the rule of Saddam Hussein. That includes the 12 years of economic sanctions since the first Gulf War in 1991, a period that former UN humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Dennis Halliday described as "genocidal" for Iraqis.

The average household in Iraq now gets two hours of electricity a day. There is 70 percent unemployment, 68 percent of Iraqis have no access to safe drinking water, and only 19 percent have sewage access. Not even oil production has matched pre-invasion levels.

The security situation is hellish, with a recent study published in the prestigious British medical journal Lancet estimating 655,000 excess deaths in Iraq as a result of the invasion and occupation.

The group Medact recently said that easily treatable conditions such as diarrhea and respiratory illness are causing 70 percent of all child deaths, and that "of the 180 health clinics the U.S. hoped to build by the end of 2005, only four have been completed — and none opened."

A proposed 200 million dollar project to build 142 primary care centres ran out of cash after building just 20 clinics, a performance that the World Health Organisation described as "shocking."

Iraqis are complaining louder now than under the sanctions. Lack of electricity has led to increasing demand for gasoline to run generators. And gasoline is among the most scarce commodities in this oil-rich country. [...]

"The [electricity] situation now is much worse and it seems not to be improving despite the huge contracts signed with American companies. It is strange how billions of dollars spent on electricity brought no improvement whatsoever, but in fact worsened the situation." [...]

Bechtel's contract included reconstruction of water treatment systems, electricity plants, sewage systems, airports and roads.

Two former Iraqi ministers of electricity were charged with corruption by the Iraqi Commission of Integrity set up under the occupation. One of them, Ayham al-Samarraii, was sentenced to jail but was taken away by his U.S. security guards. He insisted that it was not he who looted the ministry's money. [...]

Bechtel was among the first companies, along with Halliburton, where U.S. Vice-President Dick Cheney once worked, to have received fixed-fee contracts drawn to guarantee profit.

Ahmed al-Ani who works with a major Iraqi construction contracting company says the model Bechtel adopted was certain to fail.

"They charged huge sums of money for the contracts they signed, then they sold them to smaller companies who resold them again to small inexperienced Iraqi contractors," Ani told IPS. "These inexperienced contractors then had to execute the works badly because of the very low prices they get, and the lack of experience."

Some Iraqi political analysts, rather optimistically, look at Bechtel's departure from a different angle.

"I see the beginning of a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq," Maki al-Nazzal told IPS. "It started with Bechtel and Haliburton's propaganda, and might end with their escape from the field. They came with Bremer and introduced themselves as heroes and saviours who would bring prosperity to Iraq, but all they did was market U.S. propaganda."

U.S. President George W. Bush told reporters on a visit to Iraq last June: "You can measure progress in megawatts of electricity delivered. You can measure progress in terms of oil sold on the market on behalf of the Iraqi people."

By his standards, the position in Iraq is now much worse. [Emphasis added]

$2.3 billion is one hell of a lot of money. Especially since it doesn't seem to have bought much of anything. But Bechtel, like Halliburton, won't suffer because of its failure to get the job done. When the next multi-billion dollar contracts come along, they'll be right back at the head of the line. The game's rigged, and they're playing with our money.

Crony capitalism is way too polite a term. It's pillage and plunder, rape and looting. They're pirates, gangsters, vampires with their fangs in the neck of the world.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:39 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

November 03, 2006

"Donald Rumsfeld Must Go"

Iraq

Editor and Publisher says that on Monday, the day before the election, four leading military newspapers — the Army Times, Air Force Times, Navy Times and Marine Corps Times — will all publish an editorial calling for Donald Rumsfeld's head. Here's the editorial:

Time for Rumsfeld to go.

"So long as our government requires the backing of an aroused and informed public opinion ... it is necessary to tell the hard bruising truth."

That statement was written by Pulitzer Prize-winning war correspondent Marguerite Higgins more than a half-century ago during the Korean War.

But until recently, the "hard bruising" truth about the Iraq war has been difficult to come by from leaders in Washington. One rosy reassurance after another has been handed down by President Bush, Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: "mission accomplished," the insurgency is "in its last throes," and "back off," we know what we're doing, are a few choice examples.

Military leaders generally toed the line, although a few retired generals eventually spoke out from the safety of the sidelines, inciting criticism equally from anti-war types, who thought they should have spoken out while still in uniform, and pro-war foes, who thought the generals should have kept their critiques behind closed doors.

Now, however, a new chorus of criticism is beginning to resonate. Active-duty military leaders are starting to voice misgivings about the war's planning, execution and dimming prospects for success.

Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of U.S. Central Command, told a Senate Armed Services Committee in September: "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it ... and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war."

Last week, someone leaked to The New York Times a Central Command briefing slide showing an assessment that the civil conflict in Iraq now borders on "critical" and has been sliding toward "chaos" for most of the past year. The strategy in Iraq has been to train an Iraqi army and police force that could gradually take over for U.S. troops in providing for the security of their new government and their nation.

But despite the best efforts of American trainers, the problem of molding a viciously sectarian population into anything resembling a force for national unity has become a losing proposition.

For two years, American sergeants, captains and majors training the Iraqis have told their bosses that Iraqi troops have no sense of national identity, are only in it for the money, don't show up for duty and cannot sustain themselves.

Meanwhile, colonels and generals have asked their bosses for more troops. Service chiefs have asked for more money.

And all along, Rumsfeld has assured us that things are well in hand.

Now, the president says he'll stick with Rumsfeld for the balance of his term in the White House.

This is a mistake.

It is one thing for the majority of Americans to think Rumsfeld has failed. But when the nation's current military leaders start to break publicly with their defense secretary, then it is clear that he is losing control of the institution he ostensibly leads.

These officers have been loyal public promoters of a war policy many privately feared would fail. They have kept their counsel private, adhering to more than two centuries of American tradition of subordination of the military to civilian authority.

And although that tradition, and the officers' deep sense of honor, prevent them from saying this publicly, more and more of them believe it.

Rumsfeld has lost credibility with the uniformed leadership, with the troops, with Congress and with the public at large. His strategy has failed, and his ability to lead is compromised. And although the blame for our failures in Iraq rests with the secretary, it will be the troops who bear its brunt.

This is not about the midterm elections. Regardless of which party wins Nov. 7, the time has come, Mr. President, to face the hard bruising truth:

Donald Rumsfeld must go. [Emphasis added]

Think back to all the assurances we've received from Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice that the Iraqi security forces are getting ready to stand up so US forces can stand down, that US commanders have been given everything they've asked for, etc., etc. All lies.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:30 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

November 02, 2006

Katie Couric Gets Shrill

Iraq  Media

From the NBC Nightly News CBS Evening News (via Atrios):

Whoa. Things really must be unravelling over there if mainstream network news is this dark.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:14 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 01, 2006

"Edging Toward Chaos"

Iraq

The NYT today published a classified CENTCOM assessment that portrays Iraq as moving steadily closer to chaos, with "violence at all-time high":

A classified briefing prepared two weeks ago by the United States Central Command portrays Iraq as edging toward chaos, in a chart that the military is using as a barometer of civil conflict.

A one-page slide shown at the Oct. 18 briefing provides a rare glimpse into how the military command that oversees the war is trying to track its trajectory, particularly in terms of sectarian fighting.

The slide includes a color-coded bar chart that is used to illustrate an "Index of Civil Conflict." It shows a sharp escalation in sectarian violence since the bombing of a Shiite shrine in Samarra in February, and tracks a further worsening this month despite a concerted American push to tamp down the violence in Baghdad.

In fashioning the index, the military is weighing factors like the ineffectual Iraqi police and the dwindling influence of moderate religious and political figures, rather than more traditional military measures such as the enemy’s fighting strength and the control of territory.

The conclusions the Central Command has drawn from these trends are not encouraging, according to a copy of the slide that was obtained by The New York Times. The slide shows Iraq as moving sharply away from "peace," an ideal on the far left side of the chart, to a point much closer to the right side of the spectrum, a red zone marked "chaos." As depicted in the command's chart, the needle has been moving steadily toward the far right of the chart.

An intelligence summary at the bottom of the slide reads "urban areas experiencing 'ethnic cleansing' campaigns to consolidate control" and "violence at all-time high, spreading geographically." [...]

One significant factor in the military's decision to move the scale toward "chaos" was the expanding activity by militias.

Another reason was the limitations of Iraqi government security forces, which despite years of training and equipping by the United States, are either ineffective or, in some cases, infiltrated by the very militias they are supposed to be combating. The slide notes that "ineffectual" Iraqi police forces have been a significant problem, and cites as a concern sectarian conflicts between Iraqi security forces.

Other significant factors are in the political realm. The slide notes that Iraq's political and religious leaders have lost some of their moderating influence over their constituents or adherents. [...]

[F]or a military culture that thrives on PowerPoint briefings, the shifting index was seen by some officials as a stark warning about the difficult course of events in Iraq, and mirrored growing concern by some military officers.

Shorter version: everything the White House has been saying about Iraq is a lie. It's getting worse. Iraqi security forces will never be in a position to "stand up" so US forces can "stand down". The Iraqi "unity government" is a Green Zone fiction. It will all end in chaos. What then?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:30 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

105

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq in October: 105.

And thousands of Iraqis. For what?

October was the deadliest month for US troops since January, 2005 (107), and the fourth deadliest month of the entire war.

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:54 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 25, 2006

Staying The Course

Iraq  Politics

Awesome video (via AmericaBlog):

They were for "stay the course" before they were against it. Has a familiar ring.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:33 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 23, 2006

2800

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2800.

And hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. For what?

This is already the deadliest month for US troops in the past year — with another week to go.

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:51 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 21, 2006

Men From Mars

Iraq

An excellent short film from the Guardian and BBC, Iraq: The Real Story. It pretty much demolishes all the talk of Iraqi security forces "standing up" so US forces can "stand down". The US troops in the film might as well be men from Mars, stomping around Iraq pretty much devoid of any understanding or empathy for the people they are supposedly liberating.

Guerrilla wars are won by the superior use of minds, not of weapons. One of the soldiers in the film says US forces will never be able to leave Iraq because Iraqis are "too lazy". But it's the Americans who appear to be too lazy to even try to understand the reality of what they see around them. Learning another language, absorbing new customs and political facts of life, fitting into an alien cultural milieu, those things are hard work. Way too hard for Americans.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:03 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 19, 2006

Shame

Iraq

Stop what you're doing and read this.

Shame on us all.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:40 AM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

October 18, 2006

Coming Unglued

Iraq

The electricity has been on in Baghdad an average of only 2.4 hours a day this month, the lowest level yet (graph). Before the war, the average was 16-24 hours a day.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:40 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Iraq: 10 US Troops Killed Yesterday

Iraq

10 US troops were killed in a single day yesterday in Iraq, bringing the total for October to 69 killed with almost two weeks to go. At the current pace, October will be the deadliest month for US troops since January, 2005.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 16, 2006

W	Humor & Fun  Iraq  Politics

The leader of the free world. It's so embarrassing:

And as for cuttin' and runnin'...

Posted by Jonathan at 10:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 15, 2006

Why We're Still In Iraq

Iran  Iraq  Politics

Conservative William S. Lind, a leading thinking on fourth-generation warfare, tells us why we're still in Iraq:

At least 32 American troops have been killed in Iraq this month [as of October 11]. Approximately 300 have been wounded. The "battle for Baghdad" is going nowhere. A Marine friend just back from Ramadi said to me, "It didn't get any better while I was there, and it's not going to get better." Virtually everyone in Washington, except the people in the White House, knows that is true for all of Iraq.

Actually, I think the White House knows it too. Why then does it insist on "staying the course" at a casualty rate of more than one thousand Americans per month? The answer is breathtaking in its cynicism: so the retreat from Iraq happens on the next President's watch. That is why we still fight.

Yep, it's now all about George. Anyone who thinks that is too low, too mean, too despicable even for this bunch does not understand the meaning of the adjective "Rovian." Would they let thousands more young Americans get killed or wounded just so George W. does not have to face the consequences of his own folly? In a heartbeat.

Not that it's going to help. When history finally lifts it leg on the Bush administration, it will wash all such tricks away, leaving only the hubris and the incompetence. Jeffrey Hart, who with Russell Kirk gone is probably the top intellectual in the conservative movement, has already written that George W. Bush is the worst President America ever had. I think the honor still belongs to the sainted Woodrow, but if Bush attacks Iran, he may yet earn the prize. That third and final act in the Bush tragicomedy is waiting in the wings. [Emphasis added]

Lind sees no reason to expect Democratic victories in next month's midterm elections to change anything:

A Democratic Congress will be as stupid, cowardly and corrupt as its Republican predecessor; in reality, both parties are one party, the party of successful career politicians. The White House will continue a lost war in Iraq, solely to dump the mess in the next President's lap. America or Israel will attack Iran, pulling what's left of the temple down on our heads. Congress will do nothing to stop either war. [Emphasis added]

It is disgusting to think of a war being continued just to protect the egos of powerful men, but we've seen it before. Vietnam lasted for years after it was evident that no victory would be forthcoming, simply because neither Johnson nor Nixon wanted to be the first American president to lose a war. Now it's happening again. Except the danger this time around is that Bush et al will expand the war by attacking Iran, applying the desperate gambler's strategy of last resort: doubling the size of the bet, then doubling it again.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:04 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 11, 2006

600,000

Iraq

Johns Hopkins researchers estimate that 654,000 Iraqis have died as a result of the war, 600,000 of those due to violence. Baltimore Sun:

In an update of a two-year-old survey that sparked wide disagreement, Johns Hopkins researchers now estimate that more than a half-million Iraqis have died as a result of the U.S.-led invasion and its bloody aftermath.

Reporting this week in the online edition of The Lancet, a leading British medical journal, the researchers estimated that 654,000 more Iraqis died of various causes after the invasion than would have died in a comparable period before.

The scientists attributed 600,000 of those deaths to acts of violence.

Gunshots emerged as the leading cause of death, accounting for 56 percent of the total. Airstrikes, car bombs and other explosions each accounted for 13 percent to 14 percent. Almost 60 percent of the deaths were among males 15 to 44.

"In this conflict, like all other recent conflicts, it's the population that bears the consequences," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham, lead author and co-director of the Center for Refugee and Disaster Response at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

"To put these numbers in context, deaths are occurring in Iraq now at a rate more than three times that from before the invasion of March 2003," he said.

With deaths increasing at that pace, Burnham said, the crisis in Iraq qualifies as a "humanitarian emergency," a public health term applied to situations in which populations die at twice or more the usual rate. [...]

The Pentagon declined to comment on the study, saying that officials had not yet read it. Army Lt. Col. Christopher Garver, a spokesman for the Multi-National Force in Iraq, said the force was "interested" in the study but doesn't normally comment on Iraqi deaths.

"We're obviously trying to reduce the amount of violence of all kinds in Iraq, but it's really a government of Iraq issue," he said.

In August, the Defense Department reported to Congress that the number of civilian casualties had increased sharply, without estimating total deaths.

In 2005, however, the Bush administration estimated that 30,000 civilians had died. A report by the Los Angeles Times in June, based on statistics from the Iraqi Health Ministry and the Baghdad morgue, put civilian deaths at 50,000.

To estimate deaths for this week's report, the Hopkins group recruited Iraqi doctors to conduct household surveys in 47 neighborhood clusters across Iraq that contained 1,849 households and 12,801 people. The doctors asked family members to report births, deaths and the movement of people into and out of their households.

When people reported deaths, researchers asked them about the cause and obtained death certificates in 92 percent of cases. The data were then projected onto the entire nation, about 26 million people.

The Hopkins estimate is many times higher than any other group's, including Iraq Body Count, a Web-based organization that put the death count at 48,693 yesterday. Members of that group, which criticized Hopkins' earlier estimate as wildly inflated, were unavailable for comment.

Unlike the Hopkins study, Iraq Body Count has based its estimates on reports from morgues and the news media.

Michael O'Hanlon, a Brookings Institution scholar who criticized the last Hopkins study, said the method used by the Hopkins researchers this time was seriously flawed.

"The numbers are preposterously high," he said. "Their numbers are out of whack with every other estimate."

Burnham, however, said that no one else has done a population-based survey of deaths in Iraq. "There are people who have taken numbers reported from various facilities and so forth, but statistically you can't [extrapolate] from various morgue and newspaper reports to a national figure," he said.

He said the group employed standard epidemiological methods used to estimate deaths from calamities ranging from natural disasters such as Hurricanes Andrew and Katrina to the bloody war in the Congo.

In its earlier study, published in October 2004, the Hopkins group estimated that close to 100,000 people had died in the 17 months after the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003. Critics attacked that study, in part, because of a wide "confidence interval," a range within which the true number exists.

In that case, the interval was 8,000 to 194,000 deaths, though researchers said 100,000 was most likely the actual number.

To avoid that problem this time, researchers increased the number of neighborhood clusters from 33 to 47. Additionally, Burnham said, by the time the second survey was conducted, hostilities had spread more widely through the country, reducing the possibility that the overall projection was skewed by pockets of extreme violence.

The researchers now say that Iraqi deaths totaled between 392,000 to 942,000. Their best estimate is 654,000.

In the earlier study, Iraqis told interviewers that about a third of all deaths were caused by coalition forces. Since then, the proportion has dropped to about a quarter — although the absolute number of deaths has risen in each year of the conflict. [Emphasis added]

It is noteworthy that the researchers obtained death certificates in 92% of reported cases. That creates a high level of confidence that the reports were true and accurate. The only question, then, is whether their statistical methodology was sound — i.e., that the sample was sufficiently representative and random and the extrapolation to the total population was done correctly. Note also that their confidence interval puts 392,000 as the minimum figure, already an astonishing number.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:22 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 26, 2006

2700

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2703.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:33 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 12, 2006

Rationalizing Our Way To Disaster

Global Guerrillas  Iraq  War and Peace

John Robb talks sense, as usual:

We are now at the start of a long process of rationalization over the US defeat in Iraq. The most common of these rationalizations include: if only we had "...not disbanded the Baathist army," "...sent in more troops," or "...become better at nation-building." However, in each case the approach is one dimensional, since we tend to view ourselves as the only actors on the stage. The actions and reactions of the opposition are discounted and explained away as fluff and background noise (those pesky terrorists...).

A better, and more sane approach, is to embrace the concept that war is a conflict of minds. There are two sides. For every change in approach there will be counters mounted by the opposition. In the case of Iraq, that opposition was extremely difficult to beat since it was organized along the lines of open source warfare. This organizational structure gave it a level of innovation, resilience, and flexibility that made it a very effective opponent. Given this, the simplest explanation for the outcome in Iraq is that we were just beaten by a better opponent (the Israeli's seem to be getting this, why can't we?).

The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether or not our maximalist goals in Iraq could ever have been achieved given the capabilities of the opposition and the limited levels of commitment we were able to bring to to bear on the problem. I suspect the answer is no. The goals didn't match our capabilities and there weren't any simple tweaks to our strategy that would have changed the outcome. This was a difficult way to learn this lesson, but given our tendency towards rationalization, I doubt that it will be learned at all.

God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. [Emphasis added]

There's a fundamental irrationality in the Pentagon's approach to fighting this new kind of war: namely, its reliance on high-tech weapons — i.e., machines that kill — instead of methods that produce a political outcome. No amount of killing will produce the desired political outcome. Working at a political level is hard work, though — all those languages to be learned, and so on. Not much money in it, either. Way more fun and way more profit in building high-tech weapons, even if, in the long run, they cannot win. The weapons makers still get paid regardless, and if there's anything humans are good at, it's rationalizing their own self-interest.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:50 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

September 06, 2006

CIA Task Force On Iraq Ramped Up Months Before 9/11

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  Politics

David Corn drops some bombshells in an article on what it was Valerie Plame Wilson really did at the CIA:

In the spring of 2002 Dick Cheney made one of his periodic trips to CIA headquarters. Officers and analysts were summoned to brief him on Iraq. Paramilitary specialists updated the Vice President on an extensive covert action program in motion that was designed to pave the way to a US invasion. Cheney questioned analysts about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. How could they be used against US troops? Which Iraqi units had chemical and biological weapons? He was not seeking information on whether Saddam posed a threat because he possessed such weapons. His queries, according to a CIA officer at the briefing, were pegged to the assumptions that Iraq had these weapons and would be invaded — as if a decision had been made.

Though Cheney was already looking toward war, the officers of the agency's Joint Task Force on Iraq — part of the Counterproliferation Division of the agency's clandestine Directorate of Operations — were frantically toiling away in the basement, mounting espionage operations to gather information on the WMD programs Iraq might have. The JTFI was trying to find evidence that would back up the White House's assertion that Iraq was a WMD danger. Its chief of operations was a career undercover officer named Valerie [Plame] Wilson. [...]

In July 2003 — four months after the invasion of Iraq — Wilson would be outed as a CIA "operative on weapons of mass destruction" in a column by conservative journalist Robert Novak, who would cite two "senior administration officials" as his sources. (...[O]ne was Richard Armitage, the number-two at the State Department; Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist, was the other. I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's chief of staff, also talked to two reporters about her.) Novak revealed her CIA identity — using her maiden name, Valerie Plame — in the midst of the controversy ignited by former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, her husband, who had written a New York Times op-ed accusing the Bush Administration of having "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

The Novak column triggered a scandal and a criminal investigation. At issue was whether Novak's sources had violated a little-known law that makes it a federal crime for a government official to disclose identifying information about a covert US officer (if that official knew the officer was undercover). A key question was, what did Valerie Wilson do at the CIA? Was she truly undercover? In a subsequent column, Novak reported that she was "an analyst, not in covert operations." White House press secretary Scott McClellan suggested that her employment at the CIA was no secret. Jonah Goldberg of National Review claimed, "Wilson's wife is a desk jockey and much of the Washington cocktail circuit knew that already."

Valerie Wilson was no analyst or paper-pusher. She was an operations officer working on a top priority of the Bush Administration. Armitage, Rove and Libby had revealed information about a CIA officer who had searched for proof of the President's case. In doing so, they harmed her career and put at risk operations she had worked on and foreign agents and sources she had handled. [...]

In the early 1990s, she became what's known as a nonofficial cover officer. NOCs are the most clandestine of the CIA's frontline officers. They do not pretend to work for the US government; they do not have the protection of diplomatic immunity. They might claim to be a businessperson. She told people she was with an energy firm. Her main mission remained the same: to gather agents for the CIA.

In 1997 she returned to CIA headquarters and joined the Counterproliferation Division. (About this time, she moved in with Joseph Wilson; they later married.) She was eventually given a choice: North Korea or Iraq. She selected the latter. Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer — before 9/11 — word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq. Her unit was expanded and renamed the Joint Task Force on Iraq. Within months of 9/11, the JTFI grew to fifty or so employees. Valerie Wilson was placed in charge of its operations group. [...]

"We knew nothing about what was going on in Iraq," a CIA official recalled. "We were way behind the eight ball. We had to look under every rock." Wilson, too, occasionally flew overseas to monitor operations. She also went to Jordan to work with Jordanian intelligence officials who had intercepted a shipment of aluminum tubes heading to Iraq that CIA analysts were claiming — wrongly — were for a nuclear weapons program. [...]

The JTFI found nothing. The few scientists it managed to reach insisted Saddam had no WMD programs. Task force officers sent reports detailing the denials into the CIA bureaucracy. The defectors were duds — fabricators and embellishers. (JTFI officials came to suspect that some had been sent their way by Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress, an exile group that desired a US invasion of Iraq.) The results were frustrating for the officers. Were they not doing their job well enough — or did Saddam not have an arsenal of unconventional weapons? Valerie Wilson and other JTFI officers were almost too overwhelmed to consider the possibility that their small number of operations was, in a way, coming up with the correct answer: There was no intelligence to find on Saddam's WMDs because the weapons did not exist. Still, she and her colleagues kept looking. (She also assisted operations involving Iran and WMDs.) [...]

As a CIA employee still sworn to secrecy, she wasn't able to explain publicly that she had spent nearly two years searching for evidence to support the Administration's justification for war and had come up empty. [Emphasis added]

It's been pretty obvious that the Bush team had Iraq in their crosshairs from the very beginning, but this is the first published evidence I can recall that months before 9/11 the administration already had the CIA ramping up a major effort on Iraq. Then 9/11 came along and triggered the military phase of the plan. How very convenient, that.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:21 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 17, 2006

The End Of Iraq II

Iraq

In a post last night I wrote:

[O]ne has to wonder why — if the intent all along was to arrive at just this endgame — the administration didn't just declare early on that the ethnic realities of Iraq demanded that Iraq be broken into three states, break it up, declare victory, and be done with it? Why this elaborate and enormously costly charade, ending in what must certainly be viewed as defeat for the US?

A regular reader emailed me with an answer: it took all this chaos and bloodshed to break Iraqi society down to the point where Iraqis are killing each other in the street. The Kurds have always been separatist, but otherwise Iraq is tribal before it's Sunni and Shiite. Many of the large tribes are mixed. In New Orleans, it took a Katrina to really expose the fault lines in American society, and even under those conditions people were a very long way from forming death squads and militias. Think what it would take to bring us to such a point. Iraq was a civilized and largely secular society. It has taken a lot to bring them to a state of civil war.

Excellent point.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:22 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 16, 2006

The End Of Iraq

Iraq

On Point Radio today carried an extraordinary conversation, noteworthy for its frankness, about the current state of Iraq. It's online, and very much worth a listen.

The consensus was pretty dire:

if anything, things are much worse than is reported in the US

a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites is already underway

the country has de facto broken into three states (Kurd, Sunni, Shiite)

the current "unity government" governs little but the Green Zone

the White House has no intention of committing the personnel and resources it would take to change these facts

the White House is just trying to hang on long enough to foist the inevitable pullout onto Bush's successor.

The inescapable conclusion: Iraq will be officially broken into three statelets defined along ethnic lines.

Something not considered in the discussion: maybe the breakup of Iraq has been the desired outcome all along. Various observers have contended from the outset that this is the outcome administration neocons have wanted. It is certainly what Israeli hardliners have wanted.

An observer (from Mars, say) who could only see the administration's actions, not hear its rhetoric, might well conclude it's all been purposeful. It's been one long succession of screwups, but somehow with every screwup the eventual breakup of Iraq became more assured. So were they really screwups?

It's hard to know, but one has to wonder why — if the intent all along was to arrive at just this endgame — the administration didn't just declare early on that the ethnic realities of Iraq demanded that Iraq be broken into three states, break it up, declare victory, and be done with it? Why this elaborate and enormously costly charade, ending in what must certainly be viewed as defeat for the US?

Various hypotheses suggest themselves. It could just be what it looks like: they're incompetent, arrogant fools who were blinded by their belief in America as hyperpower, the new Rome, and who just don't get fourth-generation war. Or, it could be that different elements in the administration are working at cross-purposes: for example, Cheney, Rumseld, et al are deliberately driving towards an outcome of their choosing, and Bush (perhaps), Congress, and much of the military don't know they're being played. The only way for them to pull this off would be to make it all look like incompetence.

What's the reality? Beats me. Either way, unified Iraq is toast. Wingers who say we're winning, that it's the mainstream media's fault that things look bad, are out to lunch, as will become painfully clear in the very near future.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:32 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 13, 2006

Baghdad Violence Continues Unabated

Iraq

The ongoing destruction of Lebanon and the militarization of US airports and civil aviation have pushed Iraq off of the front page, but the bloodbath in Baghdad goes on. NYT:

As American forces conducted a new security sweep in western Baghdad on Sunday, five apparently coordinated bombings in a predominantly Shiite neighborhood on the city’s south side killed at least 57 people and wounded 148, an Iraqi government official said.

The death toll could rise, the official said, as emergency workers searched for victims in the rubble of an apartment building that collapsed as a result of the bombings.

The attacks, which killed civilians in a largely residential neighborhood, were the deadliest in the capital since the American military dispatched new forces here more than a week ago to quell a surge in killings and kidnappings by sectarian militias and criminal gangs. [Emphasis added]

As always, we must pause to remember that this is happening in a real place, to real people, people whose only crime, for the most part, is to live atop some of the largest oil reserves in the world. It's hard, given the steady drumbeat of horrific news, to put ourselves in their place, but basic morality and simple human decency demand that we make the effort. Imagine it.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:23 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 12, 2006

2600

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2601.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 09, 2006

60% Oppose Iraq War

Iraq

Looks like Iraq is now the most unpopular war in US history. CNN:

Sixty percent of Americans oppose the U.S. war in Iraq, the highest number since polling on the subject began with the commencement of the war in March 2003, according to poll results and trends released Wednesday.

And a majority of poll respondents said they would support the withdrawal of at least some U.S. troops by the end of the year, according to results from the Opinion Research Corporation poll conducted last week on behalf of CNN. The corporation polled 1,047 adult Americans by telephone.

According to trends, the number of poll respondents who said they did not support the Iraq war has steadily risen as the war stretched into a second and then a third year. In the most recent poll, 36 percent said they were in favor of the war — half of the peak of 72 percent who said they were in favor of the war as it began.

Sixty-one percent, however, said they believed at least some U.S. troops should be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. Of those, 26 percent said they would favor the withdrawal of all troops, while 35 percent said not all troops should be withdrawn. Another 34 percent said they believed the current level of troops in Iraq should be maintained.

Asked about a timetable for withdrawal of troops from Iraq, 57 percent of poll respondents said they supported the setting of such a timetable, while 40 percent did not and 4 percent had no opinion. [Emphasis added]

Too bad we don't have a parliamentary system allowing us to go immediately to a no-confidence vote. Yesterday's vote in CT was a start.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:33 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 31, 2006

Rumsfeld "In A Parallel Universe And Slightly Deranged"

Iraq  Palestine/Middle East  Politics

Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria on ABC Sunday (via ThinkProgress):

If I were a Democrat, I would make up a campaign commercial almost entirely of Donald Rumsfeld’s press conferences, because the man is looking — I mean, it's not just that he seems like a bad Secretary of [Defense]. He seems literally in a parallel universe and slightly deranged as a result. If you listen to what he said last week about Iraq, he's living in a different world, not a different country. [Emphasis added]

Rumsfeld and Cheney both. They're delusional men with enormous egos and enormous power. Not a happy combination. Incapable of admitting error or defeat, they will continue to escalate. Bush won't stop them and they won't stop themselves. They'll go to their graves convinced that they were right. The only question is whether they will take the rest of us with them.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:40 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 30, 2006

Doubling Down

Iran  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East  War and Peace

Josh Marshall links to an article in today's Jerusalem Post:

[Israeli] Defense officials told the Post last week that they were receiving indications from the United States that the US would be interested in seeing Israel attack Syria. [Emphasis added]

He goes on to say:

[T]here do appear to be forces in Washington — seemingly the stronger ones, with Rice just a facade — who see this whole thing as an opportunity for a grand call of double or nothing to get out of the disaster they've created in the region. Go into Syria, maybe Iran. Try to roll the table once and for all. No failed war that a new war can't solve. [Emphasis added]

That's my fear as well, that the Bush/Cheney regime has painted itself into such a desperate corner that doubling down may seem, as Billmon put it a few months back, "like the only move left on the board." Billmon:

What we are witnessing...may be an example of what the Germans call the flucht nach vorne – the "flight forward." This refers to a situation in which an individual or institution seeks a way out of a crisis by becoming ever more daring and aggressive (or, as the White House propaganda department might put it: "bold") A familar analogy is the gambler in Vegas, who tries to get out of a hole by doubling down on each successive bet.

Classic historical examples of the flucht nach vornes include Napoleon's attempt to break the long stalemate with Britain by invading Russia, the decision of the Deep South slaveholding states to secede from the Union after Lincoln's election, and Milosevic's bid to create a "greater Serbia" after Yugoslavia fell apart.

As these examples suggest, flights forward usually don't end well — just as relatively few gamblers emerge from a doubling-down spree with their shirts still on their backs.

It's depressing to think how much human suffering is caused by a handful of men with big egos. Some guys would rather take us all down in flames than admit error or defeat. But there's something unbelievably archaic about issues like war and the fate of nations being held hostage to the pyschopathology of individual men (and maybe a few women) in leadership positions. It's like we think we're still a small band of primates living in the forest somewhere: the alpha males call the shots. Time to grow up.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 29, 2006

From Lebanon To Iran

Iran  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East

As I wrote in an earlier post, if US forces are inserted into southern Lebanon, the inevitable Hezbollah attacks on those troops are sure to lead to a wider war pitting the US and Israel against Syria and/or Iran.

John Robb agrees, but believes the target will be Iran:

If the US sends troops to Lebanon as peacekeepers and/or as a force to disarm Hezbollah, we will see a quick escalation. Any attack (and it would be inevitable) on US forces by the Hez would be seen as a direct attack on the US by Syria and Iran. This would lead to an immediate expansion of hostilities (to include an EBO [effects based operation] against both countries as a means of punishment). From that point on, the situation would be beyond repair. [...]

I do not think I am overstating the danger here. Once momentum starts moving in that direction, we might soon find ourselves in another situation where stubborn pride, as much as anything else, would make it hard for us to modify our rhetoric and admit our inability and that of our Israeli allies to disarm and dismantle the military arm of Hizballah. It's a proxy war right now, but if our surrogates (the Israelis) fail to achieve their objectives, they will attempt very purposefully to broaden the conflict into a much larger one directly involving the United States and Iran. [Emphasis in the original]

Robb cites former CIA analyst Ray Close, who writes:

My source confirmed in detail the fact that intelligence being produced for the Bush Administration by the Pentagon strongly supports the thesis that Hizballah operations are directly controlled and closely managed from Teheran. My source considers this an exaggerated picture of the real situation. He believes that this assessment contributes to an unhealthy and even dangerous mindset in Washington, leading to potentially serious miscalculations and errors of judgment by President Bush and his closest advisors at this very critical time. [Emphasis added]

These people have their heads in a bubble, and they are going to get a lot of people killed. The idea that Hezbollah is being "directly controlled and closely managed" by Iran is as outmoded as the idea that the opposition in Iraq is just a bunch of foreign jihadists and Baathist dead-enders. And we know how that turned out. If the US allows itself to be drawn into a war with Iran, we will look back on our current difficulties with nostalgia.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:37 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Summer Rerun

Iraq  Media

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. Boy, are they ever. E&P:

An analysis released today by Frank Newport, director of The Gallup Poll, shows that current public wishes for U.S. policy in the Iraq war eerily echo attitudes about the Vietnam war in 1970.

The most recent Gallup poll this month found that 52% of adult Americans want to see all U.S. troops out of Iraq within a year, with 19% advocating immediate withdrawal. In the summer of 1970, Gallup found that 48% wanted a pullout within a year, with 23% embracing the "immediate" option. Just 7% want to send more troops now, vs. 10% then.

At present, 56% call the decision to invade Iraq a "mistake," with 41% disagreeing. Again this echoes the view of the Vietnam war in 1970, when that exact same number, 56%, in May 1970 called [Vietnam] a mistake in a Gallup poll.

While the U.S. involvement in the Korean war is often labeled unpopular, the highest number calling it a mistake in a Gallup poll was 51% in early 1952. That number actually declined to 43% by the end of that year. [Emphasis added]

So, the Iraq war is now tied for most unpopular American war ever.

There's one essential difference between now and 1970, though. Back then, opposition to the war had become a somewhat respectable position, openly advocated by the likes of Walter Cronkite and Bobby Kennedy. Today, if all you did was watch tv, you'd think it's only fringe elements who want the US to pull out of Iraq. Instead, it's a majority of Americans. Liberal media.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 23, 2006

Meanwhile In Iraq

Iraq

How many corners have we turned now in Iraq? Most recently, there was the election of the national unity government. And the killing of al-Zarqawi. American troop drawdowns were said to be in the offing. But reality doesn't watch Fox News. AP:

The deteriorating security situation — especially in Baghdad — has alarmed U.S. officials, who had hoped that the new national unity government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki would be able to ease tensions so that the U.S. and its international partners could begin removing troops this year.

But the situation has gotten worse since al-Maliki took office May 20. Security is likely to top the agenda when al-Maliki visits the White House this coming week.

The Baghdad area recorded an average of 34 major bombings and shootings [daily] for the week ending July 13, the U.S. military said. That was up 40 percent from the daily average of 24 registered between June 14 and July 13.

Much of the violence was due to sectarian attacks. Months of worsening violence has deepened the distrust between Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis.

Instead of cutbacks, a senior U.S. defense official said the Pentagon was moving ahead with scheduled deployments to Iraq next month and was moving one battalion to Baghdad from Kuwait, where it was in reserve, U.S. officials said.

The U.S. command had drawn up plans to reduce the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq from 14 to 12 by September. But that plan has been shelved for the time being because of the security crisis in the capital. [Emphasis added]

The invasion of Iraq didn't work out as planned. So what do they do? They widen the war. Lunatics.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:44 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 22, 2006

Not A Domino

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East  Peak Oil

The following was written a year and a half ago, but it is, if anything, more timely today with the war widening. Jeff Wells:

The Mosul bombing likely has some Americans thinking, as they do only when the media reports a mass US casualty event, that Iraq could be Vietnam redux. I wish they'd stop that; this is no time for vainglorious optimism. Iraq is much worse.

It's not just about the clicking of the casualty counter, though it did take the better part of a decade for American casualties in Vietnam to reach the level of "sustainable losses" the US military is now taking in Iraq. [...]

We need to remember that Vietnam was a "domino." It was a piece in a geopolitical game, and not a very important one at that. Vietnam [lay] on the fringe of America's sphere of interest. And still it took 58,000 American and millions of Vietnamese lives before it was over. [...]

Iraq will never be over, because it's not a domino. Dominating the diminishing oil reserves of the Middle East is not a sideshow; it is the essence of US strategic interest. We're talking about the centerpiece of empire in the New American Century. So this war — and it will not be contained to Iraq — will not be over until the American Empire falls.

Iraq is not Vietnam, because the war won't end with a dash for the helicopter on the roof of the Baghdad embassy. It will end with a dash for Marine One on the grounds of the White House. [Emphasis added]

Dick Cheney, yesterday:

This conflict is a long way from over. It's going to be a battle that will last for a very long time. It is absolutely essential that we stay the course.

I didn't sign up for this. Did you?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:07 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 20, 2006

A 9/11 Every Month

Iraq

While Israel's attack on Lebanon dominates the news, the violence in Iraq continues to escalate. The number of Iraqi civilians killed every month is now approximately equal to the total number of Americans killed on 9/11. CNN:

More than 14,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq in the first half of this year, an ominous figure reflecting the fact that "killings, kidnappings and torture remain widespread" in the war-torn country, a United Nations report says.

Killings of civilians are on "an upward trend," with more than 5,800 deaths and more than 5,700 injuries reported in May and June alone, it says. [Emphasis added]

Those are civilian casualties, not insurgents or other combatants. A 9/11 every month. Actually, in proportion to Iraq's population, a 9/11 every two or three days. Do the math.

We in the US, spoiled as we are, have acted as if the events of 9/11 put us into a whole different category from the rest of the world, entitling us to go on a rampage. Why do we imagine the people of Iraq (and elsewhere) won't react similarly to the suffering we cause them? The reverberations of what we do now will be felt for years, if not for generations.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 19, 2006

Reality Begs To Differ

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

Regarding Condi's recent comment that "the notion that policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque", you might want to revisit these two posts.

She can have her opinion, but the facts refute her completely. Stubborn thing, reality.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:41 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 17, 2006

Grotesque

Iraq

Condoleezza Rice yesterday said it was "grotesque" to suggest that the US attack on Iraq has contributed to reqional instability:

STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the war in Iraq many argued that going into Iraq would stir up a hornet's nest...Extremists now appear to have been emboldened. The moderates appear to be in retreat. There is no peace process. There is war. How do you answer administration critics who say that the administration's actions have unleashed, have helped unleash the very hostilities you hoped to contain?

RICE: Well, first of all, those hostilities were not very well contained as we found out on September 11th, so the notion that policies that finally confront extremism are actually causing extremism, I find grotesque. [Emphasis added]

I'll tell you what's grotesque. People who can — after all the killing and dying and in spite of their own culpability — look straight into the camera and say such nonsense.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:53 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 15, 2006

Baghdad Today

Iraq

The Iraq stories pile up, and it's inevitable that sometimes we just glance at them and move on. For those of us who've never been in a war zone, it's especially hard to grasp the human reality of what's happening daily to real people in Baghdad, Fallujah, Haditha, and the rest.

But it's our moral duty to try. That's why I urge you to take a few minutes and read the latest post by Riverbend, the young Iraqi woman who writes the blog Baghdad Burning. I won't excerpt it here, because I want you to read the whole thing. Read it and weep.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:42 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

July 10, 2006

"A Lot Worse...Than Is Reported"

Iraq

Establishment journal Foreign Policy interviewed Rod Nordland, Newsweek's Bagdad bureau chief for two years. Excerpt:

FOREIGN POLICY: Are Americans getting an accurate picture of what’s going on in Iraq?

Rod Nordland: It's a lot worse over here [in Iraq] than is reported. The administration does a great job of managing the news. [...]

[I]n the third year of this war, Iraqis are only getting electricity for about 5 to 10 percent of the day. Living conditions have gotten so much worse, violence is at an even higher tempo, and the country is on the verge of civil war. The administration has been successful to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made. They keep talking about how the Iraqi army is doing much better and taking over responsibilities, but for the most part that's not true.

FP: How often do you travel outside of the Green Zone?

RN: The restrictions on [journalists'] movements are very severe...[T]he military has started censoring many [embedded reporting] arrangements. Before a journalist is allowed to go on an embed now, [the military] check[s] the work you have done previously. They want to know your slant on a story — they use the word slant — what you intend to write, and what you have written from embed trips before. If they don't like what you have done before, they refuse to take you. There are cases where individual reporters have been blacklisted because the military wasn't happy with the work they had done on embed. But we get out among the Iraqi public a whole lot more than almost any American official, certainly more than military officials do. [...]

FP: Are journalists and the military seeing two different pictures in Iraq?

RN: Sometimes it's hard to say. Many in the military are here on their second or third tour and they don't want to feel that this is all a doomed enterprise. I'm not saying it is, but to some extent they are victims of their own propaganda. Two reasonable people can look at the same set of information and come to different conclusions. A good example: I traveled recently to Taji for the handover of a large swath of territory north of Baghdad to the Iraqi Army's 9th Armored Division. This was meant to be a big milestone: an important chunk of territory that has lots of insurgent activity, given over completely to the control of the Iraqi Army. But when we spoke to the Iraqi Army officers, they said they didn't have enough equipment. They are still completely dependent on the U.S. Army for their logistics, their meals, and a lot of their communications. The United States turned territory over to them, but they are not a functioning, independent army unit yet. [Emphasis added]

The sectarian violence grows more vicious with every passing day. It's Hell on Earth. Thanks to us.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:16 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 23, 2006

Bill Of Particulars

Iraq

Are Iraqis better off because of the US invasion? William Blum has compiled a list of the many ways they're worse off. It's a long list.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:01 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

June 21, 2006

To See Ourselves As Others See Us

Iran  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East

Who's the biggest threat to world peace? We are, according to a poll spanning 15 nations. Guardian, via CommonDreams:

George Bush's six years in office have so damaged the image of the US that people worldwide see Washington as a bigger threat to world peace than Tehran, according to a global poll.

The Washington-based Pew Research Centre, in a poll of 17,000 people in 15 countries between March and May, found more people concerned about the US presence in Iraq than about Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. [...]

The survey, carried out annually, shows a continued decline in support for the US since 1999. [...]

But even in the UK, Washington's closest ally, favourable ratings have slumped from 83% in 1999 to 56% this year. The pattern is similar in France, down from 62% to 39%, Germany 78% to 37%, and Spain 50% to 23%.

In Muslim countries with which the US has traditionally enjoyed a good relationship, such as Turkey - a member of Nato - and Indonesia, there have also been slumps. In Indonesia favourable ratings for the US have dropped from 75% to 30%, and in Turkey from 52% to 12%.

"It's all [because of] Iraq," Carroll Doherty, associate director of the Pew Centre, said. [...]

Favourable ratings of the US in India dropped over the year from 71% to 56%. [...]

Throughout the period the poll was conducted the crisis over Iran's nuclear programme, intensified by hardline comments from its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was repeatedly in the news. Iraq, too, has been in the news on an almost daily basis, with the formation of a new Iraqi government being accompanied by fears of a civil war.

Only in the US and Germany is Iran seen as a greater danger than the US in Iraq. Public opinion in 12 of the other countries - Britain, France, Spain, Russia, Indonesia, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Pakistan, Nigeria, India and China - cite the US presence in Iraq as being the greater danger. Opinion in Japan was evenly divided.

As well as Iraq and Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is also high on the list of issues that present a danger to world peace. Public opinion in about a third of the countries polled put it at the top of their list of threats. [...]

By contrast, concern about Iran has almost doubled in the US over the past two years. Some 46% of Americans view Mr Ahmadinejad's government as "a great danger" to stability in the Middle East and world peace, up from 26% in 2003. The concern in the US is shared in Germany, where 51% see Iran as a great danger to world peace, against 18% three years ago. [...]

Those are remarkable numbers: US approval cut more or less in half under Bush. Meanwhile, the media blitz here in the US has done its work: nearly half of Americans now view Iran as "a great danger". They didn't arrive at that conclusion on their own. It's disheartening to realize what sheep we are. Small wonder that media ownership and control is such a priority for elites here and elsewhere.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:58 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

June 20, 2006

Iraq: Millions Of Barrels Dumped

Disasters  Environment  Global Guerrillas  Iraq

So, how's that Iraqi reconstruction coming along? Check this out. NYT:

An environmental disaster is brewing in the heartland of Iraq's northern Sunni-led insurgency, where Iraqi officials say that in a desperate move to dispose of millions of barrels of an oil refinery byproduct called "black oil," the government pumped it into open mountain valleys and leaky reservoirs next to the Tigris River and set it on fire.

The resulting huge black bogs are threatening the river and the precious groundwater in the region, which is dotted with villages and crisscrossed by itinerant sheep herders, but also contains Iraq's great northern refinery complex at Baiji.

The fires are no longer burning, but the suffocating plumes of smoke they created carried as far as 40 miles downwind to Tikrit, the provincial capital that formed Saddam Hussein's base of power.

An Iraqi environmental engineer who has visited the dumping area described it as a kind of black swampland of oil-saturated terrain and large standing pools of oil stretching across several mountain valleys. The clouds of smoke, said the engineer, Ayad Younis, "were so heavy that they obstructed breathing and visibility in the area and represent a serious environmental danger." [...]

...He added that at least some of the black oil was already seeping into the river.

Exactly how far those pollutants will travel is unknown, but the Tigris passes through dozens of population centers from Baghdad to Basra. In the past, oil slicks created when insurgents struck oil pipelines in the Baiji area have traveled the entire length of the river.

As much as 40 percent of the petroleum processed at Iraq's damaged and outdated refineries pours forth as black oil, the heavy, viscous substance that used to be extensively exported to more efficient foreign operations for further refining. But the insurgency has stalled government-controlled exports by taking control of roadways and repeatedly hitting pipelines in the area, Iraqi and American officials have said.

So the backed-up black oil — known to the rest of the world as the lower grades of fuel oil — was sent along a short pipeline from Baiji and dumped in a mountainous area called Makhul.

A series of complaints handed up the Iraqi government chain were conveyed to oil industry officials, and as of last weekend the fires had at least temporarily stopped, but black oil was still being poured into the open valleys, according to Mr. Younis, who works in the province's Department of Environment and Health Safety. [...]

But with few options for disposing of Baiji's current production of black oil and so much at stake for the Iraqi economy, it is unclear whether the government will even be able to hold the line on the burning at Makhul. A United States official in Baghdad, speaking anonymously according to official procedure, said earlier this month that Baiji was still turning out about 90,000 barrels a day of refined products, which would yield about 36,000 barrels a day of black oil.

Iraq's refineries will grind to a halt if the black oil does not go somewhere. "Unless we find a way of dealing with the fuel oil, our factories will not work," said Shamkhi H. Faraj, director of economics and marketing at the Iraqi Oil Ministry.

The dumping and burning has embarrassed ministry officials and exposed major gaps in the American-designed reconstruction program, even as President Bush appeals to the international community for much more rebuilding money in the wake of his visit to Baghdad. [Emphasis added]

This is how a modern insurgency can bring a country to its knees: isolated, relatively low-risk actions by small teams that hit the country's economic infrastructure at key points where the effects cascade and are magnified manyfold. Blow up an oil pipeline here, sabotage a refinery there, and in the end, you've got the government dumping millions of barrels of heavy oil into valleys and reservoirs. The downward spiral feeds on itself.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:17 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 18, 2006

Something Doesn't Add Up

Iraq

Amid all the hoopla surrounding the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, no one but Patrick Cockburn (one of the most courageous Western journalists covering Iraq) has thought to ask how it was that al-Zarqawi, supposed terrorist arch-villain and mastermind, was living virtually unguarded with five companions that included two women and an eight-year-old girl. It doesn't add up. Cockburn:

In the days before he was tracked down and killed by US laser-guided bombs Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was living with almost no guards and only five companions, two of whom were women and one an eight year old girl. [...]

The ease with which Iraqi police and US special forces were able to reach the house after the bombing without encountering hostile fire showed that Zarqawi was never the powerful guerrilla chieftain and leader of the Iraqi resistance that Washington has claimed for over three years.

Amid the broken slabs of concrete and twisted metal was a woman's leopard skin nightgown, a magazine with a picture of Franklin Roosevelt and a leaflet apparently identifying a radio station in Latafiyah which might be a potential target for attack. It is not clear how long the little group had been in the house. [...]

The only resistance encountered by black-clad American commandos was from local Sunni villagers in the village of Ghalabiya, near Hibhib, who thought the strangers were members of a Shia death squad. Villagers who were standing guard fired into the air on seeing the commandos who in turn threw a grenade that killed five of the guards. American regular army troops later came to Ghalabiya to apologise and promise compensation to the families of the dead men.

The manner in which Zarqawi died confirms the belief that his military and political importance was always deliberately exaggerated by the US. He was a wholly obscure figure until he was denounced by US Secretary of State Colin Powell before the UN Security Council on 5 February 2003. Mr Powell identified Zarqawi as the link between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein though no evidence for this was ever produced.

Iraqi police documents were later discovered showing that Saddam Hussein's security forces, so far from collaborating with Zarqawi, were trying to arrest him. In Afganistan Zarqawi had led a small group hostile to al Qa'ida. Arriving in Iraq in 2002 hee had taken refuge in the mountain hide out of an extreme Islamic group near Halabja in Kurdistan in an area which the Iraqi government did not control.

Over the last three years Zarqawi has had a symbiotic relationship with US forces in Iraq. After the capture of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 Zarqawi was once again heavily publicised by US military and civilian spokesmen as the preeminent leader of the resistance. His name was mentioned at every press conference in Baghdad. Dubious documents were leaked to the US press. The aim of all this from Washington's point of view was to show that by invading Iraq President Bish was indeed fighting international terrorism.

US denunciations and Zarqawi's own videos of himself beheading western hostages together spread his fame throughout the Muslim world enabling him to recruit men and raise money easily. But, for all his vaunted importance, the US spokesmen admitted that Zarqawi's suicide bombers concentrated almost entirely on soft targets and were responsible for very few of the 20,000 American casualties in Iraq. [...]

It is not clear how far American or Iraqi government statements about how they located him should be believed. It appears unlikely that he was having meeting with his lieutenants, as was first suggested, given that only two other men died with him. [...]

The myth of Zarqawi, which may originally have been manufactured by Jordanian and Kurdish intelligence in 2003, was attractive to Washington because it showed that anti-occupation resistance was foreign inspired and linked to al Qa'ida. In reality the insurgency was almost entirely homegrown, reliant on near total support from the five million strong Sunni community. Its military effectiveness was far more dependant on former officers of the Iraqi army and security forces than on al-Qa'ida. They may also have helped boost Zarqawi's fame because it was convenient for them to blame their worst atrocities on him. [...]

The killing of Zarqawi is a boost for the newly formed government of Nouri al-Maliki, but Iraqis noticed that when announcing it he stood at the podium between Gen George Casey, the top US commander in Iraq, and Zilmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador. "It showed the limits of Maliki's independence from the Americans," noted one Iraqi commentator. "It would have been better if they had let him make the announcement standing alone." [Emphasis added]

Why do we buy that al-Zarqawi was everything they say he was? After they've lied about everything else?

Posted by Jonathan at 11:11 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

June 17, 2006

Desert Dunkirk?

Iraq

Nicholas von Hoffman, writing in The Nation, speculates that the US military in Iraq may be facing a nightmare scenario: an overstretched and exhausted force that is forced, finally, to abandon its bases and equipment and make a desperate evacuation under fire, a la Dunkirk. Excerpts:

We could be moving toward an American Dunkirk [in Iraq]. In 1940 the defeated British Army in Belgium was driven back by the Germans to the French seacoast city of Dunkirk, where it had to abandon its equipment and escape across the English Channel on a fleet of civilian vessels, fishing smacks, yachts, small boats, anything and everything that could float and carry the defeated and wounded army to safety.

Obviously, our forces in Iraq will not be defeated in open battle by an opposing army as happened in 1940, but there is more than one way to stumble into a military disaster. Fragmented reports out of Iraq suggest we may be on our way to finding one of them. Defeat can come from overused troops. It does not help that one by one, the remaining members of the Coalition of the Willing give every appearance of sneaking out of town. [...]

Filtering out from Iraq are indicators of a military organization in danger of creeping disintegration. For three years our troops have been in a foreign land fighting God knows who for God knows why for God knows how long and God knows how many times. This now well-quoted paragraph from the June 12 edition of Newsweek hints at the price paid in order and morale: "The wife of a staff sergeant in the 3/1 battalion — members of which are currently accused of murdering Iraqi citizens in Haditha — says that there was "a total breakdown" in discipline and morale after Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani took over as battalion commander when the unit returned from Fallujah at the start of 2005.... 'There were problems in Kilo Company with drugs, alcohol, hazing, you name it,' she tells Newsweek..."I think it's more than possible that these guys were totally tweaked out on speed or something when they shot those civilians in Haditha." [...]

The Internet is alive with pessimistic stories and opinions about what may be happening, one of which informs its readers, "Military commanders in the field in Iraq admit in private reports to the Pentagon the war 'is lost' and that the U.S. military is unable to stem the mounting violence killing 1,000 Iraqi civilians a month. Even worse, they report the massacre of Iraqi civilians at Haditha is 'just the tip of the iceberg' with overstressed, out-of-control American soldiers pushed beyond the breaking point both physically and mentally."

The New York Times's John Burns, a good-to-go-to-war man from before the first American smart bomb fell on Baghdad, was on the air the other night warning that, in effect, the invading army had lost both the initiative and control. Readers of Juan Cole's authoritative Informed Comment blog get a daily summing-up of deaths, murders and atrocities not available to TV viewers and ordinary newspaper readers. The simple numbers tell the story of a large and growing bloodbath. [...]

The Defense Department is not telling what it knows but no wartime government ever, ever tells the truth. Even Abraham Lincoln did not let on how badly things were going, even when they were very bad indeed.

In the south of Iraq, in the Basra region, the British who occupy that sector have all but given up aggressive patrol. They are holed up in their encampments on the defensive. Some reports have it that it is now too dangerous for them to fly helicopters by day. At the point when they must choose between being overrun or withdrawing, the small contingent of British troops facing unknown numbers of militia hidden in and among a hostile population should be able to evacuate the port of Basra even under fire.

The situation for American troops may be even more precarious. While our forces are still able to carry out aggressive patrolling, it nets little except to increase popular hostility, which, of course, makes it yet easier for the various insurgents and guerrilla groups to operate against us. It appears that in many places our people may have simply hunkered down to stay out of trouble. The vast construction projects of a few years ago are all but closed down, too, as the American forces appear to be doing less and less of anything but holding on and holding out.

The shortage of troops, which three years ago was a restraining factor, has become a potential disaster, with the ever-rising level of hostility to the American presence. [...]

Air evacuation would mean abandoning billions of dollars of equipment. There is no seaport troops could get to, so the only way out of Iraq would be that same desert highway to Kuwait where fifteen years ago the American Air Force destroyed Saddam Hussein's army.

Dunkirk in the desert. [Emphasis added]

Will it come to that? The end may not be so precipitous as von Hoffman imagines, but nothing suggests the situation is likely to improve, either. Barring a military draft, the US may indeed run out of capable troops. The insurgency simply has to outlast the occupation forces. That's true of insurgencies everywhere, which is why, as Gwynne Dyer noted, "In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win." Always. Eventually.

Always.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:42 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 16, 2006

2500

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2500.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:31 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 12, 2006

Fixin' To Stay, And Stay, And Stay

Iraq

Via BillMon:

The impression that's left around the world is that we plan to occupy the country, we plan to use their bases over the long period of time, and it's flat false. — Donald Rumsfeld, Press Conference, April 21, 2003

Yesterday, the Senate unanimously passed an amendment to the Iraq supplemental spending bill...that would require the Bush administration not to use any appropriated funds for the construction of permanent bases in Iraq. — Think Progress, Congress Has Spoken: No Permanent Military Bases In Iraq, May 4, 2006

I've told the American people I'd like to get our troops out as soon as possible. — George W. Bush, Press Conference, June 9, 2006

Congressional Republicans killed a provision in an Iraq war funding bill that would have put the United States on record against the permanent basing of U.S. military facilities in that country...Senate aides said Republican staffers removed the provisions from the bills before House and Senate negotiators convened this week in a late-night work session to write a compromise spending bill. — Reuters, Iraq war bill deletes US military base prohibition, June 10, 2006

Mr. Bush on Friday made clear that the American commitment to the country will be long-term. Officials say the administration has begun to look at the costs of maintaining a force of roughly 50,000 troops there for years to come, roughly the size of the American presence maintained in the Philippines and Korea for decades after those conflicts. — New York Times, U.S. Seeking New Strategy for Buttressing Iraq's Government, June 11, 2006

To achieve lasting peace in Iraq, America will have to make concessions, including an explicit commitment not to seek permanent military bases in Iraq. Perhaps no issue in the coming years will more clearly expose the real purpose of the Bush administration's postwar mission in Iraq: to build democracy or to obtain a new, regional military platform in the heart of the Arab world. — Larry Diamond, The seeds of insurgency, June 30, 2005

And yet all you hear in US public discourse is that the White House is trying to establish democracy in Iraq. That's a given. The only debate is about whether it's working.

It's not about oil. It's not about putting the US military's thumb on the world's oil jugular. There happens to be oil there, but that's not the point. It's about democracy.

Idiotic nonsense. Only a professional pundit would believe it.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:00 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

The al-Zarqawi Bounce

Iraq  Politics

We're supposed to think the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is some sort of turning point in Iraq. But people aren't buying it.

CBS poll:

80% of Americans think attacks on US troops will increase (30%) or stay the same (50%) in the aftermath of al-Zarqawi's death. Only 16% think attacks will decrease.

83% think the terrorist threat against the US will increase (22%) or stay the same (61%). Only 13% think it will decrease.

Bush's approval rating: 33%, down from 35% last month.

It's really got to suck to be Dubya.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 08, 2006

Michael Berg On CNN

Iraq

CNN's Soledad O'Brien today interviewed Michael Berg, father of Nick Berg, who's videoed beheading was attributed to al-Zarqawi. Berg's reaction is a model of maturity:

O'BRIEN: Mr. Berg, thank you for talking with us again. It's nice to have an opportunity to talk to you. Of course, I'm curious to know your reaction, as it is now confirmed that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the man who is widely credited and blamed for killing your son, Nicholas, is dead.

MICHAEL BERG: Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.

I feel doubly bad, though, because Zarqawi is also a political figure, and his death will re-ignite yet another wave of revenge, and revenge is something that I do not follow, that I do want ask for, that I do not wish for against anybody. And it can't end the cycle. As long as people use violence to combat violence, we will always have violence.

O'BRIEN: I have to say, sir, I'm surprised. I know how devastated you and your family were, frankly, when Nick was killed in such a horrible, and brutal and public way.

BERG: Well, you shouldn't be surprised, because I have never indicated anything but forgiveness and peace in any interview on the air.

O'BRIEN: No, no. And we have spoken before, and I'm well aware of that. But at some point, one would think, is there a moment when you say, 'I'm glad he's dead, the man who killed my son'?

BERG: No. How can a human being be glad that another human being is dead? [...]

Now, take someone who in 1991, who maybe had their family killed by an American bomb, their support system whisked away from them, someone who, instead of being 59, as I was when Nick died, was 5-years-old or 10-years-old. And then if I were that person, might I not learn how to fly a plane into a building or strap a bag of bombs to my back?

That's what is happening every time we kill an Iraqi, every time we kill anyone, we are creating a large number of people who are going to want vengeance. And, you know, when are we ever going to learn that that doesn't work? [...]

O'BRIEN: There's a theory that a struggle for democracy, you know...

BERG: Democracy? Come on, you can't really believe that that's a democracy there when the people who are running the elections are holding guns. That's not democracy. [Emphasis added]

That's how a grownup talks.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:18 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

Al-Zarqawi Killed

Iraq

The lesson we are about to learn from the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is that the insurgency is anything but a top-down monolithic organization. Instead, it's a decentralized, loosely-knit affair, with any number of small ad hoc groups acting independently, learning from one another in "open source" fashion. Al-Zarqawi's death is unlikely to matter much at all.

The guy to read on this subject is John Robb of Global Guerrillas.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:18 AM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

May 27, 2006

Making Us Safer

Afghanistan  Iran  Iraq  War and Peace

The International Institute for Strategic Studies' annual global security assessment says Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, and North Korea threaten a "perfect storm" of simultaneous crises. Guardian:

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the west's growing confrontation with Iran, and efforts to divest North Korea of its nuclear weapons are all approaching crucial turning points that could combine to create a perfect storm of simultaneous international crises, independent defence experts said yesterday.

Launching the International Institute for Strategic Studies' (IISS) annual assessment of global security threats, John Chipman, its director general, said: "Many parts of the world are engaged in brutal combat ... Overall, the dangerous triptych of Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran continues to dominate the security agenda as do the wider, iconic problems of terrorism and proliferation." [...]

Dr Chipman said the new Iraqi government faced "fundamental challenges" that could quickly overwhelm its attempts to hold the country together and invite regional intervention. "It is doubtful that a collective sense of Iraqi nationalism can survive in a context of increasing sectarian violence and the continuing security vacuum. Democracy has exacerbated Iraq's ethnic and religious tensions, with voters largely dividing along Sunni, Shia and Kurdish lines." [...]

Presenting the report, entitled The Military Balance, Dr Chipman warned of a rising Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan aimed at British and Nato troops who are replacing some US forces. "This year will be crucial for Afghanistan as well as for Nato as it expands its mission into the south," he said. "The Taliban are likely to increase their operational tempo - not least because they know that casualties among European Nato states may mobilise domestic opinion against the war." [...]

The IISS said North Korea had obtained enough plutonium to build between five and 11 nuclear weapons and long-running talks to induce Pyongyang to disarm were at an impasse.

In an implicit criticism of Washington's policy of ostracism and financial sanctions, Dr Chipman said North Korea had concluded that "the Bush administration is not serious about negotiations and [has] hostile intent". [...]

The report also highlighted growing US concerns about China's military build-up and intentions, quoting the findings of the recent US Quadrennial Defence Review. It said China was "a power at a strategic crossroads that is still pointing largely in the wrong direction and which has the greatest potential to emerge as a military rival to the US". [Emphasis added]

Everything they're doing is making us less safe, not safer. Swat hornets' nests with baseball bats and then wonder why all the stinging: not exactly a sign of intelligence.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 25, 2006

Ethnic Cleansing On A Massive Scale

Iraq

To hear Bush and Blair tell it, Iraq has turned some kind of corner. Patrick Cockburn, one of the most courageous Western journalists covering the Iraq war, begs to differ. Independent (via CommonDreams):

Across central Iraq, there is an exodus of people fleeing for their lives as sectarian assassins and death squads hunt them down. At ground level, Iraq is disintegrating as ethnic cleansing takes hold on a massive scale.

The state of Iraq now resembles Bosnia at the height of the fighting in the 1990s when each community fled to places where its members were a majority and were able to defend themselves. "Be gone by evening prayers or we will kill you," warned one of four men who called at the house of Leila Mohammed, a pregnant mother of three children in the city of Baquba, in Diyala province north-east of Baghdad. He offered chocolate to one of her children to try to find out the names of the men in the family. [...]

The same pattern of intimidation, flight and death is being repeated in mixed provinces all over Iraq. By now Iraqis do not have to be reminded of the consequences of ignoring threats.

In Baquba, with a population of 350,000, gunmen last week ordered people off a bus, separated the men from the women and shot dead 11 of them. Not far away police found the mutilated body of a kidnapped six-year-old boy for whom a ransom had already been paid.

The sectarian warfare in Baghdad is sparsely reported but the provinces around the capital are now so dangerous for reporters that they seldom, if ever, go there, except as embeds with US troops. Two months ago in Mosul, I met an Iraqi army captain from Diyala who said Sunni and Shia were slaughtering each other in his home province. "Whoever is in a minority runs," he said. "If forces are more equal they fight it out." [...]

Salam Hussein Rostam, a police lieutenant in charge of registering and investigating people arriving in terror from all over Iraq, gestured to an enormous file of paper beside him. "I've received 200 families recently, most of them in the last week," he said. This means that about one thousand people have sought refuge in one small town. Lt Rostam said that the refugees were coming from all over Iraq. [...]

The flight of the middle class started about six months after the invasion in 2003 as it became clear Iraq was becoming more, not less, violent. They moved to Jordan, Syria and Egypt. The suicide bombing campaign was largely directed against Shias who only began to retaliate after they had taken over the government in May last year. Interior Ministry forces arrested, tortured and killed Sunnis.

But a decisive step towards sectarian civil war took place when the Shia Al-Askari shrine in Samarra was blown up on 22 February this year. Some 1,300 Sunni were killed in retaliation. [...]

Every community has its atrocity stories. The cousin of a friend was a Sunni Arab who worked in the wholly Shia district of Qadamiyah in west Baghdad. One day last month he disappeared. Three days later his body was discovered on a rubbish dump in another Shia district. "His face was so badly mutilated," said my friend, that "we only knew it was him from a wart on his arm."

Since the destruction of the mosque in Samarra sectarian warfare has broken out in every Iraqi city where there is a mixed population. In many cases the minority is too small to stand and fight. Sunnis have been fleeing Basra after a series of killings. Christians are being eliminated in Mosul in the north. Shias are being killed or driven out of cities and towns north of Baghdad such as Baquba or Samarra itself.

Dujail, 40 miles north of Baghdad, is the Shia village where Saddam Hussein carrying out a judicial massacre, killing 148 people after an attempt to assassinate him in 1982. He is on trial for the killings. The villagers are now paying a terrible price for giving evidence at his trial.

In the past few months Sunni insurgents have been stopping them at an improvised checkpoint on the road to Baghdad. Masked gunmen glance at their identity cards and if under place of birth is written "Dujail" they kill them. So far 20 villagers have been murdered and 20 have disappeared. [Emphasis added]

If Iraq has turned a corner, it's a corner in Hell.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:37 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

May 23, 2006

Jessie Macbeth

Iraq

Last night, I posted a link to a video interview with Jessie Macbeth, regarding atrocities he says he participated in while serving in Iraq. It appears, however, that there are a number of reasons to question his veracity, so I've pulled the post. I should have been more skeptical. My apologies.

[Thanks, Jason]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:09 AM | Comments (10) | Link to this  

May 18, 2006

2450

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2450.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:08 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

May 11, 2006

200,000 AK-47s

Iraq

UK's Mirror reports that 200,000 AK-47 assault rifles that were supposed to be shipped from a US base to Iraqi security forces have apparently disappeared, possibly into the hands of insurgents. Excerpt:

Some 200,000 guns the US sent to Iraqi security forces may have been smuggled to terrorists, it was feared yesterday.

The 99-tonne cache of AK47s was to have been secretly flown out from a US base in Bosnia. But the four planeloads of arms have vanished. [...]

It follows a separate probe claiming that thousands of guns meant for Iraq's police and army instead went to al-Qaeda. [...]

A coalition forces spokesman confirmed they had not received "any weapons from Bosnia" and added they were "not aware of any purchases for Iraq from Bosnia". NATO and US officials have already voiced fears that Bosnian arms - sold by US, British and Swiss firms - are being passed to insurgents. A Nato spokesman said: "There's no tracking mechanism to ensure they don't fall into the wrong hands. There are concerns that some may have been siphoned off." This year a newspaper claimed two UK firms were involved in a deal in which thousands of guns for Iraqi forces were re-routed to al-Qaeda. [Emphasis added]

Fools or knaves? You decide. Not good either way.

[Thanks, Mike]

Posted by Jonathan at 08:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 30, 2006

Peace Takes Courage

Activism  Iraq

Alabama native Ava Lowery, 15, has produced an excellent set of Flash animation videos against the Iraq war.

WWJD (What Would Jesus Do) is a powerful piece that provoked a lot of positive response, but also death threats and other vicious emails, as reported by my friend Matt Rothschild of The Progressive. Undaunted, Ava pieced together many of those comments for a new video, The 32%. As Ava says, peace takes courage.

Perhaps most poignant of all is No More Broken Promises, that looks at the heartbreak from American soldiers' families' point of view. Hard to watch without weeping.

Be sure to have the sound turned on.

[Thanks, Kent]

Posted by Jonathan at 07:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 29, 2006

2400

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2400.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:13 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 28, 2006

Costlier Than Vietnam, By Far

Iraq

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan taken together are going to cost far more, in constant dollars, than Vietnam. WaPo:

The cost of the war in Iraq will reach $320 billion after the expected passage next month of an emergency spending bill currently before the Senate, and that total is likely to more than double before the war ends, the Congressional Research Service estimated this week. [...]

Once the war spending bill is passed, military and diplomatic costs will have reached $101.8 billion this fiscal year, up from $87.3 billion in 2005, $77.3 billion in 2004 and $51 billion in 2003, the year of the invasion, congressional analysts said. Even if a gradual troop withdrawal begins this year, war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan are likely to rise by an additional $371 billion during the phaseout, the report said, citing a Congressional Budget Office study. When factoring in costs of the war in Afghanistan, the $811 billion total for both wars would have far exceeded the inflation-adjusted $549 billion cost of the Vietnam War.

"The costs are exceeding even the worst-case scenarios," said Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. [Emphasis added]

Amazing. Has any American administration in history done so much damage to the country in so little time? And note the year-to-year trend: 51 billion, 77.3, 87.3, 101.8. Remember Mission Accomplished?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 25, 2006

A Great Way To Spend $50

Activism  Iraq  Media

Documentary filmmaker Robert Greenwald of Brave New Films, who made Outfoxed, Uncovered, and Wal-Mart, is starting production on a new documentary, Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers.

This is from an email from Brave New Films:

Hello friends and brave new supporters,

Some exciting news at Brave New Films. We're ready to start production on Robert's new documentary: "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers." Over the last few months we've recruited a core team, and with the help of our volunteer field producers, have uncovered some devastating and powerful material that hasn't been seen before. We need your help to make it, more about that in a minute.

We can't tell you anything more specific about the film yet, but I can assure you it will have an enormous impact when it comes out shortly before the elections this November.

War time is about sacrificing for the common good. So many soldiers and families have paid unimaginable sacrifices, and for some to profit OBSCENELY from that sacrifice is one of the worst crimes possible. It's a crime against all of us, not just as Americans, but as human beings.

IRAQ FOR SALE: The War Profiteers will hold these corporations accountable for crimes against humanity. Watch the teaser trailer and a message from Robert here:

http://iraqforsale.org/

To start shooting, we need money. Overall, the film will cost about $750,000. We can expect about $450,000 of it to be offset by DVD sales, selling foreign rights, and an advance from our retail store distributor, but we still need $300,000.

A generous donor just stepped up and will contribute $100,000 if we can match it with $200,000 from someone else.

That someone else is you! 4000 people giving $50 each. We'll put everyone's name in the credits. You can give these donations as gifts in someone's name or in memory of a loved one if you'd like.

http://iraqforsale.org/donate.php

Imagine that. 4000 names scrolling by at the end of the film. Almost as many people as in the Lord of the Rings credits!

More importantly, this is people standing up to corporations. It's a clear message... a beautiful thing and exactly what the film is about. Every newspaper article written will talk about how IRAQ FOR SALE was funded by YOU.

This is 50 bucks well spent. I would love to see this film come out before the elections, and I'd love to know I helped make it possible. So I gave my $50, and I urge you to do the same.

This is extremely important material. So long as people in high places make a killing off of war, they'll continue to see war as a good idea. The best way to stop them is to expose them.

50 bucks. That's not even a tank of gas anymore. And how cool will it be to see your name in the credits (and on their web site). Go chip in.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 22, 2006

The Biggest Embassy In The World — By Far

Iraq

A remarkable feature of US public discourse is the extent to which discussion is based on what the government says, not what it does. For example: in all the discussion of Iraq — what the US war aims really are, whether the US intends to stay in Iraq long-term, whether the US ever intends to let Iraq have an independent democracy, instead of a puppet government — people mostly ignore certain glaring facts on the ground. There are the enormous military bases the US is constructing in various locations in Iraq. Even more glaring, because it's located in the center of Baghdad itself, is the new US embassy currently under construction. It's going to be colossal, the largest embassy anywhere in the world. By far. AP (via CounterCurrents):

The fortress-like compound rising beside the Tigris River here will be the largest of its kind in the world, the size of Vatican City, with the population of a small town, its own defense force, self-contained power and water, and a precarious perch at the heart of Iraq's turbulent future.

The new U.S. Embassy also seems as cloaked in secrecy as the ministate in Rome.

"We can't talk about it. Security reasons," Roberta Rossi, a spokeswoman at the current embassy, said when asked for information about the project.

A British tabloid even told readers the location was being kept secret — news that would surprise Baghdadis who for months have watched the forest of construction cranes at work across the winding Tigris, at the very center of their city and within easy mortar range of anti-U.S. forces in the capital, though fewer explode there these days.

The embassy complex — 21 buildings on 104 acres, according to a U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report — is taking shape on riverside parkland in the fortified "Green Zone," just east of al-Samoud, a former palace of Saddam Hussein's, and across the road from the building where the ex-dictator is now on trial. [...]

The 5,500 Americans and Iraqis working at the [current] embassy, almost half listed as security, are far more numerous than at any other U.S. mission worldwide. They rarely venture out into the "Red Zone," that is, violence-torn Iraq.

This huge American contingent at the center of power has drawn criticism.

"The presence of a massive U.S. embassy — by far the largest in the world — co-located in the Green Zone with the Iraqi government is seen by Iraqis as an indication of who actually exercises power in their country," the International Crisis Group, a European-based research group, said in one of its periodic reports on Iraq.

State Department spokesman Justin Higgins defended the size of the embassy, old and new, saying it's indicative of the work facing the United States here.

"It's somewhat self-evident that there's going to be a fairly sizable commitment to Iraq by the U.S. government in all forms for several [sic] years," he said in Washington.

Higgins noted that large numbers of non-diplomats work at the mission — hundreds of military personnel and dozens of FBI agents, for example, along with representatives of the Agriculture, Commerce and other U.S. federal departments.

...[N]ext year embassy staff will move into six apartment buildings in the new complex, which has been under construction since mid-2005 with a target completion date of June 2007.

Iraq's interim government transferred the land to U.S. ownership in October 2004, under an agreement whose terms were not disclosed.

"Embassy Baghdad" will dwarf new U.S. embassies elsewhere, projects that typically cover 10 acres. The embassy's 104 acres is six times larger than the United Nations compound in New York, and two-thirds the acreage of Washington's National Mall. [...]

The designs aren't publicly available, but the Senate report makes clear it will be a self-sufficient and "hardened" domain, to function in the midst of Baghdad power outages, water shortages and continuing turmoil.

It will have its own water wells, electricity plant and wastewater-treatment facility, "systems to allow 100 percent independence from city utilities," says the report, the most authoritative open source on the embassy plans.

Besides two major diplomatic office buildings, homes for the ambassador and his deputy, and the apartment buildings for staff, the compound will offer a swimming pool, gym, commissary, food court and American Club, all housed in a recreation building.

Security, overseen by U.S. Marines, will be extraordinary: setbacks and perimeter no-go areas that will be especially deep, structures reinforced to 2.5-times the standard, and five high-security entrances, plus an emergency entrance-exit, the Senate report says. [Emphasis added]

Obviously, they don't plan on leaving anytime soon. They think they're building an empire, and the Iraq embassy is to be the command center from which they hope to rule the Middle East. Iraq was just the first stop.

Events on the ground haven't turned out like they thought, though, so it remains to be seen if the US really can manage to hang on in Baghdad. What's ominous, though, is what the embassy says about the administration's mindset. They'll escalate before they retreat, compounding the disaster.

[Thanks, Cedar]

Posted by Jonathan at 08:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 12, 2006

"Casualness And Swagger"

Iraq  Politics

Three-star General Gregory Newbold, retired director of operations at the Pentagon's military joint staff, writes in Time magazine (via Sojourners):

From 2000 until October 2002, I was a Marine Corps lieutenant general and director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff. After 9/11, I was a witness and therefore a party to the actions that led us to the invasion of Iraq — an unnecessary war. Inside the military family, I made no secret of my view that the zealots' rationale for war made no sense. And I think I was outspoken enough to make those senior to me uncomfortable. But I now regret that I did not more openly challenge those who were determined to invade a country whose actions were peripheral to the real threat — al-Qaeda. I retired from the military four months before the invasion, in part because of my opposition to those who had used 9/11's tragedy to hijack our security policy. Until now, I have resisted speaking out in public. I've been silent long enough.

I am driven to action now by the missteps and misjudgments of the White House and the Pentagon, and by my many painful visits to our military hospitals. In those places, I have been both inspired and shaken by the broken bodies but unbroken spirits of soldiers, Marines and corpsmen returning from this war. The cost of flawed leadership continues to be paid in blood. The willingness of our forces to shoulder such a load should make it a sacred obligation for civilian and military leaders to get our defense policy right. They must be absolutely sure that the commitment is for a cause as honorable as the sacrifice. [...]

I will admit my own prejudice: my deep affection and respect are for those who volunteer to serve our nation and therefore shoulder, in those thin ranks, the nation's most sacred obligation of citizenship. To those of you who don't know, our country has never been served by a more competent and professional military. For that reason, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent statement that "we" made the "right strategic decisions" but made thousands of "tactical errors" is an outrage. It reflects an effort to obscure gross errors in strategy by shifting the blame for failure to those who have been resolute in fighting. The truth is, our forces are successful in spite of the strategic guidance they receive, not because of it.

What we are living with now is the consequences of successive policy failures. Some of the missteps include: the distortion of intelligence in the buildup to the war, McNamara-like micromanagement that kept our forces from having enough resources to do the job, the failure to retain and reconstitute the Iraqi military in time to help quell civil disorder, the initial denial that an insurgency was the heart of the opposition to occupation, alienation of allies who could have helped in a more robust way to rebuild Iraq, and the continuing failure of the other agencies of our government to commit assets to the same degree as the Defense Department. My sincere view is that the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions — or bury the results. [Emphasis added]

It really does matter when you put a bunch of empty suits in power. These people are superficial, immature, and deeply, deeply foolish. High time for grownups to take back the reins.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Lies, Lies, Lies

Iraq  Politics

WaPo:

On May 29, 2003, 50 days after the fall of Baghdad, President Bush proclaimed a fresh victory for his administration in Iraq: Two small trailers captured by U.S. and Kurdish troops had turned out to be long-sought mobile "biological laboratories." He declared, "We have found the weapons of mass destruction."

The claim, repeated by top administration officials for months afterward, was hailed at the time as a vindication of the decision to go to war. But even as Bush spoke, U.S. intelligence officials possessed powerful evidence that it was not true.

A secret fact-finding mission to Iraq — not made public until now — had already concluded that the trailers had nothing to do with biological weapons. Leaders of the Pentagon-sponsored mission transmitted their unanimous findings to Washington in a field report on May 27, 2003, two days before the president's statement.

The three-page field report and a 122-page final report three weeks later were stamped "secret" and shelved. Meanwhile, for nearly a year, administration and intelligence officials continued to publicly assert that the trailers were weapons factories. [Emphasis added]

All governments lie. But this government seems to lie about absolutely everything.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:58 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 04, 2006

Iraqi Civilian Deaths Surging (AP) In Civil War (UPI)

Iraq

AP reports that its count shows Iraqi civilian deaths surging in recent months. Their figures:

Month	Iraqi Civilian Deaths
Dec	375
Jan	608
Feb	741
Mar	1,038

UPI Senior News Analyst Martin Sieff says the sharp increase in sectarian violence shows that Iraq is in the midst of a civil war:

Despite President Bush's repeated denials, the figures are clear: 900 sectarian killings in a single month in Iraq means a civil war is well under way. [Emphasis added]

US media outlets have so far avoided calling the conflict a civil war, but that's probably about to change — much to the distress of the White House. Some things are too obvious even for the anemic US media to ignore.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 03, 2006

Dump Rummy

Iraq

Who should resign over the mistakes made in Iraq? Rumsfeld, for starters, say two retired generals. NYT:

For the second time in two weeks, a former general has called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld over what both generals described as serious mistakes made in the war in Iraq.

In remarks Sunday on the NBC News program "Meet the Press," Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, who once led the United States Central Command and retired from the Marines in 2000, said Mr. Rumsfeld, among others, should be held accountable for tactical mistakes in Iraq.

When asked who should resign, General Zinni said, "Secretary of Defense, to begin with," adding that resignations should also come from others responsible for planning the war efforts and from military officials who sat by without pointing out potential problems.

On March 19, similar sentiments were expressed by Paul D. Eaton, a retired Army major general in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004. In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times, General Eaton criticized Mr. Rumsfeld's handling of the war and said that "President Bush should accept the offer to resign that Mr. Rumsfeld says he has tendered more than once."

Several days later, Mr. Bush dismissed calls for Mr. Rumsfeld to step down, saying he was satisfied with his job performance. [Emphasis added]

Not that firing Rumsfeld would do much to turn things around, at this point, but it can never hurt to affirm the principle that job performance matters, especially in something as serious as a war. In a just world, Rumsfeld wouldn't just resign, he'd resign in disgrace, with war crimes trials to follow. And he wouldn't be the only one.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:16 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

March 29, 2006

Absolute Bloody Chaos

Iraq

Riverbend, the Iraqi woman who blogs at Baghdad Burning, yesterday posted this (excerpt):

I sat late last night switching between Iraqi channels (the half dozen or so I sometimes try to watch). It's a late-night tradition for me when there's electricity — [...]

I paused on the Sharqiya channel which many Iraqis consider to be a reasonably toned channel (and which during the elections showed its support for Allawi in particular). I was reading the little scrolling news headlines on the bottom of the page. The usual — mortar fire on an area in Baghdad, an American soldier killed here, another one wounded there... 12 Iraqi corpses found in an area in Baghdad, etc. Suddenly, one of them caught my attention and I sat up straight on the sofa, wondering if I had read it correctly.

E. was sitting at the other end of the living room...I called him over with the words, "Come here and read this — I'm sure I misunderstood..." He stood in front of the television and watched the words about corpses and Americans and puppets scroll by and when the news item I was watching for appeared, I jumped up and pointed. E. and I read it in silence and E. looked as confused as I was feeling.

The line said:

وزارة الدفاع تدعو المواطنين الى عدم الانصياع لاوامر دوريات الجيش والشرطة الليلية اذا لم تكن برفقة قوات التحالف العاملة في تلك المنطقة

The translation:

"The Ministry of Defense requests that civilians do not comply with the orders of the army or police on nightly patrols unless they are accompanied by coalition forces working in that area."

That's how messed up the country is at this point.

We switched to another channel, the "Baghdad" channel (allied with Muhsin Abdul Hameed and his group) and they had the same news item, but instead of the general "coalition forces" they had "American coalition forces".

[T]oday as it was repeated on another channel. [...]

It confirmed what has been obvious to Iraqis since the beginning — the Iraqi security forces are actually militias allied to religious and political parties.

But it also brings to light other worrisome issues. The situation is so bad on the security front that the top two ministries in charge of protecting Iraqi civilians cannot trust each other. The Ministry of Defense can't even trust its own personnel, unless they are "accompanied by American coalition forces". [...]

They've been finding corpses all over Baghdad for weeks now — and it's always the same: holes drilled in the head, multiple shots or strangulation, like the victims were hung. Execution, militia style. Many of the people were taken from their homes by security forces — police or special army brigades... Some of them were rounded up from mosques. [Emphasis added]

How bad does it have to be for the Ministry of Defence to go on the air and publicly advise people to ignore the orders of its own army and police unless they're accompanied by Americans. The same army and police that Bush says are "standing up" so US forces can "stand down."

The horror that is unfolding in that country is impossible to imagine. We have so much to answer for.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:02 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

Chomsky On Iraq And Oil

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  Peak Oil

On Friday, the Washington Post hosted an online chat with Noam Chomsky. The first Q&A went right to the connection between Iraq and oil:

Q: Why do you think the US went to war against Iraq?

Noam Chomsky: Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, it is right in the midst of the major energy reserves in the world. Its been a primary goal of US policy since World War II (like Britain before it) to control what the State Department called "a stupendous source of strategic power" and one of the greatest material prizes in history. Establishing a client state in Iraq would significantly enhance that strategic power, a matter of great significance for the future. As Zbigniew Brzezinski observed, it would provide the US with "critical leverage" [over] its European and Asian rivals, a conception with roots in early post-war planning. These are substantial reasons for aggression — not unlike those of the British when they invaded and occupied Iraq over 80 years earlier, at the dawn of the oil age.

Reading this statement, one is struck by how rare such candor is in US public discourse. Pretty much everybody in the mainstream avoids stating the obvious: Iraq is about oil. Yes, other interests are served, but oil is the driver behind US foreign policy today and into the future. It's obvious, yet no one will say it.

Talk about the Emperor's New Clothes.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:07 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 28, 2006

The Long War

9/11, "War On Terror"  Energy  Iraq  Peak Oil

James Kunstler loves to go overboard, but in his latest missive, he's got a point: the Iraq debate is grounded in delusion. Kunstler:

This is how deluded the American public is now: Various polls are showing that the war in Iraq has reached new lows of unpopularity. The dumb bunnies in the news media are implying that when the numbers get low enough, we will pull our troops out and go home.

This is not going to happen. Our inordinate hubris has led us to believe that this conflict is optional.

Notice, too, that the war-weary public has done, and continues to do, nothing to change its habits of profligate oil use which have driven us to project our military into the Middle East. We have not even begun a discussion of what we might do. We just expect to keep running American society exactly the way it has been set up to run — as a nonstop demolition derby, with hamburgers and fries between laps around the freeway.

At the highest level of public discourse, the cluelessness is shocking. The New York Times Sunday Book Review ran a front-page piece yesterday on Francis Fukuyama's latest salvo, America at the Crossroads, which is largely about our Middle East war policy, without once using the word "oil." [...]

The plain truth is, if anything happens to upset the current management and allocation system of the the global oil markets, the industrial economies of the world will collapse, and America's will collapse hardest and worst because of the way we have arranged things for ourselves. The global oil markets currently revolve around Middle East oil production. If the region is overcome by instability, than it's simply GAME OVER. [...]

Our denial runs deep and hard. Even the educated minority (including the tech wonks) believe that we can run the freeways and the WalMarts on alternative fuels. They flatter themselves listening to the morning yammer about "renewables" on NPR as they make the daily commute from, say, the suburban asteroid belts of Northern Virginia into Washington, DC. They bethink themselves progressive, cutting edge, morally superior in their Priuses. [...]

What can we do? Oil man Jeffrey Brown of Dallas has made the interesting suggestion that we replace some or all of the national income tax with a substantial national gasoline tax. A congressional debate over that would be worth hearing. It would be a good start in concentrating our minds in the right direction: that is, toward the problems we have created for ourselves at home. There are many other things we could do also, from rebuilding our railroads to removing incentives for suburban development. They would all require major shifts in our behavior. We can either begin them voluntarily or wait for events to compel us to live differently. In the absence of that, our presence in Iraq is not optional. [Emphasis added]

Iraq is about oil. Obviously. And the oil problem isn't going away. We should understand, therefore, that the architects of the war — Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice — have absolutely no intention of withdrawing US forces. Not till the oil runs out.

They have lied about everything else, and they will lie about this, too, but actions speak louder than words. We just need to look at the bases US forces are building in Iraq. AP (link via Deep Blade):

Balad Air Base, Iraq - The concrete goes on forever, vanishing into the noonday glare, 2 million cubic feet of it, a mile-long slab that's now the home of up to 120 U.S. helicopters, a "heli-park" as good as any back in the States.

At another giant base, al-Asad in Iraq’s western desert, the 17,000 troops and workers come and go in a kind of bustling American town, with a Burger King, Pizza Hut and a car dealership, stop signs, traffic regulations and young bikers clogging the roads.

At a third hub down south, Tallil, they're planning a new mess hall, one that will seat 6,000 hungry airmen and soldiers for chow.

Are the Americans here to stay? Air Force mechanic Josh Remy is sure of it as he looks around Balad.

"I think we'll be here forever," the 19-year-old airman from Wilkes-Barre, Pa., told a visitor to his base. [...]

The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, and other U.S. officials disavow any desire for permanent bases. But long-term access, as at other U.S. bases abroad, is different from "permanent," and the official U.S. position is carefully worded. [...]

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, asked about "permanent duty stations" by a Marine during an Iraq visit in December, allowed that it was "an interesting question." He said it would have to be raised by the incoming Baghdad government, if "they have an interest in our assisting them for some period over time."

In Washington, Iraq scholar Phebe Marr finds the language intriguing. "If they aren't planning for bases, they ought to say so," she said. "I would expect to hear 'No bases.'"

Right now what is heard is the pouring of concrete.

In 2005-06, Washington has authorized or proposed almost $1 billion for U.S. military construction in Iraq, as American forces consolidate at Balad, known as Anaconda, and a handful of other installations, big bases under the old regime. [...]

"The coalition forces are moving outside the cities while continuing to provide security support to the Iraqi security forces," [Major Lee] English said.

The move away from cities, perhaps eventually accompanied by U.S. force reductions, will lower the profile of U.S. troops, frequent targets of roadside bombs on city streets. [...]

Al-Asad will become even more isolated. The proposed 2006 supplemental budget for Iraq operations would provide $7.4 million to extend the no-man’s-land and build new security fencing around the base, which at 19 square miles is so large that many assigned there take the Yellow or Blue bus routes to get around the base, or buy bicycles at a PX jammed with customers.

The latest budget also allots $39 million for new airfield lighting, air traffic control systems and upgrades allowing al-Asad to plug into the Iraqi electricity grid — a typical sign of a long-term base. [...]

Here at Balad, the former Iraqi air force academy 40 miles north of Baghdad, the two 12,000-foot runways have become the logistics hub for all U.S. military operations in Iraq, and major upgrades began last year.

Army engineers say 31,000 truckloads of sand and gravel fed nine concrete-mixing plants on Balad, as contractors laid a $16 million ramp to park the Air Force's huge C-5 cargo planes; an $18 million ramp for workhorse C-130 transports; and the vast, $28 million main helicopter ramp, the length of 13 football fields, filled with attack, transport and reconnaissance helicopters. [...]

"[W]e're good for as long as we need to run it," [Lt. Col. Scott] Hoover said. Ten years? he was asked. "I'd say so." [...]

In the counterinsurgency fight, Balad's central location enables strike aircraft to reach targets in minutes. And in the broader context of reinforcing the U.S. presence in the oil-rich Mideast, Iraq bases are preferable to aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, said a longtime defense analyst.

"Carriers don't have the punch," said Gordon Adams of Washington's George Washington University. "There's a huge advantage to land-based infrastructure. At the level of strategy it makes total sense to have Iraq bases." [...]

"It's a stupid idea and clearly politically unacceptable," [Anthony] Zinni, a former Central Command chief, said in a Washington interview. "It would damage our image in the region, where people would decide that this" — seizing bases — "was our original intent." [...]

If long-term basing is, indeed, on the horizon, "the politics back here and the politics in the region say, 'Don't announce it,'" Adams said in Washington. That's what's done elsewhere, as with the quiet U.S. basing of spy planes and other aircraft in the United Arab Emirates. [...]

From the start, in 2003, the first Army engineers rolling into Balad took the long view, laying out a 10-year plan envisioning a move from tents to today's living quarters in air-conditioned trailers, to concrete-and-brick barracks by 2008. [Emphasis added]

In its latest Quadrennial Defense Review, the Pentagon stopped talking about a war on terror. Instead, they're talking about "the long war". They're not kidding.

It's all one big Gordian Knot: Iraq, peak oil, global warming. We need to understand that and not forget it. If we don't deal with energy, we will be stuck with war and catastrophic climate change. It's all one problem.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:31 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 19, 2006

"Nothing Less Than Complete Victory"

Iraq

In his weekly radio address yesterday, President Bush once again conflated Iraq with 9/11, as he tried to cast the Iraq war in Churchillian moral terms. WaPo:

On the eve of the third anniversary of the Iraq invasion, President Bush yesterday promised to "finish the mission" with "complete victory," urging the American public to remain steadfast but offering no indication when victory may be achieved.

"More fighting and sacrifice will be required," Bush said in his weekly radio address. "For some, the temptation to retreat and abandon our commitments is strong. Yet there is no peace, there's no honor and there's no security in retreat. So America will not abandon Iraq to the terrorists who want to attack us again." [...]

A White House fact sheet on Iraq...buttressed the president's assertion last week that Iraqi security forces are assuming greater battlefield responsibility.

Democrats noted last week, however, that a recent Pentagon report said the number of "Level 1" Iraqi units capable of operating independently of the United States had dropped from one to zero. [...]

Three years ago, the fact sheet said, "life in Iraq was marked by brutality, fear and terror" and Iraqis "had no voice in their country or their lives." Today, it said, "the reign of terror has been replaced by a democratically elected government." [...]

"These past three years have tested our resolve," he said. "The enemy has proved brutal and relentless . . . and our troops have shown magnificent courage and made tremendous sacrifices" which, along with Iraqi sacrifices, had given Iraq a "historic opportunity" to rebuild itself.

"The security of our country is directly linked to the liberty of the Iraqi people," Bush said, "and we will settle for nothing less than complete victory." [Emphasis added]

Nothing less than complete victory. Can he possibly believe what he's saying? Meanwhile, former Iraq Prime Minister Ayad Allawi told the BBC that Iraq has descended into civil war. CNN:

"We are losing each day as an average 50 to 60 people throughout the country, if not more. If this is not civil war, then God knows what civil war is," [Allawi] said.

Although conditions have not passed the "point of no return," he said, if that point is reached, fragile efforts to build a new government "will not only fall apart but sectarianism will spread throughout the region, and even Europe and the U.S. will not be spared the violence that results." [Emphasis added]

Sounds like something less than complete victory to me.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:45 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

March 15, 2006

Iraq's Electricity At Three-Year Low

Iraq

The right wing likes to say that we're not getting all the good news out of Iraq. All the great reconstruction work that's been done, for example. In their dreams. AP (via Xymphora), yesterday:

Electricity output has dipped to its lowest point in three years in Iraq, where the desert sun is rising toward another broiling summer and U.S. engineers are winding down their rebuilding of the crippled power grid.

The Iraqis, in fact, may have to turn to neighboring Iran to help bail them out of their energy crisis — if not this summer, then in years to come.

The overstressed network is producing less than half the electricity needed to meet Iraq's exploding demand. American experts are working hard to shore up the system's weaknesses as 100-degree-plus temperatures approach beginning as early as May, driving up usage of air conditioning, electric fans and refrigeration.

If the summer is unusually hot, however, "all bets are off," said Lt. Col. Otto Busher, an engineer with the U.S. Army's 4th Infantry Division.

"We're living miserably," said housewife Su'ad Hassan, a mother of four and one of millions in Baghdad who have endured three years of mostly powerless days under U.S. occupation. Her family usually goes without hot water and machine washing, she said, and "often my children have to do their homework in the dim light of oil lamps."

Despite such hardships, Army Corps of Engineers officers regard their Restore Iraq Electricity project as one of the great feats in corps history, along with the building of the Panama Canal a century ago. [Emphasis added]

Like the building of the Panama Canal. Yeah, whatever. Milo Minderbinder lives.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:42 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

March 04, 2006

2300

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2300.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

No end in sight.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 01, 2006

Desperation

Iraq  Media

From ThinkProgress:

Flailing in desperation.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 27, 2006

Marching Into Quicksand

Iraq  War and Peace

Digby's got an excellent essay exploring the linkage between Vietnam and Iraq, as viewed through the lens of Barbara Tuchman's The March of Folly. Highly recommended.

Nobody's going to want to be the one to "lose" Iraq by ordering a US withdrawal, but somebody's going to have to do it. Meanwhile, hubris and pride keep us marching deeper into the quicksand. Two and a half millenia ago, the Greek tragedians already knew how the gods punish hubris: with nemesis — catastrophe and destruction. Stubborn denial solves nothing. The longer we procrastinate, the angrier the gods get. With good reason.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:46 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 25, 2006

Pack Of Lies

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

Jay Bookman, in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution (via CommonDreams), reminds us how many of the Bush administration's lies about Iraq have since been exposed by people who were there at the time:

For example, take the claim that the administration decided to invade Iraq because "Sept. 11 changed everything."

Paul O'Neill, President Bush's first treasury secretary, long ago revealed that administration officials were intent on invading Iraq from the moment the president took office.

"It was all about finding a way to do it," O'Neill says of Cabinet meetings he attended before Sept. 11. "That was the tone of it. The president saying, 'Go find me a way to do this.'"

In his new book "State of War," James Risen confirms that account by reporting that in April 2002 — long before most Americans had even heard war was a possibility — CIA officers in Europe were summoned by agency leaders and told an invasion was coming.

"They said this was on Bush's agenda when he got elected, and that 9/11 only delayed it," one CIA officer recalled to Risen. "They implied that 9/11 was a distraction from Iraq."

Then there were those weapons of mass destruction. The administration now implies it was misled into war by bad U.S. intelligence, but that's not true. While the CIA was indeed wrong about Iraq possessing at least some WMD, those faulty reports played no role whatsoever in the administration's decision to invade. WMD was the administration's excuse for a war it had already decided upon for other reasons.

The head of the CIA's Middle East bureau from 2000 to 2005 makes that clear in a new article in Foreign Affairs magazine. Paul Pillar writes that under the Bush administration, "official intelligence analysis was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions." Instead, "intelligence was misused to justify decisions already made," citing Iraqi WMD as a prime example.

In his article, Pillar also confirms that Bush told a monumental whopper in claiming that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden had informally allied against us.

Pillar is not the first to expose that fact. The Sept. 11 commission concluded back in June 2004 that there had been no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and bin Laden. But Pillar, who saw every scrap of intelligence about the Middle East, takes it further, saying the claim by Bush and others "did not reflect any judgment by intelligence officials that there was or was likely to be anything like the 'alliance' the administration said existed."

In other words, they made it up.

It is yet another example of how we were deceived into war by Bush, a man in whom Americans of both parties had put enormous amounts of faith in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

Of course, accusing Bush of deliberately lying to the country still sets off a contentious counterattack. Historians, though, will have no qualms whatsoever about reaching that same conclusion; the evidence is that overwhelming.

And then there was the incompetence. The claims that Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction, that we would be welcomed as liberators, that there were no serious ethnic splits in Iraq, that we had enough troops...the list is lengthy. How could the administration have been so wrong?

Well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.

If you're contemplating invading and occupying another country — and risking much of your own country's future on the outcome — your first step would be to request an assessment of the situation from your experts, right?

"As the national intelligence officer for the Middle East, I was in charge of coordinating all of the intelligence community's assessments regarding Iraq," Pillar writes. "The first request I received from any administration policy-maker for any such assessment was not until a year into the war." [Emphasis added]

When the US finally admits defeat and withdraws from Iraq, as it inevitably must, there will be a revisionist tendency, as we saw with Vietnam, to characterize it all as a well-intentioned but tragic "mistake." US motives were (as always) pure, but some people just refuse to be helped.

We need to do everything we can to resist that kind of interpretation. US foreign policy is like that of any great power: amoral, self-serving, and ruthless. As long as Americans live in a fantasy world where the US is always on the side of good, where US motives cannot be questioned, there will be more Vietnams, more Iraqs.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:07 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 23, 2006

What's At Stake

Future  Iraq  Palestine/Middle East

Yesterday's bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra triggered widespread sectarian violence and prompted the withdrawal of Sunnis from talks aimed at forming a new Iraqi government. There can be little doubt that the bombers, whoever they may be, intended to spark a massive escalation in sectarian fighting, perhaps all-out civil war.

Since the target was a Shiite shrine, everyone seems to assume the attackers were Sunnis, but there are any number of possible candidates. All-out sectarian civil war would bring Iraq a giant step closer to partition into three statelets along sectarian lines — a happy outcome, for example, for neocons here and abroad. Are they pulling the strings? I have no idea. But it is sometimes hard to escape the feeling that the whole Iraq campaign has had, from the outset, the unstated goal of Iraq's partition. Pretty much everything that's happened has furthered that end. But it's perhaps even harder to believe that the people managing the war are secret (evil) geniuses — given that they still can't manage, for example, to armor their own troops. Meanwhile, who knows what other actors are working for Iraq's partition to further their own ends.

Dark days in Iraq.

A longtime reader of PastPeak who sends me thought-provoking emails from time to time wrote me late last night (excerpt):

The destruction of Iraq cannot be undone. The bombing today of the Shiite shrine, which serves no conceivable Sunni insurgent purpose, but brings much closer the final breakup of what was once a modernizing, secular and economically equitable country, cannot be undone. And of course an attack on Iran, by what will, given current European rhetoric, be viewed by Muslims everywhere as an attack by the West, will finally make real the "Clash of Civilizations" the neocons have been dreaming of.

You are right about the overarching importance of Global Warming, and the consequences of the end of the oil economy. In the meantime though all possibility of a rational response to these things will be destroyed by war with the Islamic world.

That last paragraph brought me up short. Of course, he's right. Should the Middle East continue its downward spiral into a far wider war, the war's deadliest consequence would be that the world would miss a critically important window in time, perhaps our last best chance to avert catastrophe on the climate and peak oil fronts.

As we slide towards war in Iran or Syria, let us remember this: peace is a prerequisite for rational and constructive action on the real problems facing humanity. The stakes couldn't be higher. We need peace.

[Thanks, Miles]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:06 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 22, 2006

A "Critical Moment For Iraq"

Iraq

Iraq took a giant step toward all-out civil war today with the bombing, in Samarra, of one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines, followed by reprisal attacks on scores of Sunni mosques. Canadian Press:

Insurgents detonated bombs inside one of Iraq's holiest Shiite shrines Wednesday, destroying its golden dome and triggering more than 90 reprisal attacks on Sunni mosques. The president warned that extremists were pushing the country toward civil war.

With the gleaming dome of the 1,200-year-old Askariya shrine reduced to rubble, leaders on both sides called for calm and many Shiites lashed out at the United States as partly to blame.

The unprecedented spasm of sectarian violence seemed to push Iraq closer to all-out civil war than at any point in the three years since the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

"We are facing a major conspiracy that is targeting Iraq's unity," said President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd. "We should all stand hand in hand to prevent the danger of a civil war."

U.S. President George W. Bush pledged American help to restore the mosque after the bombing north of Baghdad, which dealt a severe blow to U.S. efforts to keep Iraq from falling deeper into sectarian violence. [...]

U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad and the top American commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, called the attack a deliberate attempt to foment sectarian strife and warned it was a "critical moment for Iraq."

No one was reported injured in the bombing of the shrine in Samarra.

But at least 19 people, including three Sunni clerics, were killed in the reprisal attacks that followed, mainly in Baghdad and predominantly Shiite provinces to the south, according to the Iraqi Islamic Party, the country's largest Sunni political group.

Many of the attacks appeared to have been carried out by Shiite militias that the United States wants to see disbanded. [...]

The new tensions came as Iraq's various factions have been struggling to assemble a government after the Dec. 15 parliamentary elections.

The Shiite fury sparked by Wednesday's bombings, the third major attack against Shiite targets in as many days, raised the likelihood that Shiite religious parties will reject U.S. demands to curb militias. [...]

In the hours after the attack, more than 90 Sunni mosques were attacked with automatic rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, burned or taken over by Shiites, the Iraqi Islamic Party said.

Large protests erupted in Shiite parts of Baghdad and in cities throughout the Shiite heartland to the south. In Basra, Shiite militants traded rifle and rocket-propelled grenade fire with guards at the office of the Iraqi Islamic Party. Smoke billowed from the building. [Emphasis added]

Martin van Creveld, one of the world's leading military thinkers, has called Bush's war "the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them."

And it's a long way from over.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:32 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

February 20, 2006

CIA And The Science Of Torture

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

Alfred McCoy, history professor at UW here in Madison, made his reputation exposing CIA complicity in the international drug trade. Now he's written a new study of the CIA's history of perfecting and applying techniques of psychological coercion and torture.

What follows are excerpts from an interview McCoy gave to Amy Goodman at Democracy Now. It's very important material.

[I]f you look at the most famous of photographs from Abu Ghraib, of the Iraqi standing on the box, arms extended with a hood over his head and the fake electrical wires from his arms...In that photograph you can see the entire 50-year history of CIA torture. It's very simple. He's hooded for sensory disorientation, and his arms are extended for self-inflicted pain. And those are the two very simple fundamental CIA techniques, developed at enormous cost.

From 1950 to 1962, the CIA ran a massive research project, a veritable Manhattan Project of the mind, spending over $1 billion a year to crack the code of human consciousness, from both mass persuasion and the use of coercion in individual interrogation. And what they discovered — they tried LSD, they tried mescaline, they tried all kinds of drugs, they tried electroshock, truth serum, sodium pentathol. None of it worked. What worked was very simple behavioral findings, outsourced to our leading universities — Harvard, Princeton, Yale and McGill — and the first breakthrough came at McGill. [...]

Dr. Donald O. Hebb of McGill University, a brilliant psychologist, had a contract from the Canadian Defense Research Board, which was a partner with the CIA in this research, and he found that he could induce a state of psychosis in an individual within 48 hours. It didn't take electroshock, truth serum, beating or pain. All he did was had student volunteers sit in a cubicle with goggles, gloves and headphones, earmuffs, so that they were cut off from their senses, and within 48 hours, denied sensory stimulation, they would suffer, first hallucinations, then ultimately breakdown.

And if you look at many of those photographs, what do they show? They show people with bags over their head. If you look at the photographs of the Guantanamo detainees even today, they look exactly like those student volunteers in Dr. Hebb’s original cubicle.

Now, then the second major breakthrough that the CIA had came here in New York City at Cornell University Medical Center, where two eminent neurologists under contract from the CIA studied Soviet KGB torture techniques, and they found that the most effective KGB technique was self-inflicted pain. You simply make somebody stand for a day or two. And as they stand — okay, you're not beating them, they have no resentment — you tell them, "You're doing this to yourself. Cooperate with us, and you can sit down." And so, as they stand, what happens is the fluids flow down to the legs, the legs swell, lesions form, they erupt, they separate, hallucinations start, the kidneys shut down.

Now, if you look at the other aspect of those photos, you'll see...people are standing with their arms extended, that's self-inflicted pain. And the combination of those two techniques — sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain — is the basis of the CIA's technique. [...]

What they found time and time again is that electroshock didn't work, and sodium pentathol didn't work, LSD certainly didn't work. You scramble the brain. You got unreliable information. But what did work was the combination of these two rather boring, rather mundane behavioral techniques: sensory disorientation and self-inflicted pain.

And in 1963, the CIA codified these results in the so-called KUBARK Counterintelligence Manual. If you just type the word KUBARK into Google, you will get the manual, an actual copy of it, on your computer screen, and you can read the techniques. But if you do, read the footnotes, because that's where the behavioral research is. Now, this produced a distinctively American form of torture, the first real revolution in the cruel science of pain in centuries, psychological torture, and it's the one that's with us today, and it's proved to be a very resilient, quite adaptable, and an enormously destructive paradigm.

Let's make one thing clear. Americans refer to this often times in common parlance as "torture lite." Psychological torture, people who are involved in treatment tell us it's far more destructive, does far more lasting damage to the human psyche than does physical torture. As Senator McCain said, himself, last year when he was debating his torture prohibition, faced with a choice between being beaten and psychologically tortured, I'd rather be beaten. Okay? It does far more lasting damage. It is far crueler than physical torture. This is something that we don't realize in this country.

Now, another thing we see is those photographs is the psychological techniques, but the initial research basically developed techniques for attacking universal human sensory receptors: sight, sound, heat, cold, sense of time. That's why all of the detainees describe being put in dark rooms, being subjected to strobe lights, loud music...That's sensory deprivation or sensory assault. Okay, that was sort of the phase one of the CIA research. But the paradigm has proved to be quite adaptable.

Now, one of the things that Donald Rumsfeld did, right at the start of the war of terror, in late 2002, he appointed General Geoffrey Miller to be chief at Guantanamo, alright, because the previous commanders at Guantanamo were too soft on the detainees, and General Miller turned Guantanamo into a de facto behavioral research laboratory, a kind of torture research laboratory. And under General Miller at Guantanamo, they perfected the CIA torture paradigm. They added two key techniques. They went beyond the universal sensory receptors of the original research. They added to it an attack on cultural sensitivity, particularly Arab male sensitivity to issues of gender and sexual identity.

And then they went further still. Under General Miller, they created these things called "Biscuit" teams, behavioral science consultation teams, and they actually had qualified military psychologists participating in the ongoing interrogation, and these psychologists would identify individual phobias, like fear of dark or attachment to mother, and by the time we're done, by 2003, under General Miller, Guantanamo had perfected the CIA paradigm, and it had a three-fold total assault on the human psyche: sensory receptors, self-inflicted pain, cultural sensitivity, and individual fears and phobia. [...]

In mid-2003, when the Iraqi resistance erupted, the United States found it had no intelligence assets; it had no way to contain the insurgency, and they — the U.S. military was in a state of panic. And at that moment, they began sweeping across Iraq, rounding up thousands of Iraqi suspects, putting many of them in Abu Ghraib prison. At that point, in late August 2003, General Miller was sent from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, and he brought his techniques with him. He brought a CD, and he brought a manual of his techniques. He gave them to the MP officers, the Military Intelligence officers and to General Ricardo Sanchez, the U.S. Commander in Iraq.

In September of 2003, General Sanchez issued orders, detailed orders, for expanded interrogation techniques beyond those allowed in the U.S. Army Field Manual 3452, and if you look at those techniques, what he's ordering, in essence, is a combination of self-inflicted pain, stress positions and sensory disorientation, and if you look at the 1963 CIA KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation Manual, you look at the 1983 CIA Interrogation Training Manual that they used in Honduras for training Honduran officers in torture and interrogation, and then twenty years later, you look at General Sanchez's 2003 orders, there's a striking continuity across this forty-year span, in both the general principles, this total assault on the existential platforms of human identity and existence, okay? And the specific techniques, the way of achieving that, through the attack on these sensory receptors. [...]

When [Rumsfeld] was asked to review the Guantanamo techniques in late 2003 or early 2004, he scribbled that marginal note and said, you know, "I stand at my desk eight hours a day." He has a designer standing desk. "How come we're limiting these techniques of the stress position to just four hours?" So, in other words, that was a clear signal from the Defense Secretary. Now, one of the problems beyond the details of these orders is torture is an extraordinarily dangerous thing. There's an absolute ban on torture for a very good reason. Torture taps into the deepest recesses, unexplored recesses of human consciousness, where creation and destruction coexist, where the infinite human capacity for kindness and infinite human capacity for cruelty coexist, and it has a powerful perverse appeal, and once it starts, both the perpetrators and the powerful who order them, let it spread, and it spreads out of control.

So, I think when the Bush administration gave those orders for, basically, techniques tantamount to torture at the start of the war on terror, I think it was probably their intention that these be limited to top al-Qaeda suspects, but within months, we were torturing hundreds of Afghanis at Bagram near Kabul, and a few months later in 2003, through these techniques, we were torturing literally thousands of Iraqis. And you can see in those photos, beyond the details of the techniques that we've described, you can see how that once it starts, it becomes this Dantesque hell, this kind of play palace of the darkest recesses of human consciousness. That's why it's necessary to maintain an absolute prohibition on torture. There is no such thing as a little bit of torture. The whole myth of scientific surgical torture, that torture advocates, academic advocates in this country came up with, that's impossible. That cannot operate. It will inevitably spread. [...]

I looked at those photos, I didn't see individual abuse [by "bad apples"] . What I saw was two textbook trademark CIA psychological interrogation techniques: self-inflicted pain and sensory disorientation.

[O]ne of the problems of talking about this topic in the United States, is that we regard all of this panoply of psychological techniques as "torture lite," as somehow not really torture...And we're the only country in the world that does that. The UN convention bars – defines torture as the infliction of severe psychological or physical pain. The UN convention which bans torture in 1984 gives equal weight to psychological and physical techniques. We alone as a society somehow exempt all of these psychological techniques. That dates back, of course, to the way we ratified the convention in the first place.

Back in the early 1990s, when the United States was emerging from the Cold War, and we began this process of, if you will, disarming ourselves and getting beyond all of these techniques, trying to sort of bring ourselves in line with rest of the international community, when we sent that — when President Clinton sent the UN Anti-Torture Convention to the US Congress for ratification in 1994, he included four detailed paragraphs of reservation that had, in fact, been drafted by the Reagan administration, and he adopted them without so much as changing a semicolon. And when you read those detailed paragraphs of reservation, what you realize is this, is that the United States Congress ratified the treaty, but basically we outlawed only physical torture. Those paragraphs of reservation are carefully written to avoid one word in the 26 printed pages of the UN convention. That word is "mental." Basically, we exempted psychological torture. [...]

[T]he White House had Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina amend McCain's amendment by inserting language into it, saying that for the purposes of this act, the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay is not on US territory...[T]hen in the last month, the Bush administration has gone to federal courts and said, "Drop all of your habeas corpus suits from Guantanamo." There are 160 of them. They've gone to the Supreme Court and said, "Drop your Guantanamo case." They have, in fact, used [the McCain] law to quash legal oversight of their actions. [Emphasis added]

Key points to take away: There is a continuous history of CIA research in and use of torture spanning four decades or more. The torture techniques being used at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere, techniques that Rush Limbaugh compared to innocuous fraternity hazing, are actually the most destructive techniques uncovered in CIA research. They were not invented by a few "bad apples." They are not "torture lite." And the McCain torture amendment isn't the end of the story. The Bush administration succeeded in building in loopholes that made the amendment, at best, a fig leaf, at worst, a means of ending legal oversight of operations at Guantanamo.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:50 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

February 16, 2006

Halliburton Stock Split

Iraq  Politics

At Halliburton, war is our business, and business is good. MarketWatch:

Halliburton Co., coming off a banner year in the energy sector and flush with Pentagon contracts abroad, announced Thursday a series of measures to share the spoils with shareholders.

The Houston-based company said its board of directors approved a two-for-one stock split that would double its shares outstanding to 2 billion. Stockholders must still sign off on the split.

The quarterly dividend for Halliburton stock was also raised 20% to 15 cents a share. The higher payout is set for March 23 for shareholders as of March 2.

A $1 billion share buyback is also in the works, the company said.

The moves come as Halliburton is gearing up to spin off part of its KBR division, which last year became the U.S. Army's biggest contractor. In terms of defense contracts with all branches of the military, Halliburton now ranks sixth overall. [Emphasis added]

The country may be circling the drain, but Halliburton shareholders are raking it in.

Blood money.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

55%: Iraq War A Mistake

Iraq  Politics

New CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll:

"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

Made a mistake: 55%
Did not: 42%

"Do you favor or oppose the U.S. war with Iraq?"

Favor: 40%
Oppose: 56%

I've commented on this before, but it's a remarkable feature of politics in America (and probably elsewhere) that as the majority comes around to agreeing with the position that progressives took from the outset, it never occurs to them that maybe progressives are people they ought to listen to in the future. They now find themselves agreeing with something that was transparently obvious to many of us, but it's as if they think we didn't come by the position honestly, that first you have to be wrong before you can be right. And so the next time we'll go through the whole process again. And the time after that.

Funny creatures, humans.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:12 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 14, 2006

Battleground: Thumbs Way Up

Iraq

While laid up with the flu the last couple of days, I watched GNN's documentary Battleground: 21 Days on the Empire's Edge on DVD. It's available from Netflix if you don't find it at your lcoal video store.

Very highly recommended. It's a low-key and humane portrayal of a cross-section of Iraqis and Americans caught up in the invasion and its aftermath. Filming took place in 2003, when the insurgency was getting underway but had yet to become a full-blown war, but that only adds to the tragic inevitability of it all: as you meet the people, you know what awaits them.

The film doesn't take an in-your-face position, it just lets the events and the personalities speak for themselves, and it really gets under your skin. Michael Moore, take note. The Iraqis, in particular, are quite unforgettable. There is a warmth, intimacy, and nobility in their relations that most Americans would envy. Very, very moving.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 11, 2006

CIA's Top Iraq Analyst: White House Ignored Intelligence

Iraq  Politics

Somehow, the White House continues to get away with claiming that the decision to invade Iraq was based on "flawed intelligence", an "intelligence failure," when it's long been clear that they came into office already looking for a pretext to justify an attack. Iraq was in their crosshairs from the outset.

Now the CIA's leading counterterrorism analyst, the man who was responsible for coordinating all Iraq assessments for the entire intelligence community, confirms that the administration requested no strategic assessments and paid little attention to the intelligence that was available to it. WaPo:

The former CIA official who coordinated U.S. intelligence on the Middle East until last year has accused the Bush administration of "cherry-picking" intelligence on Iraq to justify a decision it had already reached to go to war, and of ignoring warnings that the country could easily fall into violence and chaos after an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein.

Paul R. Pillar, who was the national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005, acknowledges the U.S. intelligence agencies' mistakes in concluding that Hussein's government possessed weapons of mass destruction. But he said those misjudgments did not drive the administration's decision to invade.

"Official intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs was flawed, but even with its flaws, it was not what led to the war," Pillar wrote in the upcoming issue of the journal Foreign Affairs. Instead, he asserted, the administration "went to war without requesting — and evidently without being influenced by — any strategic-level intelligence assessments on any aspect of Iraq."

"It has become clear that official intelligence was not relied on in making even the most significant national security decisions, that intelligence was misused publicly to justify decisions already made, that damaging ill will developed between [Bush] policymakers and intelligence officers, and that the intelligence community's own work was politicized," Pillar wrote.

Pillar's critique is one of the most severe indictments of White House actions by a former Bush official since Richard C. Clarke, a former National Security Council staff member, went public with his criticism of the administration's handling of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and its failure to deal with the terrorist threat beforehand.

It is also the first time that such a senior intelligence officer has so directly and publicly condemned the administration's handling of intelligence.

Pillar, retired after 28 years at the CIA, was an influential behind-the-scenes player and was considered the agency's leading counterterrorism analyst. By the end of his career, he was responsible for coordinating assessments on Iraq from all 15 agencies in the intelligence community. He is now a professor in security studies at Georgetown University.

It's remarkable that over, and over, and over again, the left's critique of administration actions and policies is proven right — but nobody notices. Politics is driven by psychology, not rational judgments. When you pick your auto mechanic, say, or your doctor, you want somebody who usually gets it right. But in politics, people tend to go with the person who confirms their prejudices and resonates with them on an irrational, psychological level. Even if they're wrong about absolutely everything. It's hard not to conclude that we are just superstitious primates, after all. Superstitious primates with guns.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:36 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 05, 2006

Bush's Dangerous Ignorance

Iraq  Politics

The memo referenced in this earlier post talks about a meeting that took place on January 31, 2003. The article includes this jaw-dropper:

There was also a discussion of what might happen in Iraq after Saddam had been overthrown. President Bush said that he "thought it unlikely that there would be internecine warfare between the different religious and ethnic groups". [Emphasis added]

Bush apparently thought he was competent to make such a judgment — he's President, after all — but we know from other sources that only five days earlier Bush had no idea that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite. According to Peter Galbraith:

January 2003 the President invited three members of the Iraqi opposition to join him to watch the Super Bowl [on January 26]. In the course of the conversation the Iraqis realized that the President was not aware that there was a difference between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. He looked at them and said, "You mean...they're not, you know, there, there's this difference. What is it about?"

There's ignorant, and there's so ignorant you don't know you're ignorant. Or maybe he just doesn't care: he's President, so he thinks he can just follow his gut.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:30 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

New Leaked Memo On Bush-Blair Prewar Discussions

Iraq  Politics

In the unlikely event that there's anybody out there who still doubts that Bush's (and Blair's) kabuki with UN Resolutions, WMD claims, etc., came long after the decision to attack Iraq had already been made, you might want to read this.

Bush wanted, among other things, to paint a U2 spy plane in UN colors and fly it over Iraq in hopes the Iraqis would take a potshot at it. Foreign policy à la Inspector Clouseau.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:22 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

February 03, 2006

Iraq: The Musical

Activism  Humor & Fun  Iraq

The Scarlet Pimpernel of freewayblogger.com has posted an animated musical bit on Iraq, dancing Abu Ghraib figures and all.

Go here and click on Iraq: The Musical.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 19, 2006

Suicide Note

Iraq

So sad.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 18, 2006

Global Guerrillas And Open-Source Warfare

Future  Iraq  War and Peace

The article cited in the previous post, illustrating the adaptability of the Iraqi insurgents, is also linked to by John Robb of Global Guerrillas. Robb, counter-terrorism veteran and software entrepreneur, has lots of interesting things to say about the future of warfare. See his blog, here.

Central to Robb's thinking is the idea that insurgencies around the world are increasingly decentralized, loosely-coupled, networked affairs created by "global guerrillas" who employ rapidly evolving tactics, often based on systems disruption swarms. A hallmark of the global guerrilla is open-source warfare, where the analogy is to open-source software development. Global guerrillas innovate, and their innovations are rapidly disseminated in a decentralized, viral fashion facilitated by global communications and the Internet. They learn from one another in real-time. Robb writes:

[T]he insurgency isn't a fragile hierarchical organization but rather a resilient network made up of small, autonomous groups. This means that the insurgency is virtually immune to attrition and decapitation. It will combine and recombine to form a viable network despite high rates of attrition. Body counts — and the military should already know this — aren't a good predictor of success.

...[O]ut-innovating the insurgency will most likely prove unsuccessful. The insurgency uses an open-source community approach (similar to the decentralized development process now prevalent in the software industry) to warfare that is extremely quick and innovative. New technologies and tactics move rapidly from one end of the insurgency to the other, aided by Iraq's relatively advanced communications and transportation grid — demonstrated by the rapid increases in the sophistication of the insurgents' homemade bombs. This implies that the insurgency's innovation cycles are faster than the American military's slower bureaucratic processes (for example: its inability to deliver sufficient body and vehicle armor to our troops in Iraq).

The Pentagon is big, clunky, hierarchical Microsoft; the insurgency is Linux and the Internet: rapidly mutating, highly networked, decentralized, loosely-coupled, constantly learning. The Pentagon can't keep up. In the long run (or maybe not so very long), it doesn't stand a chance.

Global communications and the Internet are changing the world at an exponential pace. It was inevitable that they would change warfare, too.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:03 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

Insurgents Adapt With Aerial IEDs

Iraq

The insurgents in Iraq (and elsewhere) adapt quickly. DefenseTech quotes Greg Grant of DefenseNews, who says that Iraqi insurgents have developed an aerial IED to attack US helicopters:

Insurgents, who place these aerial IEDs along known flight paths, trigger them when American helicopters come along at the typical altitude of just above the rooftops. The devices shoot 50 feet into the air, and a proximity fuze touches off a warhead that sprays metal fragments, said Brig. Gen. Edward Sinclair, commander of the Army's Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, Ala.

The bomb-builders may be obtaining radio-guided proximity fuzes from old Iraqi anti-aircraft and artillery shells and mortar rounds.

Sinclair said these aerial IEDs have been used against multiple U.S. helicopters. He declined to say whether such IEDs had damaged any aircraft.

The new weapon is one way insurgents are taking on Army aircraft, which come under fire between 15 and 20 times a month, Sinclair said. Other methods include small arms, rocket-propelled grenades and advanced shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles.

"The enemy is adaptive," Sinclair said. "They make changes in the way they fight; they respond to new flying tactics."

Three US helicopters have been downed in the last 10 days alone. Causes unknown.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:28 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

USAID: "Social Breakdown" In Iraq

Iraq

USAID's assessment of the situation on the ground in Iraq is decidedly bleaker than the usual White House spin. Guardian (via Jerome-a-Paris):

An official assessment drawn up by the US foreign aid agency depicts the security situation in Iraq as dire, amounting to a "social breakdown" in which criminals have "almost free rein".

The "conflict assessment" is an attachment to an invitation to contractors to bid on a project rehabilitating Iraqi cities published earlier this month by the US Agency for International Development (USAid).

The picture it paints is not only darker than the optimistic accounts from the White House and the Pentagon, it also gives a more complex profile of the insurgency than the straightforward "rejectionists, Saddamists and terrorists" described by George Bush.

The USAid analysis talks of an "internecine conflict" involving religious, ethnic, criminal and tribal groups. "It is increasingly common for tribesmen to 'turn in' to the authorities enemies as insurgents — this as a form of tribal revenge," the paper says, casting doubt on the efficacy of counter-insurgent sweeps by coalition and Iraqi forces.

Meanwhile, foreign jihadist groups are growing in strength, the report said.

"External fighters and organisations such as al-Qaida and the Iraqi offshoot led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi are gaining in number and notoriety as significant actors," USAid's assessment said. "Recruitment into the ranks of these organisations takes place throughout the Sunni Muslim world, with most suicide bombers coming from Saudi Arabia and other countries in the region."

The assessment conflicted sharply with recent Pentagon claims that Zarqawi's group was in "disarray". [...]

The paper, whose existence was first reported by the Washington Post, argues that insurgent attacks "significantly damage the country's infrastructure and cause a tide of adverse economic and social effects that ripple across Iraq".

"In the social breakdown that has accompanied the defeat of Saddam Hussein's regime criminal elements within Iraqi society have had almost free rein," the document says. "In the absence of an effective police force capable of ensuring public safety, criminal elements flourish...Baghdad is reportedly divided into zones controlled by organised criminal groups-clans." [Emphasis added]

This was an official assessment by a US government agency. If anything, the actual situation is probably even worse.

[Thanks, Michael]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:14 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 16, 2006

Superpower No More

Economy  Iraq  Politics

A post from last week pointed out that US GDP growth is being fueled entirely by debt. Old-school conservative Paul Craig Roberts (former Senior Research Fellow of the Hoover Institution, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, former Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan — which is to say, no liberal) agrees. He goes further, blaming the Bush administration and its disastrous war for bringing the US to the brink of an economic abyss. Excerpts:

President George W. Bush has destroyed America's economy, along with America's reputation as a truthful, compassionate, peace-loving nation that values civil liberties and human rights.

Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes have calculated the cost to Americans of Bush's Iraq war to be between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. This figure is five to 10 times higher than the $200 billion Bush's economic adviser Larry Lindsey estimated.

Lindsey was fired by Bush because his estimate was three times higher than the $70 billion figure that the Bush administration used to mislead Congress and the American voters about the burden of the war. You can't work in the Bush administration unless you are willing to lie for Dub-ya.

Americans need to ask themselves if the White House is in competent hands when a $70 billion war becomes a $2 trillion war. [...]

Stiglitz's $2 trillion estimate is OK as far as it goes. But it doesn't go far enough. My own estimate is a multiple of Stiglitz's.

Stiglitz correctly includes the cost of lifetime care of the wounded, the economic value of destroyed and lost lives, and the opportunity cost of the resources diverted to war destruction. What he leaves out is the war's diversion of the nation's attention away from the ongoing erosion of the U.S. economy. [...]

>In 2005, for the first time on record, consumer, business and government spending exceeded the total income of the country.>

America can consume more than it produces only if foreigners supply the difference. China recently announced that it intends to diversify its foreign exchange holdings away from the U.S. dollar. If this is not merely a threat in order to extort even more concessions from Bush, Americans' ability to consume will be brought up short by a fall in the dollar's value, as China ceases to be a sponge that is absorbing an excessive outpouring of dollars. Oil-producing countries might follow China's lead.

Now that Americans are dependent on imports for their clothing, manufactured goods and even high technology products, a decline in the dollar's value will make all these products much more expensive. American living standards, which have been treading water, will sink.

A decline in living standards is an enormous cost and will make existing debt burdens unbearable. Stiglitz did not include this cost in his estimate. [...]

The ladders of upward mobility are being rapidly dismantled by offshore production for U.S. markets, job outsourcing and importation of foreign professionals on work visas. [...]

This fact is made abundantly clear from the payroll jobs data over the past five years. December's numbers, released on Jan. 6, show the same pattern that I have reported each month for years. Under pressure from offshore outsourcing, the U.S. economy only creates low-productivity jobs in low-pay domestic services.

Only a paltry number of private sector jobs were created — 94,000. Of these 94,000 jobs, 35,800 — or 38 percent — are for waitresses and bartenders. Health care and social assistance account for 28 percent of the new jobs, and temporary workers account for 10 percent. These three categories of low-tech, nontradable domestic services account for 76 percent of the new jobs. This is the jobs pattern of a poor Third World economy that consumes more than it produces.

America's so-called First World superpower economy was only able to create in December a measly 12,000 jobs in goods-producing industries, of which 77 percent are accounted for by wood products and fabricated metal products — the furniture and roofing metal of the housing boom that has now come to an end. U.S. employment declined in machinery, electronic instruments, and motor vehicles and parts. [...]

When manufacturing leaves a country, engineering, R&D and innovation rapidly follow. Now that outsourcing has killed employment opportunities for U.S. citizens and even General Motors and Ford are failing, U.S. economic growth depends on how much longer the rest of the world will absorb our debt and finance our consumption.

How much longer will it be before "the world's only remaining superpower" is universally acknowledged as a debt-ridden, hollowed-out economy desperately in need of IMF bailout? [Emphasis added]

The guy sounds like James Kunstler. Kunstler has long insisted that the US economy consists nowadays of little more than the creation and servicing of suburban sprawl: construction, retail, hair cutting and fast food — the stuff that cannot be outsourced overseas. Roberts' figures bear this out, at least as regards new job creation. When the construction bubble bursts, what then?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:20 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

January 13, 2006

Army Finally Commits To Sending New Body Armor

Iraq  Politics

As reported here recently, a secret Pentagon study leaked to the NYT found that some 80% of the approximately 340 US troops who've died from torso wounds in Iraq could have been saved if they'd had proper body armor.

Now, three years too late, the Army is finally committing to production of 230,000 new sets of ceramic body armor plates this year. It remains to be seen if they'll meet their goal.

These guys never seem to do anything without a political motivation. Troops die; they drag their feet. A front-page story appears in the New York Times; they swing into action. Draw your own conclusions.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:11 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 08, 2006

IEA: UK Oil Production To Fall Short Of Demand

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  Peak Oil

More on the worsening energy situation in the UK. As reported Friday, soaring natural gas prices have caused many British power stations and other gas users to switch to oil, and oil is now in short supply:

The Association of United Kingdom Oil Independents has told the government that its members had never experienced such protracted and widespread problems...Meanwhile, the Buncefield oil depot fire, the run on oil and other fuels due to cold weather, and a faster than expected rundown of North Sea supplies have caused chaos across the energy sector.

The underlying problem for the UK is that North Sea production has peaked and gone into steep decline (declining 10% in 2004 alone).

Now the International Energy Agency (IEA) estimates that starting next spring British production will no longer be able to satisfy British demand. The UK will become a net importer of oil for the first time since 1992, and as bad as their oil & gas situation is now, it's all downhill from here. The Scotsman (via Oil Drum):

The world's top energy watchdog has warned that the UK economy will become a net importer of oil this year for the first time in more than a decade — three years earlier than the government has predicted. [...]

The IEA sees UK oil demand for 2007 of more than 1.8m barrels per day, which it expects North Sea production will only be able to match for the first three months of the year.

Output is projected to fall to 1.65m barrels per day between March and June, and to 1.55m barrels per day between July and September, before rebounding slightly to 1.66m barrels per day in the last three months.

The government's more optimistic forecasts do not see the UK becoming a net importer until 2010.

Fyfe said: "In the last three years production has declined every year more than 200,000 barrels per day or more. We are looking at the slate of projects coming up and we are not factoring in any of the unexpected outages which have happened in the past few years."

The IEA's warnings raise the prospect that the government may turn out to be as badly wrong-footed by the decline of UK oil production as it was by the decline of UK gas — a failure which has put the UK on the edge of a gas crisis this winter.

A couple of things to note. First, crunch time came quicker than anyone expected — i.e., it doesn't pay to rely on rosy government projections. Second, if you were wondering why the UK — even though British public opinion overwhelmingly opposed the war — followed the US into the Middle East, the above provides a clue.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

2200

Iraq

US troop deaths in Iraq have passed another joyless milestone: 2200. No end in sight.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2206.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 07, 2006

Supporting The Troops

Iraq  Politics

Support the troops, blah, blah, blah. But actions speak so much louder than words. NYT:

A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials. [...]

The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.

The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army is deciding between various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers; the officials said they hope to issue contracts this month.

Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds. [...]

The shortfalls in bulletproof vests are just one of the armor problems the Pentagon continues to struggle with as the war in Iraq approaches the three-year mark, The Times has found in an ongoing examination of the military procurement system. [...]

Almost from the beginning, some soldiers asked for additional protection to stop bullets from slicing through their sides. In the fall of 2003, when troops began hanging their crotch protectors under their arms, the Army's Rapid Equipping Force shipped several hundred plates to protect their sides and shoulders. Individual soldiers and units continued to buy their own sets. [...]

"Our preliminary research suggests that as many as 42 percent of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest," the study concludes. Another 23 percent might have been saved with side plates that extend below the arms, while 15 percent more could have benefited from shoulder plates, the report says. [Emphasis added]

The article has lots more on the extraordinary series of Pentagon screwups that continue to plague production of body armor and armored vehicles. The incompetence is stunning. It defies explanation. It's the icing on the cake of this whole Iraq disaster. An observer from Mars might conclude that the Pentagon's been taken over by a foreign power out to destroy the US military. They seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:59 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 03, 2006

Iraq's Oil Exports Hit New Low

Iraq  Peak Oil

As noted earlier, Iraq's oil industry's in crisis. Oil exports in December were the lowest since the war began. AP:

Iraq's exports of oil hit their lowest level in December since the war, as the country's oil minister resigned in the wake of protests and riots over soaring gas prices and lengthening lines at the pump.

Only 34.4 million barrels were exported in December, or about 1.1 million barrels per day, the lowest average since Iraq resumed exports after the US-led invasion in March 2003, according to figures released Monday.

Almost all the oil was exported from Iraq's southern oil terminals because of continuing sabotage of the country's northern oil facilities. [Emphasis added]

Not exactly a sign of progress. Not unless the plan is to hang onto as much of Iraq's oil as possible as a hole card to be played when world oil shortages hit in earnest.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 02, 2006

Living In A Pre-War Era

Energy  Iran  Iraq  Peak Oil

A chilling note from diarist Stirling Newberry at dKos:

On this, the first working day of the New Year, we are already getting a good stiff taste of the running theme of 2006. If 2004 and 2005 saw resource inflation, 2006 is the year when resource rich countries begin using those resources as weapons, and resource poor countries begin taking aggressive steps to secure resources. The current world market approach to energy is going to break down, as more and more nations are forced to jostle for position.

Somewhere in the next two years it will dawn on the American public that we live in the pre-war, not post-war, era, and that Iraq was a foreshock. [Emphasis added]

With Iran in the crosshairs, Russia withholding natural gas shipments to the Ukraine, and Iraq facing an oil supply crisis, 2006 is off to an ominous start. Horrifying to contemplate: Iraq may be just the beginning.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:05 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

December 31, 2005

Wanker Of The Year

Iraq

Atrios picks the Wanker of the Year: Senator Joe Lieberman for his November WSJ op-ed.

Lieberman's piece was forwarded to me at the time from a friend of a friend, a dittohead who seized on it as proof of the liberal media's suppression of the good news from Iraq. So I was interested to see this quote from Time's Michael Ware:

I and some other journalists had lunch with Senator Joe Lieberman the other day and we listened to him talking about Iraq. Either Senator Lieberman is so divorced from reality that he's completely lost the plot or he knows he's spinning a line. Because one of my colleagues turned to me in the middle of this lunch and said he's not talking about any country I've ever been to and yet he was talking about Iraq, the very country where we were sitting. [Emphasis added]

I doubt any Western journalist is in a better position than Australian Michael Ware to say what's really going on. Ware's been in-country for years. He spent months embedded with the insurgents, including contact with al-Zarqawi's group, and months embedded with US troops. Unlike Lieberman, he actually has some idea what he's talking about.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:40 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

December 30, 2005

Chalabi Takes Control Of Iraq's Oil Ministry

Iraq

Ahmad Chalabi, darling of Pentagon neocons, is now in control of Iraq's oil ministry. Reuters (via Oil Drum):

Iraq's Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Chalabi has assumed direct control of the powerful oil ministry as crude exports ground to a halt due to sabotage attacks and logistics problems, officials said on Friday.

Chalabi, who has been improving his relations with Washington after falling out with the U.S. administration, was appointed acting oil minister after the incumbent Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum was given leave, the officials said. [...]

A ministry spokesman allied to Uloum said the country was facing what he called an impending oil supply crisis. "Production in the north, centre and south is about to suffocate," he said. [Emphasis added]

John Robb, at the very interesting Global Guerrillas, says the insurgents lately have turned their attention to disrupting electricity and oil production. On the electricity front:

Baghdad gets only 6 hours of erratic electricity a day now, down from 11 hours in October. The rest of the country averages 13 hours a day. The rapid shifts in focus are indicative of global guerrilla open source methods. It doesn't reflect central planning but rather an ability to swarm quickly on vulnerabilities to maximize impact at minimal cost. [Emphasis added]

On the oil production front:

Iraq's Beiji refinery (joined at the hip to a major power station that will likely be disrupted too) has been shut down due to threats against tanker drivers since December 19th. Iraq is already importing $200 million a month in gasoline and this disruption will cost the country up to an extra $20 million a day. With gas lines already a mile long and a recent tripling of the consumer price for gasoline to compensate for the costs of these imports, the hit to the new government's legitimacy is already in motion. [...]

In order to exacerbate the cash crunch, the guerrillas again destroyed a section of the $7 million dollar a day northern pipeline system (29 December) returning it to its normal inoperative state (which indicates that while the Kurds may control Kirkuk's oil fields as well as other newly found fields, they might never be able to profit from it). Due to this disruption, the Basra terminal (the export location for Iraq's southern oil fields in the Persian Gulf) has again become a single point of failure. Nature provided a second disruption, in the form of a storm and rough seas, that has prevented exports from Basra since Christmas at a cost of $70 million plus a day (1.21 million barrels a day in lost exports). [Emphasis added]

Iraq is importing gasoline. If that doesn't say US failure, what does. And now Chalabi's in charge at the Oil Ministry. Any lingering doubts Iraqis may have had about whether the US intends to control Iraqi oil have now been dispelled.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:07 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 28, 2005

Kurds Plan To Invade South

Iraq

Knight-Ridder's Tom Lasseter reports (via ICH) that Iraq's various factions are putting their own people into the country's army not to defend a unified Iraq, but to equip and train their own armies in preparation for what they view as the inevitable breakup of Iraq. Excerpt:

Kurdish leaders have inserted more than 10,000 of their militia members into Iraqi army divisions in northern Iraq to lay the groundwork to swarm south, seize the oil-rich city of Kirkuk and possibly half of Mosul, Iraq's third-largest city, and secure the borders of an independent Kurdistan.

Five days of interviews with Kurdish leaders and troops in the region suggest that U.S. plans to bring unity to Iraq before withdrawing American troops by training and equipping a national army aren't gaining traction. Instead, some troops that are formally under U.S. and Iraqi national command are preparing to protect territory and ethnic and religious interests in the event of Iraq's fragmentation, which many of them think is inevitable.

The soldiers said that while they wore Iraqi army uniforms they still considered themselves members of the Peshmerga — the Kurdish militia — and were awaiting orders from Kurdish leaders to break ranks. Many said they wouldn't hesitate to kill their Iraqi army comrades, especially Arabs, if a fight for an independent Kurdistan erupted.

"It doesn't matter if we have to fight the Arabs in our own battalion," said Gabriel Mohammed, a Kurdish soldier in the Iraqi army who was escorting a Knight Ridder reporter through Kirkuk. "Kirkuk will be ours." [...]

Their strategy mirrors that of Shiite Muslim parties in southern Iraq, which have stocked Iraqi army and police units with members of their own militias and have maintained a separate militia presence throughout Iraq's central and southern provinces. The militias now are illegal under Iraqi law but operate openly in many areas. Peshmerga leaders said in interviews that they expected the Shiites to create a semi-autonomous and then independent state in the south as they would do in the north. [...]

The interviews with Kurdish troops...suggested that as the American military transfers more bases and areas of control to Iraqi units, it may be handing the nation to militias that are bent more on advancing ethnic and religious interests than on defeating the insurgency and preserving national unity. [...]

American military officials have said they're trying to get a broader mix of sects in the Iraqi units.

However, Col. Talib Naji, a Kurd serving in the Iraqi army on the edge of Kirkuk, said he would resist any attempts to dilute the Kurdish presence in his brigade.

"The Ministry of Defense recently sent me 150 Arab soldiers from the south," Naji said. "After two weeks of service, we sent them away." [...]

In addition to putting former Peshmerga in the Iraqi army, the Kurds have deployed small Peshmerga units in buildings and compounds throughout northern Iraq, according to militia leaders. While it's hard to calculate the number of these active Peshmerga fighters, interviews with militia members suggest that it's well in excess of 10,000. [Emphasis added]

In other words, everything they're telling us about progress in building a unified Iraqi army, to secure a unified Iraq, is bull. By providing weapons and training to the Iraqi army, all the US is doing is laying the groundwork for the coming civil war. Was the partition of Iraq the plan all along?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:17 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

Swift-Boating The War

Iraq  Media  Politics

Even President Bush admits the White House's prewar characterization of the threat posed by Iraq was mistaken, but that doesn't stop Move America Forward from airing tv ads claiming that Saddam Hussein did indeed have WMD and "extensive ties" to al Qaeda. WSJ:

The television commercials are attention-grabbing: Newly found Iraqi documents show that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, including anthrax and mustard gas, and had "extensive ties" to al Qaeda. The discoveries are being covered up by those "willing to undermine support for the war on terrorism to selfishly advance their shameless political ambitions."

The hard-hitting spots are part of a recent public-relations barrage aimed at reversing a decline in public support for President Bush's handling of Iraq. But these advertisements aren't paid for by the Republican National Committee or other established White House allies. Instead, they are sponsored by Move America Forward, a media-savvy outside advocacy group that has become one of the loudest — and most controversial — voices in the Iraq debate.

While even Mr. Bush now publicly acknowledges the mistakes his administration made in judging the threat posed by Mr. Hussein, the organization is taking to the airwaves to insist that the White House was right all along.

Similar to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth — the advocacy group that helped derail John Kerry's presidential campaign — Move America Forward has magnified its reach by making small television and radio ad buys and then relying on cable- and local-television news outlets to give the commercials heavy coverage. Move America Forward has no discernible formal ties to the White House or the Republican National Committee, and the group says it operates independently from the Republican Party establishment. Still, the organization provides a clear benefit to the administration by spreading a pro-war message that goes beyond what administration officials can say publicly. [...]

Liberals question how the group has maintained its status as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization, which requires strict nonpartisanship, given the anti-Democratic tone of its campaigns. The group's Web site, www.moveamericaforward.org1, for example, attacks the current chairman of the Democratic National Committee, referring to "Howard Dean types who only see a future of failure for this country."

"When you have people participating in partisan activities with nonprofit dollars, that's really something the IRS needs to look at," says Tom Matzzie, the Washington director of the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org, another frequent target for Move America Forward's rhetoric. "An organization with a shady tax status participating in partisan activities and saying things that aren't true is a rogue element in American politics." [...]

MoveOn is a "political action committee," meaning its donations aren't tax-deductible and must be disclosed. [Emphasis added]

If an equivalent tax-exempt group existed on the left, does anyone doubt for an instant that the IRS would be all over them?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 27, 2005

JCS Chair Says Troop Levels Could Increase

Iraq

Rumsfeld says US troop levels in Iraq will decrease next year, but Sunday the chairman of the Joint Chiefs said differently. LA Times:

The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman said Sunday that the number of U.S. troops in Iraq could increase next year, not decrease, if the insurgency continues.

Gen. Peter Pace's comments, on "Fox News Sunday," suggested that the Pentagon's plan to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, announced Friday by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, depended on several variables. [...]

The four-star Marine general said that any decisions to withdraw troops — or to deploy more forces into Iraq — will depend mostly on whether the insurgency continues to launch deadly attacks against U.S. forces and friendly elements of the fledgling Baghdad government. [...]

Rumsfeld announced Friday during a trip to Iraq that President Bush has signed off on the withdrawal of an undisclosed number of U.S. combat troops from Iraq next year. [Emphasis added]

So, troop levels could come down, but don't hold your breath.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:06 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 23, 2005

Hundreds Of Thousands Protest Iraq Elections

Iraq

As an addendum to the previous post, AP reports that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis took to the streets today to protest last week's parliamentary elections, which they say were rigged. AP:

Large demonstrations broke out across the country Friday to denounce parliamentary elections that protesters say were rigged in favor of the main religious Shiite coalition. [...]

Several hundred thousand people demonstrated after noon prayers in southern Baghdad Friday, many carrying banners decrying last week's elections. Many Iraqis outside the religious Shiite coalition allege that the elections were unfair to smaller Sunni Arab and secular Shiite groups.

"We refuse the cheating and forgery in the elections," one banner read.

During Friday prayers at Baghdad's Umm al-Qura mosque, the headquarters of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a major Sunni clerical group, Sheik Mahmoud al-Sumaidaei told followers they were "living a conspiracy built on lies and forgery." [Emphasis added]

Consistent with Patrick Cockburn's interpretation that the elections may prove to be not the birth of a unified, democratic Iraq, but its funeral.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

"Iraq Is Disintegrating"

Iraq

The White House claims it's trying to bring pro-western democracy to Iraq. Last week's parliamentary elections, purple fingers and all, were touted as a major milestone in that effort. Here, however, is Patrick Cockburn, reporting from Iraq (via DeepBlade):

Iraq is disintegrating. The first results from the parliamentary election last week show that the country is dividing up between Shia, Sunni and Kurdish regions. The secular and nationalist candidate backed by the US and Britain was humiliatingly defeated.

The Shia religious coalition has won a total victory in Baghdad and the south of Iraq. The Sunni Arab parties who openly or covertly support armed resistance to the US are likely to win large majorities in Sunni provinces.

The election marks the final shipwreck of American and British hopes of establishing a pro-western secular democracy in a united Iraq. Islamic fundamentalist movements are ever more powerful in both the Sunni and Shia communities. "In two-and-a-half years Bush has succeeded in creating two new Talibans in Iraq," said Ghassan Attiyah, an Iraqi commentator.

The success of the United Arab Alliance, the coalition of Shia religious parties, has been far greater than expected according to preliminary results from last Thursday's election. It won 58 per cent of the vote in Baghdad, while Iyad Allawi, the former prime minister whom Tony Blair has strongly supported, got only 14 per cent of the vote. In the second city of Iraq, Basra, 77 per cent of voters supported the Alliance and only 11 per cent Mr Allawi.

The election was portrayed by President George W. Bush as a sign of success for US policies in Iraq, but in fact means the triumph of America's enemies inside and outside the country. Iran will be pleased that the Shia religious parties whom it has supported, often for decades, have become the strongest political force.

Ironically Bush is more than ever dependent within Iraq on the goodwill of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for all his maverick reputation. It is the allies of Iran who are growing in influence by the day and have now triumphed in the election. The US will hope that Tehran will be satisfied with this. Iran may be happier with a weakened Iraq in which it is a predominant influence rather than see the country entirely break up.

Another victor in the election is the nationalist cleric Muqtada al-Sadr whose Mehdi Army militia fought fierce battles with US troops last year. The US military said at the time it intended "to kill or capture him." Mr Bush cited the recapture of the holy city of Najaf from the Mehdi Army in August 2004 as an important success for the US army. Al-Sadr will now be one of the most influential leaders within the coalition.

All the parties which did well in the election have strength only within their own community. The Shia coalition succeeded because the Shia make up 60 per cent of Iraqis, but won almost no votes among the Kurds or Sunni each of whom is about 20 per cent of the population. The Sunni and the Kurdish parties won no support outside their own communities. [...]

The election also means a decisive switch from a secular Iraq to a country in which, outside Kurdistan, religious law will be paramount. Mr Allawi, who ran a well-financed campaign with slick television advertising, was the main secular hope but this did not translate into votes. The other main non-religious candidate Ahmed Chalabi received less than one per cent of the vote in Baghdad and will be lucky to win a single seat in the new 275-member Council of Representatives.

"People underestimate how religious Iraq has become," said one Iraqi observer. He added: "Iran is really a secular society with a religious leadership, but Iraq will be a religious society with a religious leadership." Already most girls leaving schools in Baghdad wear headscarves. Women's rights in cases of divorce and inheritance are being eroded.

Sunni Arab leaders were aghast yesterday at the electoral triumph of the Shia, claiming fraud. [...]

Mr Allawi's Iraqi National List also protested. [...]

But while there was probably some fraud and intimidation the results of the election mirror the way in which the Shia majority in Iraq are systematically taking over the levers of power. They already control the Ministry of the Interior with 110,000 police and paramilitary units. Most of the troops in the 80,000 strong army being trained by the US army are Shia. [...]

The elections are also unlikely to see a diminution in armed resistance to the US by the Sunni community. Insurgent groups have made clear that they see winning seats in parliament as the opening of another front. The US is trying to conciliate the Sunni by the release of 24 top Baathist leaders without charges. But the main demand of the Sunni resistance is a time table for a US withdrawal without which they are unlikely to agree a ceasefire even if they had the unity to negotiate such an agreement.

The new constitution [of] Iraq, overwhelmingly approved in a referendum on October 15, already creates two super-regions, one Kurdish and the other Shia, which will have quasi-independence. Local law will be superior to national law. They will own newly discovered oil reserves. They will have their own armed forces. They envisage an Iraq which will be a loose confederation rather than a unified state.

The break up of Iraq has been brought closer by last week's election. The great majority of people who went to the polls voted as Shia, Sunni or Kurds. The forces pulling Iraq apart are stronger than those holding it together. The election, billed by Mr Bush and Mr Blair, as the birth of a new Iraqi state may in fact prove to be its funeral. [Emphasis added]

There's a school of thought that says this is what US neocons have wanted all along: Iraq broken up, weakened, thereby improving (supposedly) the security situation for Israel. It's either been one long, unbroken string of screwups, or it's all going according to plan. Hard to believe they're evil geniuses, though. Evil, ok. But geniuses?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 21, 2005

Guarding Cheney

Iraq

If you're a fan of twisted humor, you'll enjoy this. Via John Nichols, here's a line from the AP story regarding Cheney's recent "surprise visit" to Iraq:

U.S. forces guarded Cheney with weapons at the ready while Iraqi soldiers, who had no weapons, held their arms out as if they were carrying imaginary guns. [Emphasis added]

Picture it. Hilarious — and illuminating. They must have decided letting Iraqis with guns anywhere near Cheney would be, shall we say, imprudent.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:24 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 17, 2005

Congress Does Not Have Same Access To Intelligence

Iraq  Politics

I wish I had a dollar for every time Bush, Cheney, and their supporters made the claim that Congress had access to the same intelligence Bush did prior to the war.

This assertion has always been ridiculous on its face. Members of Congress don't get a daily briefing from the CIA. They can't pick up the phone and get the Director of the CIA, DIA, NSA, or FBI into their office any time they want. And members of Congress don't get raw intelligence before it's been shaped and filtered for their eyes. I.e., Congress gets what the the Executive chooses to give them. You don't need a security clearance to figure this out. It's obvious.

Now there's corroboration via a report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service.

The CRS writes:

By virtue of his constitutional role as commander-and-in-chief and head of the executive branch, the President has access to all national intelligence collected, analyzed and produced by the Intelligence Community. The President's position also affords him the authority — which, at certain times, has been aggressively asserted — to restrict the flow of intelligence information to Congress and its two intelligence committees, which are charged with providing legislative oversight of the Intelligence Community. As a result, the President, and a small number of presidentially-designated Cabinet-level officials, including the Vice President — in contrast to Members of Congress — have access to a far greater overall volume of intelligence and to more sensitive intelligence information, including information regarding intelligence sources and methods. They, unlike Members of Congress, also have the authority to more extensively task the Intelligence Community, and its extensive cadre of analysts, for follow-up information. As a result, the President and his most senior advisors arguably are better positioned to assess the quality of the Community's intelligence more accurately than is Congress.

In addition to their greater access to intelligence, the President and his senior advisors also are better equipped than is Congress to assess intelligence information by virtue of the primacy of their roles in formulating U.S. foreign policy. Their foreign policy responsibilities often require active, sustained, and often personal interaction, with senior officials of many of the same countries targeted for intelligence collection by the Intelligence Community. Thus the President and his senior advisors are uniquely positioned to glean additional information and impressions — information that, like certain sensitive intelligence information, is generally unavailable to Congress — that can provide them with an important additional perspective with which to judge the quality of intelligence. [Emphasis added]

The report stresses that what Congress sees are "finished intelligence products", i.e., reports that have been filtered and shaped by analysts:

Congress generally receives access to most finished intelligence products that are published for general circulation within the executive branch. A finished intelligence product is one in which an analyst evaluates, interprets, integrates and places into context raw intelligence.

...[C]ongressional access is limited to such finished products...

A number of classified intelligence products are not shared with Congress:

The President's Daily Brief (PDB) is a written intelligence product which is briefed daily to the President orally by a small cadre of senior Intelligence Community analysts...[I]ts dissemination is limited to the President and a small number of presidentially-designated senior administration policymakers.

Presidential Daily Brief Memoranda are products containing responses to questions posed by the President and any of the small number of designated senior policymakers who receive the PDB. After briefing the handful of designated policymakers, members of the analytic briefing team return to CIA each morning, and task Intelligence Community personnel to provide answers to the various inquiries posed during the each briefing session.

Senior Executive Memoranda are tailored analytic products that also can be produced in response to policymaker questions arising from PDB briefings.

National Terrorism Brief (NTB) is prepared by the National Counterterrorism Center, is appended to the daily PDB, and is briefed to the President by the DNI.

The Director's Daily Report is prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and is used by the FBI Director to verbally brief the President.

Red Cell analyses are products that are speculative in nature and sometimes take a position at odds with the conventional wisdom.

Raw intelligence is unevaluated intelligence.

TDs (Telephonic Disseminations) are raw intelligence reports disseminated by the CIA's Directorate of Operations. TDs are slightly finished intelligence, in that they contain some commentary as to the credibility of the source providing the intelligence.

Chief of Station (COS) Reports are reports prepared by the CIA's chief representative in a particular country and contain the COS's views of the current situation. The COS can share his reports with the resident ambassador for comment, but is under no obligation to incorporate any comments by the ambassador into his final report.

Now, perhaps, the next time Bush or Cheney tells an interviewer that Congress had access to the same intelligence as they did before the war, the interviewer will call him on it. But don't hold your breath.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 12, 2005

Pat Robertson: Criticism Is Treason

Iraq  Media  Politics

In Pat Robertson's world, the Iraq war has already been won, and wartime criticism of the president is treason. Here's Robertson last week (via MediaMatters):

We've won the war already, and for the Democrats to say we can't win it — what kind of a statement is that? And furthermore, one of the fundamental principles we have in America is that the president is the commander in chief of the armed forces and attempts to undermine the commander in chief during time of war amounts to treason. I know we have an opportunity to express our points of view, but there is a time when we're engaged in a combat situation that carping criticism against the commander in chief just doesn't cut it. And I think that yes, we have freedom of speech — of course we do — but this has gone over the top and I think the Republicans are — well, they've taken advantage. [Emphasis added]

The war's already been won — but it's also ongoing, so criticism is treason. We've got freedom of speech — but you can't use it to criticize the president, cuz he's commander in chief. Which, of course, is a "fundamental principle" of our democracy.

Poor Pat.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:48 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

December 09, 2005

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Iraq

Glenn Greenwald (via Digby) has collected a set of quotes from various American leaders over the course of the Vietnam War. Eerily like what we hear today. Check it out.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 05, 2005

Answering The Top Ten Reasons

Iraq

At TomDispatch, Michael Schwartz does an excellent job of answering the Top Ten Reasons for Staying in (Leaving) Iraq.

Recommended. Just the thing for prepping for those holiday dinners with the extended family.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Iraq's VP: Bush Is A Liar

Iraq

In his "strategy for victory" speech last week, Bush claimed the training of Iraqi security forces is coming along nicely. Iraq's Vice President apparently didn't get the memo. AP:

The training of Iraqi security forces has suffered a big "setback" in the last six months, with the army and other forces being increasingly used to settle scores and make other political gains, Iraqi Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said Monday.

Al-Yawer disputed contentions by U.S. officials, including President Bush, that the training of security forces was gathering speed, resulting in more professional troops.

Bush has said the United States will not pull out of Iraq until Iraq's own forces can maintain security. In a speech last week, he said Iraqi forces are becoming increasingly capable of securing the country. [...]

Al-Yawer also expressed grave concern that Iraqi army units might use intimidation to try to keep Sunni voters from the polls during the country's crucial Dec. 15 general election. [...]

Al-Yawer said many Sunnis want to vote. But he noted that both intimidation and voter fraud occurred during the Oct. 15 constitutional referendum, and complaints to the Iraqi Electoral Commission and U.N. voting advisers went nowhere, he said. [...]

Many outside experts have expressed concern that Iraqi security forces will actually increase tensions if they guard Sunni areas, rather than keep order. Al-Yawer did not specifically say that Shiites make up too much of the army, but said he would like to see more political and sectarian balance especially among the officer corps. [Emphasis added]

Al-Yawer is a Sunni, so he's got an axe to grind, but he's a mainstream guy, a moderate "running on a slate of secular candidates along with former Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad Allawi". In any case, his appraisal is a whole lot more believable than Bush's, given persistent news reports like this one:

[E]vidence has begun to mount suggesting that the Iraqi forces are carrying out executions in predominantly Sunni neighborhoods.

Hundreds of accounts of killings and abductions have emerged in recent weeks, most of them brought forward by Sunni civilians, who claim that their relatives have been taken away by Iraqi men in uniform without warrant or explanation.

Some Sunni men have been found dead in ditches and fields, with bullet holes in their temples, acid burns on their skin, and holes in their bodies apparently made by electric drills. Many have simply vanished.

Some of the young men have turned up alive in prison. In a secret bunker discovered earlier this month in an Interior Ministry building in Baghdad, American and Iraqi officials acknowledged that some of the mostly Sunni inmates appeared to have been tortured. [Emphasis added]

It just keeps getting uglier and uglier.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:20 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

25%

Iraq

A startling fact about Iraq: 25% of all US deaths in the entire war have occurred in just the last 7 months. It's not getting better.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2130.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 11:39 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 04, 2005

Even Their Lies Are Idiotic

Iraq  Politics

Paul Krugman on Bush's much-hyped National Strategy for Victory in Iraq (via Free Democracy):

It's an embarrassing piece of work. Yet it's also an important test for the news media. The Bush administration has lost none of its confidence that it can get away with fuzzy math and fuzzy facts — that it won't be called to account for obvious efforts to mislead the public. It's up to journalists to prove that confidence wrong.

Here's an example of how the White House attempts to mislead: the new document assures us that Iraq's economy is doing really well. "Oil production increased from an average of 1.58 million barrels per day in 2003, to an average of 2.25 million barrels per day in 2004." The document goes on to concede a "slight decrease" in production since then.

We're not expected to realize that the daily average for 2003 includes the months just before, during and just after the invasion of Iraq, when its oil industry was basically shut down. As a result, we're not supposed to understand that the real story of Iraq's oil industry is one of unexpected failure: instead of achieving the surge predicted by some of the war's advocates, Iraqi production has rarely matched its prewar level, and has been on a downward trend for the past year. [Emphasis added]

Read the rest for more examples.

It is amazing that the White House thinks it can get away with fakery this ham-handed and obvious. Your average blog couldn't get away with it; commenters would be all over it.

In a related story, Andrew Natsios has resigned as head of USAID. Natsios, you'll remember, is the clown who confidently predicted that Iraq's reconstruction would cost US taxpayers a mere $1.7 billion. Here's Natsios on Nightline in April of 2003 (via Think Progress):

TED KOPPEL: I mean, when you talk about 1.7, you're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is gonna be done for $1.7 billion?

NATSIOS: Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do, this is it for the US. [...]

KOPPEL: You’re saying the, the top cost for the US taxpayer will be $1.7 billion. No more than that?

NATSIOS: For the reconstruction. And then there's 700 million in the supplemental budget for humanitarian relief, which we don't competitively bid 'cause it's charities that get that money.

KOPPEL: I understand. But as far as reconstruction goes, the American taxpayer will not be hit for more than $1.7 billion no matter how long the process takes?

NATSIOS: That is our plan and that is our intention. And these figures, outlandish figures I've seen, I have to say, there's a little bit of hoopla involved in this.

Unbelievable. Give him Brownie's old job over at FEMA.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:05 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

December 01, 2005

Seymour Hersh On John Murtha

Iraq

As an addendum to the previous post, here's what investigative reporter Seymour Hersh had to say about Murtha in an interview the other day on Democracy Now:

Murtha is one of those oldies, in his 70s now...He's on the Defense — he's one of the leading players on the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He's a very conservative military guy, who controls the budget, not only the budget we know about, but the black budget, the covert budget. He's one of those people [who are] trusted...These are the guys that the generals talk to. And Murtha is one, in particular. He's known for his closeness to the four-stars. They come and they bleed on him.

And so, for Murtha to suddenly say it's over, as he did three weeks ago or two weeks ago, as I wrote in this article, it drove the White House crazy. They were beyond mad, as somebody said to me, because they know that the generals are talking to him. So here you have a case where we don't have — you know, the generals are terrified pretty much, as they always are. That's just the nature of the game. But they don't speak truth to power. They're not telling the American people exactly what's going on, and they're clearly not telling the White House, because the White House doesn't want to hear.

So Murtha's message is a message, really, from a — you can consider it a message from a lot of generals on active duty today. This is what they think, at least a significant percentage of them, I assure you. This is, I'm not over-dramatizing this. It's a shot across the bow. They don't think it's doable. You can't tell that to this President. He doesn't want to hear it. But you can say it to Murtha... [Emphasis added]

If Hersh is right and Murtha is speaking for the generals, things in Iraq are in even worse shape than we thought. Bush keeps saying that troops levels and tactics are dictated by the generals on the ground. How does that work, exactly, when he refuses to listen to anyone? Hersh again:

[W]hat's happening now is, I think, because [Bush is] so unreachable by common — I think one reason the generals went to Murtha is you can't tell this to the President...I think people [are] scared to death. I think some of the insiders are really scared to death that you have a president that's presiding over — it's — the exit plan for this war is totally dependant on the Iraqi military, which is comical. It's driven by militias...[T]he idea that withdrawal is going to be dependent on the Iraqi police and the military is a fantasy. [Emphasis added]

Things are melting down, and Bush is off in fantasyland. What a nightmare.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:45 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

"Broken, Worn Out"

Iraq

Rep. John Murtha told an audience of his constituents yesterday that the US Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth" in Iraq. AP:

Most U.S. troops will leave Iraq within a year because the Army is "broken, worn out" and "living hand to mouth," Rep. John Murtha told a civic group.

Two weeks ago, Murtha created a storm of comment when he called for U.S. troops to leave Iraq now. The Democratic congressman spoke to a group of community and business leaders in Latrobe on Wednesday, the same day President Bush said troops would be withdrawn when they've achieved victory, not under an artificial deadline set by politicians.

Murtha predicted most troops will be out of Iraq within a year.

"I predict he'll make it look like we're staying the course," Murtha said, referring to Bush. "Staying the course is not a policy."

Murtha, 73, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, expressed pessimism about Iraq's stability and said the Iraqis know who the insurgents are, but don't always share that information with U.S. troops. He said a civil war is likely because of ongoing factionalism among Sunni Arabs, and Kurds and Shiites.

He also said he was wrong to vote to support the war.

"I admit I made a mistake when I voted for war," Murtha said. "I'm looking at the future of the United States military."

Murtha, a decorated Vietnam war veteran, said the Pennsylvania National Guard is "stretched so thin" that it won't be able to send fully equipped units to Iraq next year. Murtha predicted it will cost $50 billion to upgrade military equipment nationwide, but says the federal government is already reducing future purchases to save money. [Emphasis added]

Probably no one in Congress is closer to the military or knows it better than Murtha. He's widely believed to be speaking for military leaders who are not in a position to go public.

Just five years ago, the PNAC neocons (Cheney, Libby, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Bolton, Perle, et al) were talking in terms of the US military dominating the world "indefinitely" into the future. Now, just five years later, the Army's wheels are falling off. Nicely done.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:15 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 30, 2005

Heart Of Darkness

Iraq

This is good.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:52 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 29, 2005

Van Creveld: Just Withdraw

Iraq

Eminent Hebrew University military analyst/historian Martin van Creveld on the unfolding debacle in Iraq:

What had to come, has come. The question is no longer if American forces will be withdrawn, but how soon — and at what cost. In this respect, as in so many others, the obvious parallel to Iraq is Vietnam.

Confronted by a demoralized army on the battlefield and by growing opposition at home, in 1969 the Nixon administration started withdrawing most of its troops in order to facilitate what it called the "Vietnamization" of the country. The rest of America's forces were pulled out after Secretary of State Henry Kissinger negotiated a "peace settlement" with Hanoi. As the troops withdrew, they left most of their equipment to the Army of the Republic of South Vietnam — which just two years later, after the fall of Saigon, lost all of it to the communists.

Clearly this is not a pleasant model to follow, but no other alternative appears in sight. [Emphasis added]

Van Creveld says the US cannot afford to leave its weapons behind this time to arm Iraq's army. Modern weapons are too valuable, and the likelihood that the weapons would wind up in enemy hands is too great:

[W]hereas in the early 1970s equipment was still relatively plentiful, today's armed forces are the products of a technology-driven revolution in military affairs. Whether that revolution has contributed to anything besides America's national debt is open to debate. What is beyond question, though, is that the new weapons are so few and so expensive that even the world's largest and richest power can afford only to field a relative handful of them.

Therefore, simply abandoning equipment or handing it over to the Iraqis, as was done in Vietnam, is simply not an option. And even if it were, the new Iraqi army is by all accounts much weaker, less skilled, less cohesive and less loyal to its government than even the South Vietnamese army was. For all intents and purposes, Washington might just as well hand over its weapons directly to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. [Emphasis added]

We need, he says, to face facts and just leave:

Clearly, then, the thing to do is to forget about face-saving and conduct a classic withdrawal.

Handing over their bases or demolishing them if necessary, American forces will have to fall back on Baghdad. From Baghdad they will have to make their way to the southern port city of Basra, and from there back to Kuwait, where the whole misguided adventure began. [...]

A withdrawal probably will require several months and incur a sizable number of casualties. As the pullout proceeds, Iraq almost certainly will sink into an all-out civil war from which it will take the country a long time to emerge — if, indeed, it can do so at all. All this is inevitable and will take place whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice like it or not. [Emphasis added]

In van Creveld's view, however, some US military presence in the Gulf will continue to be required:

Having been thoroughly devastated by two wars with the United States and a decade of economic sanctions, decades will pass before Iraq can endanger its neighbors again. Yet a complete American withdrawal is not an option; the region, with its vast oil reserves, is simply too important for that. A continued military presence, made up of air, sea and a moderate number of ground forces, will be needed.

First and foremost, such a presence will be needed to counter Iran...A continued American military presence will be needed also, because a divided, chaotic, government-less Iraq is very likely to become a hornets' nest. From it, a hundred mini-Zarqawis will spread all over the Middle East...

Maintaining an American security presence in the region, not to mention withdrawing forces from Iraq, will involve many complicated problems, military as well as political. Such an endeavor, one would hope, will be handled by a team different from — and more competent than — the one presently in charge of the White House and Pentagon.

For misleading the American people, and launching the most foolish war since Emperor Augustus in 9 B.C sent his legions into Germany and lost them, Bush deserves to be impeached and, once he has been removed from office, put on trial along with the rest of the president's men. If convicted, they'll have plenty of time to mull over their sins. [Emphasis added]

According to the Forward, van Creveld is "the only non-American author on the U.S. Army's required reading list for officers". Be that as it may, the US is unlikely to heed his advice. More likely is a replay of Vietnam: a desperate attempt to substitute US air power and Iraqi troops for US ground troops, ending in defeat, with results that are likely to be more disastrous than in Vietnam: in Iraq, there are a whole lot of people who will put their captured weapons to ill use.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Rice thought they knew better than the rest of us. They thought we were only there to be lied to, not listened to. They thought the laws of nature and of humanity didn't apply to them, that they were masters of the universe. Instead, their names are likely to go down in history as synonymous with a witless, arrogant incompetence, an utter lack of scruples, judgement, or grounded humanity, ending in unalloyed disaster.

Custer times a million.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:21 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

November 24, 2005

2100

Iraq

US troop deaths in Iraq have passed another joyless milestone: 2100. No end in sight.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2104.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 07:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 23, 2005

The Spoils Of War

Iraq

It's been a no-brainer from the outset that Iraq's about oil: Iraq's oil and the oil of the Persian Gulf region generally. If Saddam Hussein had been the ruler of a nation far from oil country, we'd scarcely even know his name. The administration wants to control Persian Gulf oil, and oil industry allies of the administration want the profits.

A new report from the Global Policy Forum says that the US and UK are rushing to get the new Iraq government's signature on contracts that will provide big US/UK oil firms with enormous returns on investment and deprive Iraq of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars of future revenue. Said contracts will be immune from future challenge in Iraq's courts. From the Executive Summary:

While the Iraqi people struggle to define their future amid political chaos and violence, the fate of their most valuable economic asset, oil, is being decided behind closed doors.

[A]n oil policy with origins in the US State Department is on course to be adopted in Iraq, soon after the December elections, with no public debate and at enormous potential cost. The policy allocates the majority of Iraq's oilfields — accounting for at least 64% of the country’s oil reserves — for development by multinational oil companies.

Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies. But with the active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long term contracts with foreign oil companies which will be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.

COSTING IRAQ BILLIONS

Economic projections published here for the first time show that the model of oil development that is being proposed will cost Iraq hundreds of billions of dollars in lost revenue, while providing
foreign companies with enormous profits.

Our key findings are:

At an oil price of $40 per barrel, Iraq stands to lose between $74 billion and $194 billion over the lifetime of the proposed contracts, from only the first 12 oilfields to be developed. These estimates, based on conservative assumptions, represent between two and seven times the current Iraqi government budget.

Under the likely terms of the contracts, oil company rates of return from investing in Iraq would range from 42% to 162%, far in
excess of usual industry minimum target of around 12% return on investment.

A CONTRACTUAL RIP-OFF

The debate over oil "privatisation" in Iraq has often been misleading due to the technical nature of the term, which refers to legal ownership of oil reserves. This has allowed governments and
companies to deny that "privatisation" is taking place. Meanwhile, important practical questions, of public versus private control over oil development and revenues, have not been addressed.

The development model being promoted in Iraq, and supported by key figures in the Oil Ministry, is based on contracts known as production sharing agreements (PSAs), which have existed in the oil industry since the late 1960s. Oil experts agree that their purpose is largely political: technically they keep legal ownership of oil reserves in state hands, while practically delivering oil companies the same results as the concession agreements they replaced.

Running to hundreds of pages of complex legal and financial language and generally subject to commercial confidentiality provisions, PSAs are effectively immune from public scrutiny and lock governments into economic terms that cannot be altered for decades.

In Iraq's case, these contracts could be signed while the government is new and weak, the security situation dire, and the country still under military occupation. As such the terms are likely to be highly unfavourable, but could persist for up to 40 years.

Furthermore, PSAs generally exempt foreign oil companies from any new laws that might affect their profits. And the contracts often stipulate that disputes are heard not in the country's own
courts but in international investment tribunals, which make their decisions on commercial grounds and do not consider the national interest or other national laws. Iraq could be surrendering its democracy as soon as it achieves it.

POLICY DELIVERED FROM AMERICA TO IRAQ

Production sharing agreements have been heavily promoted by oil companies and by the US Administration. [...]

Of course, what ultimately happens will depend on the outcome of the elections, on the broader political and security situation and on
negotiations with oil companies. However, the pressure for Iraq to adopt PSAs is substantial. The current government is fast-tracking the process and is already negotiating contracts with oil companies in parallel with the constitutional process, elections and passage of a Petroleum Law. [...]

A RADICAL DEPARTURE

In order to make their case, oil companies and their supporters argue that PSAs are standard practice in the oil industry and that Iraq has no other option to finance oil development. Neither of these assertions is true.

According to International Energy Agency figures, PSAs are only used in respect of about 12% of world oil reserves, in countries where oilfields are small (and often offshore), production costs are
high, and exploration prospects are uncertain. None of these conditions applies to Iraq.

None of the top oil producers in the Middle East uses PSAs. Some governments that have signed them regret doing so. In Russia, where political upheaval was followed by rapid opening up to the private sector in the 1990s, PSAs have cost the state billions of dollars, making it unlikely that any more will be signed. The parallel with Iraq's current transition is obvious. [...]

Iraq has a range of less damaging and expensive options for generating investment in its oil sector. These include: financing oil development through government budgetary expenditure (as is currently
the case), using future oil flows as collateral to borrow money, or using international oil companies through shorter-term, less restrictive and less lucrative contracts than PSAs4.

IN WHOSE INTERESTS?

PSAs represent a radical redesign of Iraq's oil industry, wrenching it from public into private hands. The strategic drivers for this are the US/UK push for "energy security" in a constrained market and the multinational oil companies' need to "book" new reserves to secure future growth.

Despite their disadvantages to the Iraqi economy and democracy, they are being introduced in Iraq without public debate. [Emphasis added]

While the country is weak and defenseless, you install a puppet government and get their signature on unchallengable contracts giving away their country's only source of real wealth. 21st century piracy on a truly gigantic scale. It recalls that scene in The Godfather:

Michael: So the next day, my father went to see him; only this time with Luca Brasi. And within an hour, he signed a release, for a certified check for $1000.

Kay: How'd he do that?

Michael: My father made him an offer he couldn't refuse.

Kay: What was that?

Michael: Luca Brasi held a gun to his head and my father assured him that either his brains, or his signature, would be on the contract.

Except that these guys make the Godfather look like a small-time shoplifter. They're in a whole other league.

Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi is pushing for PSAs, which might just have a little something to do with why the administration loves him so (again).

With this kind of money on the table, don't expect a US withdrawal any time soon. Cosmetic withdrawals of a few thousand troops will be timed, amid great fanfare, to coincide with the 2006 election campaign but don't expect Iraqis to get their country back until the oil is secured. It's just too big of a prize, both strategically and commercially.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:21 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 22, 2005

Bush/Cheney Knew 10 Days After 9/11: No Iraq Ties

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

Within ten days of 9/11, Bush and Cheney both knew that US intelligence had no evidence linking Iraq with either 9/11 or al Qaeda. National Journal (via BuzzFlash):

Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda, according to government records and current and former officials with firsthand knowledge of the matter. [...]

Bush was told during the briefing...that the few credible reports of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda involved attempts by Saddam Hussein to monitor the terrorist group. Saddam viewed Al Qaeda as well as other theocratic radical Islamist organizations as a potential threat to his secular regime. At one point, analysts believed, Saddam considered infiltrating the ranks of Al Qaeda with Iraqi nationals or even Iraqi intelligence operatives to learn more about its inner workings, according to records and sources. [...]

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers, according to government records.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004, according to congressional sources. Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists. [Emphasis added]

It's all been nothing but lies from the very beginning. But then we already knew that.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:17 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Bush Planned To Bomb Al-Jazeera

Iraq  Politics

President Bush isn't known for his deep thinking or emotional maturity, but still. Mirror:

President Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a "Top Secret" No 10 memo reveals.

But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.

A source said: "There's no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it." Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.

The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.

A source said last night: "The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.

"He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem." [...]

[A]nother source declared: "Bush was deadly serious, as was Blair. That much is absolutely clear from the language used by both men."

Yesterday former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle challenged Downing Street to publish the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation. He said: "It's frightening to think that such a powerful man as Bush can propose such cavalier actions." [...]

Bush disclosed his plan to target al-Jazeera, a civilian station with a huge Mid-East following, at a White House face-to-face with Mr Blair on April 16 last year.

At the time, the US was launching an all-out assault on insurgents in the Iraqi town of Fallujah. [...]

Dozens of al-Jazeera staff at the HQ are not, as many believe, Islamic fanatics. Instead, most are respected and highly trained technicians and journalists.

To have wiped them out would have been equivalent to bombing the BBC in London and the most spectacular foreign policy disaster since the Iraq War itself.

The No 10 memo now raises fresh doubts over US claims that previous attacks against al-Jazeera staff were military errors.

In 2001 the station's Kabul office was knocked out by two "smart" bombs. In 2003, al-Jazeera reporter Tareq Ayyoub was killed in a US missile strike on the station's Baghdad centre. [Emphasis added]

Bombing al-Jazeera would have been an act of extreme recklessness, profoundly immoral, dumb beyond belief. The product of an adolescent mind. Not to mention, a war crime. Bush is a dangerous man: immature, amoral, and foolish.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:04 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

A Deafening Silence

Iraq

You'd never know it from watching tv, but Americans favor pulling out of Iraq over the next year by a margin of almost 2 to 1. AFP:

Sixty three percent of those surveyed were in favor of bringing US troops home from Iraq in the next year, up two percent from August, while 35 percent thought they should be kept in large numbers until a democracy is established, down one point from August. [Emphasis added]

It's a position held by an overwhelming majority of Americans, but as Atrios asks, how often do you hear it portrayed as such on CNN?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:01 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Iraq Leaders: Insurgents Have "Legitimate Right" To Resist

Iraq

Iraq's leaders are calling the US to get out of Iraq, and they say the insurgents have a "legitimate right" to resist the occupation. AP:

Reaching out to the Sunni Arab community, Iraqi leaders called for a timetable for the withdrawal of U.S.-led forces and said Iraq's opposition had a "legitimate right" of resistance.

The communique finalized by Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni leaders Monday condemned terrorism but was a clear acknowledgment of the Sunni position that insurgents should not be labeled as terrorists if their operations do not target innocent civilians or institutions designed to provide for the welfare of Iraqi citizens.

The leaders agreed on "calling for the withdrawal of foreign troops according to a timetable, through putting in place an immediate national program to rebuild the armed forces...control the borders and the security situation" and end terror attacks. [...]

On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

"By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready," he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera. [Emphasis added]

Given the extent to which Iraq's leaders were hand-picked by the US, one interpretation is that the US puppet-masters have told the puppets to ask us to leave, thereby providing a fig leaf for withdrawal. But the statement that the insurgents have a "legitimate right" of resistance goes way beyond fig leaf territory. Sounds to me like even the puppets are sick of us.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 21, 2005

Jon Stewart Nails Cheney

Humor & Fun  Iraq  Politics

Go here and click on "Weakened Update" to watch The Daily Show With Jon Stewart nail a variety of targets, Dick "We'll be greeted as liberators" "Last throes of the insurgency" Cheney most of all. Be sure to catch the end.

Puts the rest of the media to shame.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:21 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 20, 2005

Death Squad Central

Iraq

It's Central America all over again. The Independent:

British-trained police operating in Basra have tortured at least two civilians to death with electric drills, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

John Reid, the Secretary of State for Defence, admits that he knows of "alleged deaths in custody" and other "serious prisoner abuse" at al-Jamiyat police station, which was reopened by Britain after the war.

Militia-dominated police, who were recruited by Britain, are believed to have tortured at least two men to death in the station. Their bodies were later found with drill holes to their arms, legs and skulls.

The victims were suspected of collaborating with coalition forces, according to intelligence reports. Despite being pressed "very hard" by Britain, however, the Iraqi authorities in Basra are failing to even investigate incidents of torture and murder by police, ministers admit.

The disclosure drags Britain firmly into the growing scandal of officially condoned killings, torture and disappearances in Iraq. More than 170 starving and tortured prisoners were discovered last week in an Interior Ministry bunker in Baghdad.

American troops who uncovered the secret torture chamber are also said to have discovered mutilated corpses, several bearing drill marks. [...]

Critics claim the situation echoes American collaboration with military regimes in Latin America and south-east Asia during the Cold War, particularly in Vietnam, where US-trained paramilitaries were used to kill opponents of the South Vietnamese government. [Emphasis added]

Billmon puts it in context:

Iraq's Ministry of the Interior has been turned into what the old National Guard used to be in El Salvador, or the Presidential Intelligence Unit in Guatemala, or the National Directorate of Investigation in Honduras, which is to say: death squad central.

And it's more than a bit noteworthy that something like this was predicted — boasted about, really — by anonymous Pentagon sources earlier this year:

The Pentagon is intensively debating an option that dates back to a still-secret strategy in the Reagan administration's battle against the leftist guerrilla insurgency in El Salvador in the early 1980s. Then, faced with a losing war against Salvadoran rebels, the U.S. government funded or supported "nationalist" forces that allegedly included so-called death squads directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and sympathizers....One military source involved in the Pentagon debate...suggests that new offensive operations are needed that would create a fear of aiding the insurgency. "The Sunni population is paying no price for the support it is giving to the terrorists," he said. "From their point of view, it is cost-free. We have to change that equation."

One of Sy Hersh's sources was a little more picturesque about it:

"Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?" the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. "We founded them and we financed them," he said. "The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren't going to tell Congress about it." A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon's commando capabilities, said, "We're going to be riding with the bad boys."

And so now we have Iranian-backed Shi'a death squads hunting their political enemies through the slums of Baghdad under the pretext of fighting the insurgency, while Sunni Baathists (and/or their jihadist allies) blow up Shi'a mosques at prayer time under the pretext of fighting the American occupation.

Meanwhile, back here in the good old U.S. of A (the A is for assholes) the ruling party is reliving Joe McCarthy's glory years, while the leaders of the so-called opposition party try to hide their worthless carcasses behind an ex-Marine congressman who finally saw one too many broken bodies warehoused at Walter Reed and suffered a temporary fit of sanity, causing him to blurt out the ugly truth that the war is hopelessly lost. For which crime he will now be the subject of an ethics investigation by the same people who made Jack Abramoff an honorary member of the House Republican Caucus. [Emphasis added]

If there's anything at all to the law of karma, we are so screwed.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:50 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

The War Is Over

Iraq

The war is over. Somebody just needs to tell Bush. Frank Rich in today's NYT (via ICH):

If anyone needs further proof that we are racing for the exits in Iraq, just follow the bouncing ball that is Rick Santorum. A Republican leader in the Senate and a true-blue (or red) Iraq hawk, he has long slobbered over President Bush, much as Ed McMahon did over Johnny Carson. But when Mr. Bush went to Mr. Santorum's home state of Pennsylvania to give his Veterans Day speech smearing the war's critics as unpatriotic, the senator was M.I.A.

Mr. Santorum preferred to honor a previous engagement more than 100 miles away. There he told reporters for the first time that "maybe some blame" for the war's "less than optimal" progress belonged to the White House. This change of heart had nothing to do with looming revelations of how the new Iraqi "democracy" had instituted Saddam-style torture chambers. Or with the spiraling investigations into the whereabouts of nearly $9 billion in unaccounted-for taxpayers' money from the American occupation authority. Or with the latest spike in casualties. Mr. Santorum was instead contemplating his own incipient political obituary written the day before: a poll showing him 16 points down in his re-election race. No sooner did he stiff Mr. Bush in Pennsylvania than he did so again in Washington, voting with a 79-to-19 majority on a Senate resolution begging for an Iraq exit strategy. He was joined by all but one (Jon Kyl) of the 13 other Republican senators running for re-election next year. They desperately want to be able to tell their constituents that they were against the war after they were for it.

They know the voters have decided the war is over, no matter what symbolic resolutions are passed or defeated in Congress nor how many Republicans try to Swift-boat Representative John Murtha, the marine hero who wants the troops out. A USA Today/CNN/Gallup survey last week found that the percentage (52) of Americans who want to get out of Iraq fast, in 12 months or less, is even larger than the percentage (48) that favored a quick withdrawal from Vietnam when that war's casualty toll neared 54,000 in the apocalyptic year of 1970. The Ohio State political scientist John Mueller, writing in Foreign Affairs, found that "if history is any indication, there is little the Bush administration can do to reverse this decline." He observed that Mr. Bush was trying to channel L. B. J. by making "countless speeches explaining what the effort in Iraq is about, urging patience and asserting that progress is being made. But as was also evident during Woodrow Wilson's campaign to sell the League of Nations to the American public, the efficacy of the bully pulpit is much overrated."

Mr. Bush may disdain timetables for our pullout, but, hello, there already is one, set by the Santorums of his own party: the expiration date for a sizable American presence in Iraq is Election Day 2006. As Mr. Mueller says, the decline in support for the war won't reverse itself. The public knows progress is not being made, no matter how many times it is told that Iraqis will soon stand up so we can stand down.

On the same day the Senate passed the resolution rebuking Mr. Bush on the war, Martha Raddatz of ABC News reported that "only about 700 Iraqi troops" could operate independently of the U.S. military, 27,000 more could take a lead role in combat "only with strong support" from our forces and the rest of the 200,000-odd trainees suffered from a variety of problems, from equipment shortages to an inability "to wake up when told" or follow orders. [...]

In the speech Mr. Santorum skipped on Veterans Day, the president lashed out at his critics for trying "to rewrite the history" of how the war began. Then he rewrote the history of the war, both then and now. He boasted of America's "broad and coordinated homeland defense" even as the members of the bipartisan 9/11 commission were preparing to chastise the administration's inadequate efforts to prevent actual nuclear W.M.D.'s, as opposed to Saddam's fictional ones, from finding their way to terrorists. Mr. Bush preened about how "we're standing with dissidents and exiles against oppressive regimes" even as we were hearing new reports of how we outsource detainees to such regimes to be tortured.

And once again he bragged about the growing readiness of Iraqi troops, citing "nearly 90 Iraqi army battalions fighting the terrorists alongside our forces." But as James Fallows confirms in his exhaustive report on "Why Iraq Has No Army" in the current issue of The Atlantic Monthly, America would have to commit to remaining in Iraq for many years to "bring an Iraqi army to maturity." If we're not going to do that, Mr. Fallows concludes, America's only alternative is to "face the stark fact that it has no orderly way out of Iraq, and prepare accordingly."

THAT'S the alternative that has already been chosen, brought on not just by the public's irreversible rejection of the war, but also by the depleted state of our own broken military forces; they are falling short of recruitment goals across the board by as much as two-thirds, the Government Accountability Office reported last week. [Emphasis added]

Nobody stops to notice that there are people who've been right on Iraq from the outset, as they've been right on any number of other things. Maybe those people deserve to be listened to a bit more often? I've made this point before:

It's a constant in our national political culture that people on the Left who are right never get the credit for being right. There are people, for example, who've said from the outset that the war in Iraq would be a disaster. Millions of them took to the streets to protest the war before it even began. But no one's ever going to turn to them and say, you were right, next time we need to listen to you. It didn't happen with Vietnam, and it won't happen now. The war is only one example among many. But people prefer to stick with their preconceptions and their stereotypes about what a leader's supposed to look like. So, Colin Powell's a sober, responsible statesman, and someone like Dennis Kucinich, say, is a flake — even if Powell is always wrong and Kucinich is always right.

Fool me once, shame on you...

Posted by Jonathan at 03:20 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 17, 2005

Turning Point?

Iraq  Politics

Pennsylvania Congressman John Murtha is a Democrat, but he's no peacenik. Former Marine drill instructor and much-decorated Vietnam vet, Murtha rose through the ranks to retire as a colonel after 37 years of service.

Today Murtha introduced a resolution in Congress to "terminate" the US presence in Iraq. Murtha's military background means his stance is going to get people's attention; it may even come to be viewed as an important turning point in the debate on the war. From the resolution:

Section 1. The deployment of United States forces in Iraq, by direction of Congress, is hereby terminated and the forces involved are to be redeployed at the earliest practicable date.

Section 2. A quick-reaction U.S. force and an over-the-horizon presence of U.S Marines shall be deployed in the region.

Section 3. The United States of America shall pursue security and stability in Iraq through diplomacy. [Emphasis added]

Murtha's statement was characteristically blunt and to the point. Excerpts:

The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion. The American public is way ahead of us. The United States and coalition troops have done all they can in Iraq, but it is time for a change in direction. Our military is suffering. The future of our country is at risk. We cannot continue on the present course. It is evident that continued military action is not in the best interests of the United States of America, the Iraqi people or the Persian Gulf Region. [...]

The main reason for going to war has been discredited. [...]

The threat posed by terrorism is real, but we have other threats that cannot be ignored. We must be prepared to face all threats. The future of our military is at risk. Our military and their families are stretched thin. Many say that the Army is broken. Some of our troops are on their third deployment. Recruitment is down, even as our military has lowered its standards. [...]

George Washington said, "To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace." We must rebuild out Army. Our deficit is growing out of control. The Director of the Congressional Budget Office recently admitted to being "terrified" about the budget deficit in the coming decades. This is the first prolonged war we have fought with three years of tax cuts, without full mobilization of American industry and without a draft. The burden of this war has not been shared equally; the military and their families are shouldering this burden.

Our military has been fighting a war in Iraq for over two and a half years. Our military has accomplished its mission and done its duty. Our military captured Saddam Hussein, and captured or killed his closest associates. But the war continues to intensify. Deaths and injuries are growing, with over 2,079 confirmed American deaths. Over 15,500 have been seriously injured and it is estimated that over 50,000 will suffer from battle fatigue. There have been reports of at least 30,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. [...]

[I]nsurgent incidents have increased from about 150 per week to over 700 in the last year. Instead of attacks going down over time and with the addition of more troops, attacks have grown dramatically. Since the revelations at Abu Ghraib, American causalities have doubled. An annual State Department report in 2004 indicated a sharp increase in global terrorism.

I said over a year ago, and now the military and the Administration agrees, Iraq can not be won "militarily." I said two years ago, the key to progress in Iraq is to Iraqitize, Internationalize and Energize. I believe the same today. But I have concluded that the presence of U.S. troops in Iraq is impeding this progress.

Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency. They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. U.S. troops are the common enemy of the Sunnis, Saddamists and foreign jihadists. I believe with a U.S. troop redeployment, the Iraq security forces will be incentivized to take control. A poll recently conducted shows that over 80% of Iraqis are strongly opposed to the presence of coalition troops, about 45% of the Iraqi population believe attacks against American troops are justified. I believe we need to turn Iraq over to the Iraqis. I believe before the Iraqi elections, scheduled for mid December, the Iraqi people and the emerging government must be put on notice that the United States will immediately redeploy. All of Iraq must know that Iraq is free. Free from United Stated occupation. I believe this will send a signal to the Sunnis to join the political process for the good of a "free" Iraq. [...]

Our military has done everything that has been asked of them, the U.S. can not accomplish anything further in Iraq militarily. It is time to bring them home. [Emphasis added]

Murtha's taken a bold step, one that will help move the debate forward. Still, it's incredibly frustrating, horrifying — and flat out weird, when you step back and look at it — how the whole arc of the war has been entirely predictable from the outset: defeating an army in the field is one thing, occupying a hostile population is something else again. All one has to do is read a little history. And yet we have insisted on dragging ourselves and the people of Iraq through the whole horrific disaster, step by bloody step, like sleepwalkers.

The Greek tragedians had it right. Hubris leads people to go down paths that inevitably, inexorably end in tragedy. It's like a magnet that draws us to our doom, and the tragedy doesn't end until the disaster is complete. Unfortunately, that suggests that this whole adventure may be far from over: Murtha is right, but the White House won't listen. They may even try to widen the war, gambling that a new 9/11 and a new war will rally public support.

Hubris. Ending in disaster.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:27 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

What Foreign Fighters?

Iraq

President Bush says we're in Iraq to fight "the terrorists" there so we won't have to fight them here; Iraq is part of the "war on terror". Implicit in this characterization is a claim that the insurgents include significant numbers of foreign fighters with ties to Al Qaeda or other terrorist groups. But if the insurgents are just Iraqis fighting to rid their homeland of an occupying army, it's an entirely different story. So which is it? Today's WaPo:

Before 8,500 U.S. and Iraqi soldiers methodically swept through Tall Afar two months ago in the year's largest counterinsurgency offensive, commanders described the northern city as a logistics hub for fighters, including foreigners entering the country from Syria, 65 miles to the west.

"They come across the border and use Tall Afar as a base to launch attacks across northern Iraq," Col. H.R. McMaster, commander of the Army's 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, which led the assault, said in a briefing the day before it began.

When the air and ground operation wound down in mid-September, nearly 200 insurgents had been killed and close to 1,000 detained, the military said at the time. But interrogations and other analyses carried out in recent weeks showed that none of those captured was from outside Iraq. According to McMaster's staff, the 3rd Armored Cavalry last detained a foreign fighter in June. [Emphasis added]

There are a handful of foreign fighters in Iraq, but the insurgency is almost entirely an Iraqi affair. I.e., the insurgency truly is an insurgency, a home-grown resistance to foreign occupation. Bad news for the prospects of a US military "success". And it puts the lie to the supposed connection between Iraq and the "war on terror".

Posted by Jonathan at 03:54 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 08, 2005

Bob Graham: Cheney Was A "Conspirator"

Iraq  Politics

Miami Herald (via BuzzFlash):

Former Sen. Bob Graham of Florida said Friday that he thinks Vice President Dick Cheney was a "conspirator" in a Bush administration campaign to discredit former ambassador Joe Wilson and expose Wilson's wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame.

"This was one of the most reprehensible and damaging breaches of American security in modern times," said Graham, who was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee in the fall of 2002, when the administration made its case for war against Iraq.

Graham called on Cheney to "defend and explain himself" in the wake of the indictment of Cheney's top aide, Lewis Libby, on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the CIA leak case. [...]

"It's impossible to believe that Scooter Libby would have done this on his own, but rather this was part of a larger conspiracy to attempt to discredit Joseph Wilson," Graham said. [...]

Asked directly if White House officials lied to the public about Iraq intelligence, Graham said "yes." [Emphasis added]

Clinton was impeached for what, again?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:47 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

November 07, 2005

2055

Iraq

Less than two weeks after passing the 2000 mark, US troop deaths in Iraq have already surpassed 2050.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2055.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:46 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 04, 2005

Dicked

Afghanistan  Iraq  Politics

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, Colin Powell's chief of staff when Powell was Secretary of State, recently caused a flap by saying that US foreign policy had been hijacked by a "cabal" centered on Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Yesterday, Wilkerson went further, saying Cheney's office was the source of directives that led to torture abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq, and that Cheney ran his own shadow NSC that spied on the official NSC. IHT:

Vice President Dick Cheney's office was responsible for directives that led to U.S. soldiers' abusing prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan, a former top State Department official said Thursday.

Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, former chief of staff to Colin Powell, then the secretary of state, told National Public Radio he had traced a trail of memos and directives authorizing questionable detention practices up through Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's office directly to Cheney's staff.

"The secretary of defense under cover of the vice president's office," Wilkerson said, "regardless of the president having put out this memo" - "they began to authorize procedures within the armed forces that led to what we've seen."

He said the directives contradicted a 2002 order by President George W. Bush for the U.S. military to abide by the Geneva conventions against torture.

"There was a visible audit trail from the vice president's office through the secretary of defense, down to the commanders in the field," authorizing practices that led to the abuse of detainees, Wilkerson said.

The directives were "in carefully couched terms," Wilkerson conceded, but said they had the effect of loosening the reins on U.S. troops, leading to many cases of prisoner abuse, including at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, that were contrary to the Geneva Conventions.

"If you are a military man, you know that you just don't do these sorts of things," Wilkerson said, because troops will take advantage, or feel so pressured to obtain information that "they have to do what they have to do to get it."

He said that Powell had assigned him to investigate the matter after reports emerged in the media about U.S. troops abusing detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan. Both men had formerly served in the U.S. military [unlike Cheney].

Wilkerson also called David Addington, the vice president's lawyer, "a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions."

On Monday, Cheney promoted Addington to his chief of staff to replace I. Lewis Libby, who has been indicted over the unmasking of a CIA agent.

Wilkerson also told National Public Radio that Cheney's office ran an "alternate national security staff" that spied on and undermined the president's formal National Security Council.

He said National Security Council staff stopped sending e-mails when they found out Cheney's staff members were reading their messages.

He said he believed that Cheney's staff prevented Bush from seeing a National Security Council memo arguing strongly that the United States needed many more troops for the March 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq. [Emphasis added]

Billmon likes to refer to the White House as "the Cheney Administration". Looks like that's a whole lot more than just a figure of speech. And now Cheney has replaced Scooter Libby with a man who thinks the Geneva Conventions don't apply to President Bush. What is happening to this country?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:28 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 01, 2005

October Deadliest Month For Roadside Bombs

Iraq

It's not getting better. Not only was October the fourth deadliest month of the war for US troops overall, it saw more US troops killed by roadside bombs than in any other month of the war. WaPo:

The leading killer of U.S. troops during October was roadside bombs, known in military parlance as improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. At least 55 U.S. troops were killed by the weapons in October, accounting for about 72 percent of all U.S. fatalities by hostile action during the month.

It was the highest monthly total for roadside bomb deaths since the start of the war; the next highest were 37 in September and 40 in August, according to Iraq Index, a database maintained by the Brookings Institution. The figures underscore the increasing sophistication of IEDs and the difficulty U.S. soldiers are having in detecting them. [Emphasis added]

The insurgents are learning. Whatever they've learned, they will continue to apply going forward, which suggests that it is only going to get worse.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:07 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October: Fourth Bloodiest Month Of War For US

Iraq

October was the fourth bloodiest month for US troops of the entire war, with 94 deaths.

It was only a week ago that US troop deaths passed the 2000 mark. Today, the total is already 2027.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 11:12 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 25, 2005

2000	Activism  Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 2000.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Events marking the 2000th US casualty will be taking place all over the country tomorrow. Find one near you and take part.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 23, 2005

2K Why?

Activism  Iraq

Reported deaths of US troops in Iraq are about to pass the 2000 mark (it's 1996 at the moment). Various actions are being planned to take place around the country the day following the announcement of the 2000th casualty.

One of my favorites: FreewayBlogger has enlisted the help of hundreds of people who will post homemade "2K Why?" banners on freeway overpasses around the country. Go here for info.

Lots of other events are in the works. The American Friends Service Committee has organized about 300 events around the country already. Go here for info.

No doubt, many other groups will have events of their own. Find something that works for you. This will be an important opportunity for us to make a dent in popular awareness.

People don't hear much about American casualties anymore, but the current month so far is running as the second most deadly month for Americans in a year and a half.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

82% Of Iraqis "Strongly Opposed" To Coalition Occupation

Iraq

This is absolutely stunning.

The Sunday Telegraph today reports on a secret poll of Iraqis commissioned by the British military. Among the findings: fewer than one Iraqi in a hundred believes "coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security"; more than four Iraqis in five are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops; between 45% and 65% actually support killing coalition troops.

Watch what happens with this information. It will either go completely unreported in the US media, or commentators will minimize its importance, the question of US/UK occupation of Iraq being too important to leave to mere Iraqis. It may be their country, but it's our world. Orwell's got nothing on us. Excerpt:

Millions of Iraqis believe that suicide attacks against British troops are justified, a secret military poll commissioned by senior officers has revealed.

The poll, undertaken for the Ministry of Defence and seen by The Sunday Telegraph, shows that up to 65 per cent of Iraqi citizens support attacks and fewer than one per cent think Allied military involvement is helping to improve security in their country. [...]

The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified — rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The opinion poll, carried out in August, also debunks claims by both the US and British governments that the general well-being of the average Iraqi is improving in post-Saddam Iraq. [...]

...71 per cent of people rarely get safe clean water, 47 per cent never have enough electricity, 70 per cent say their sewerage system rarely works and 40 per cent of southern Iraqis are unemployed. [My emphasis]

This poll is particularly important because it is the first one in which neither questioners nor respondents believed the results would be made available to coalition forces (which would have had an inevitable chilling effect). It is, therefore, far more likely than earlier polls to measure what Iraqis really believe.

The US is supposedly determined to instill democracy, blah blah blah. Wouldn't that imply a certain willingness to actually listen to the will of the Iraqi people, 82% of whom are "strongly opposed" to our continued presence?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 17, 2005

"An Enormous Fiasco"

Iraq

The general impression one gets from adminstration sources and the mainstream media is that Iraq's constitutional referendum was a major step forward and a victory for democracy. Today's WaPo puts it in a different light:

A defeat of the referendum would have been disastrous for the administration, and U.S. officials worked strenuously in recent weeks to avert that possibility. Some officials pointed to the relatively low level of violence — achieved during a three-day lockdown of the country — as an especially positive sign.

Even so, the constitution appears to have been soundly rejected in two Sunni provinces, indicating deep opposition to the document in the areas most crucial to ending the insurgency and binding Iraq's political wounds.

"This thing is an enormous fiasco," said Juan Cole, a University of Michigan historian and a specialist on Shiite Islam. He said having such a solid bloc in opposition to the constitution "really undermines its legitimacy, and this result guarantees the guerrilla war will go on." [...]

"The fundamental problem is this is not a consensus constitution, and one part of the country has massively rejected it," said Larry Diamond, senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and a former adviser to the U.S.-led Iraqi provisional government. "This was not a joyful vote. It was a pragmatic vote to continue the process." [...]

But Cole said the Bush administration increasingly has little influence over the political turmoil in Iraq. "The whole thing is out of their hands," he said. "The Bush administration is pretty helpless in Iraq." [My emphasis]

As a long-time opponent of the war, Cole might be expected to say something along these lines. Diamond, however, says essentially the same thing, and he represents the very conservative Hoover Institution. The January elections, purple fingers and all, did nothing to slow the insurgency. If Cole and Diamond are right, this one won't either.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:39 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Bush-Cheney, Not Rove-Libby

Iraq  Politics

NYT's Frank Rich puts the Rove-Libby case in perspective. What's at stake is a great deal more than a dirty trick against Valerie Plame Wilson. It's the White House's secret program to subvert democracy by lying the country into war. Excerpt:

[W]hat matters most in this case is not whether Mr. Rove and Lewis Libby engaged in a petty conspiracy to seek revenge on a whistle-blower, Joseph Wilson, by unmasking his wife, Valerie, a covert C.I.A. officer. What makes Patrick Fitzgerald's investigation compelling, whatever its outcome, is its illumination of a conspiracy that was not at all petty: the one that took us on false premises into a reckless and wasteful war in Iraq. That conspiracy was instigated by Mr. Rove's boss, George W. Bush, and Mr. Libby's boss, Dick Cheney.

Mr. Wilson and his wife were trashed to protect that larger plot. Because the personnel in both stories overlap, the bits and pieces we've learned about the leak inquiry over the past two years have gradually helped fill in the über-narrative about the war. Last week was no exception. Deep in a Wall Street Journal account of Judy Miller's grand jury appearance was this crucial sentence: "Lawyers familiar with the investigation believe that at least part of the outcome likely hangs on the inner workings of what has been dubbed the White House Iraq Group."

Very little has been written about the White House Iraq Group, or WHIG. Its inception in August 2002, seven months before the invasion of Iraq, was never announced. Only much later would a newspaper article or two mention it in passing, reporting that it had been set up by Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff. Its eight members included Mr. Rove, Mr. Libby, Condoleezza Rice and the spinmeisters Karen Hughes and Mary Matalin. Its mission: to market a war in Iraq.

Of course, the official Bush history would have us believe that in August 2002 no decision had yet been made on that war. [...]

On the Sunday talk shows of Sept. 8, Ms. Rice warned that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," and Mr. Cheney, who had already started the nuclear doomsday drumbeat in three August speeches, described Saddam as "actively and aggressively seeking to acquire nuclear weapons." The vice president cited as evidence a front-page article, later debunked, about supposedly nefarious aluminum tubes co-written by Judy Miller in that morning's Times. The national security journalist James Bamford, in "A Pretext for War," writes that the article was all too perfectly timed to facilitate "exactly the sort of propaganda coup that the White House Iraq Group had been set up to stage-manage."

The administration's doomsday imagery was ratcheted up from that day on. As Barton Gellman and Walter Pincus of The Washington Post would determine in the first account of WHIG a full year later, the administration's "escalation of nuclear rhetoric" could be traced to the group's formation. Along with mushroom clouds, uranium was another favored image, the Post report noted, "because anyone could see its connection to an atomic bomb." It appeared in a Bush radio address the weekend after the Rice-Cheney Sunday show blitz and would reach its apotheosis with the infamously fictional 16 words about "uranium from Africa" in Mr. Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address on the eve of war.

Throughout those crucial seven months between the creation of WHIG and the start of the American invasion of Iraq, there were indications that evidence of a Saddam nuclear program was fraudulent or nonexistent. Joseph Wilson's C.I.A. mission to Niger, in which he failed to find any evidence to back up uranium claims, took place nearly a year before the president's 16 words....When, months later, a national security official, Stephen Hadley, took "responsibility" for allowing the president to address the nation about mythical uranium, no one knew that Mr. Hadley, too, had been a member of WHIG. [...]

Members of WHIG had a compelling motive to shut [Joseph Wilson] down. In contrast to other skeptics, like Mohamed ElBaradei of the International Atomic Energy Agency (this year's Nobel Peace Prize winner), Mr. Wilson was an American diplomat; he had reported his findings in Niger to our own government. He was a dagger aimed at the heart of WHIG and its disinformation campaign. Exactly who tried to silence him and how is what Mr. Fitzgerald presumably will tell us. [...]

It is surely a joke of history that even as the White House sells this weekend's constitutional referendum as yet another "victory" for democracy in Iraq, we still don't know the whole story of how our own democracy was hijacked on the way to war. [My emphasis]

If laws were broken, as seems likely, Fitzgerald has an opportunity to demonstrate that the American system of checks and balances still counts for something. The legal system is the only check left, the Congress and the media having long since lost their nerve.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:11 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 16, 2005

War Of Choice

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

Today on Meet the Press, Condoleezza Rice confirmed what we've known all along: the attack on Iraq was a war of choice — not the war of last resort the administration claimed it to be — and it's just the beginning of a massive project of reshaping the Middle East. As if the Middle East is ours to reshape. Excerpt:

[T]he fact of the matter is that when we were attacked on September 11, we had a choice to make. We could decide that the proximate cause was al-Qaeda and the people who flew those planes into buildings and, therefore, we would go after al-Qaeda and perhaps after the Taliban and then our work would be done and we would try to defend ourselves.

Or we could take a bolder approach, which was to say that we had to go after the root causes of the kind of terrorism that was produced there, and that meant a different kind of Middle East. And there is no one who could have imagined a different kind of Middle East with Saddam Hussein still in power. [My emphasis]

Which raises all sorts of questions that Tim Russert, naturally, failed to ask. For one, an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation, not for purposes of self-defense but simply because the attacker has decided they'd like to changes things and remove a head of state, is a gross violation of international law. For another, in our democracy the president is not an emperor or king, entitled to undertake a war for whatever unspoken reasons he/she chooses. What Rice admitted to is a complete disdain for constitutional limits on executive power. We've gone so far down the road of an imperial presidency that the implications of Rice's statements probably won't even register with most Americans.

Update: Video at Crooks and Liars.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 12, 2005

Ipsos Poll: Impeach Bush If He Lied About Reasons For War

Iraq  Politics

A new Ipsos poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org shows astonishingly high levels of support for impeaching President Bush if [sic] he lied about the reasons for war. Excerpt:

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

44% disagreed, and 6% said they didn't know or declined to answer. The poll has a +/- 3.1% margin of error.

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39% strongly agreed, while 30% strongly disagreed.

"The results of this poll are truly astonishing," said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. "Bush's record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush's policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story — that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House." [My emphasis]

Reality and the supposedly liberal media's version of reality have long since parted company. Bush continues, for the most part, to be represented as a well-liked, well-respected leader. Meanwhile, his approval ratings are in the 30s and half the country thinks his lies are an impeachable offense. Imagine where he'd be if the media actually reported the truth.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:42 PM | Comments (11) | Link to this  

October 09, 2005

Analysts: Democracy May Only Increase Iraq Violence

Iraq

The Los Angeles Times reports that a growing number of analysts are concluding that, contrary to Bush administration claims, Iraqi democracy is likely to only increase the level of violence. Excerpt:

Senior U.S. officials have begun to question a key presumption of American strategy in Iraq: that establishing democracy there can erode and ultimately eradicate the insurgency gripping the country.

The expectation that political progress would bring stability has been fundamental to the Bush administration's approach to rebuilding Iraq, as well as a central theme of White House rhetoric to convince the American public that its policy in Iraq remains on course.

But within the last two months, U.S. analysts with access to classified intelligence have started to challenge this precept, noting a "significant and disturbing disconnect" between apparent advances on the political front and efforts to reduce insurgent attacks.

Now, with Saturday's constitutional referendum appearing more likely to divide than unify the country, some within the administration have concluded that the quest for democracy in Iraq, at least in its current form, could actually strengthen the insurgency.

The commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, Army Gen. George W. Casey, has acknowledged that such a scenario is possible, while officials elsewhere in the administration, all of whom declined to be identified because of the sensitivity of the subject, say they share similar concerns about the referendum.

Iraq'S Sunni Muslim Arabs, who are believed to form the core of the insurgency, are bitterly opposed to a constitution drafted mainly by the country's majority Shiite Muslims and ethnic Kurds. Yet from all indications, the Sunnis will fail to muster enough votes to defeat it.

"It could make people on the fence a little more angry or [make them] come off the fence," said a senior U.S. official who requested anonymity.

A growing number of experts outside the administration and in Iraq agree with such assessments.

"If the constitution passes in a non-amicable way, the violence will increase," said Ali Dabagh, a member of Iraq's transitional National Assembly who is believed to be close to Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari. [My emphasis]

In June, Cheney told us the insurgency was in its "last throes". Guess not.

Meanwhile, the weird pronouncements continue unabated. Go read this post from Billmon.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

1950

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 1954.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:38 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 08, 2005

Friendly Fire

9/11, "War On Terror"  Afghanistan  Iraq  Politics

Football star Pat Tillman quit the NFL to enlist in the elite Army Rangers after 9/11, served in the Iraq invasion, and was ultimately killed fighting in Afghanistan. The Army said he died a hero's death, awarding him a Silver Star, Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion. In fact, he was killed by friendly fire — and the Army knew it at the time — and yet the medal citations included "a detailed account of the alleged battle (which the Army knew had never taken place)."

Tillman's death came when the Bush administration needed a hero: the Abu Ghraib torture scandal was about to break. Tillman's funeral was nationally televised, and the Pentagon PR machine built him up as the ultimate American hero, a man who walked away from the pinnacle of professional sports to fight and heroically die in the War on Terror. Ann Coulter, mimicking Nazi rhetoric as only she can do, gushed that Tillman was "an American original — virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be."

A recent San Francisco Chronicle story, however, reveals that in life Tillman was a much more complicated man:

Interviews...show a side of Pat Tillman not widely known — a fiercely independent thinker who enlisted, fought and died in service to his country yet was critical of President Bush and opposed the war in Iraq, where he served a tour of duty. He was an avid reader whose interests ranged from history books on World War II and Winston Churchill to works of leftist Noam Chomsky, a favorite author. [...]

...Tillman’s unique character...was more complex than the public image of a gung-ho patriotic warrior. He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman [Pat's mother] said a friend of Pat's even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, "Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war."

[Spc. Russell] Baer, who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, told one anecdote that took place during the March 2003 invasion as the Rangers moved up through southern Iraq.

"I can see it like a movie screen," Baer said. "We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, [Pat's brother] Kevin and Pat, we weren't in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, 'You know, this war is so f**king illegal.' And we all said, 'Yeah.' That's who he was. He totally was against Bush."

Another soldier in the platoon, who asked not to be identified, said Pat urged him to vote for Bush's Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry. [My emphasis]

At least three investigations have purportedly looked at Tillman's death, but the results are full of contradictions, omissions, and constantly changing testimony. See the SFC article for details. One excerpt:

One soldier dismissed by the Rangers for his actions in the incident submitted a statement in the third investigation that suggests the probe was incomplete: "The investigation does not truly set to rest the events of the evening of 22 April 2004. There is critical information not included or misinterpreted in it that could shed some light on who is really at fault for this," he wrote.

Noam Chomsky confirms that he was to meet with Tillman upon Tillman's return. Imagine the PR disaster for the White House and the Pentagon if their hero had returned and publicly stood with Chomsky in outspoken criticism of Bush and Bush's war in Iraq.

All we know for sure is that Tillman was killed by "friendly fire", but as The Chronicle notes:

...[T]he medical examiner's report said Tillman was killed by three bullets closely spaced in his forehead...

Whatever the true facts of his death may have been beyond that, this much is clear: Tillman wasn't the White House's hero or the Pentagon's hero. As Dave Zirin writes in The Nation, Pat Tillman was, if anything, our hero. The real Pat Tillman, however, was erased, transformed into a cartoon image that is the complete opposite of the real man.

The very definition of Orwellian.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:42 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

September 30, 2005

The Opposite Of Progress

Iraq

From today's WSJ, via Billmon:

In a joint appearance on Capitol Hill, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and three senior generals acknowledged significant political and military obstacles and emphasized that it might take as long as nine years before Iraq's insurgency is defeated. The commanders said the number of Iraqi army battalions capable of operating without U.S. help had decreased to one from three over the past year. They declined to specificially explain the decrease but said many Iraqi units had suffered from a lack of stability and managerial expertise within Iraq's Ministry of Defense as successive Iraqi government shuffled the ranks of both the ministry and the armed forces. At the same time, the commanders said, the country's police and army units have become riddled with insurgent sympathizers. [My emphasis]

The number of capable Iraq batallions has gone down, from three to only one. Doesn't exactly square with all the optimistic pronouncements we've heard from the administration in the past, does it? When will people get it through their heads that these people are shameless liars?

Meanwhile, the wingnuts like to claim that things are going much better in Iraq than we know, that the problem is that the so-called liberal media won't report the good news. Idiots.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:29 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Saudi Foreign Minister: Iraq Disintegrating, Regional War Looms

Iraq

While Americans have been preoccupied with hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the situation in Iraq has continued to worsen. Last week, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister took the somewhat unusual step of publicly announcing that he has been warning the Bush administration that Iraq is disintegrating, and that its disintegration threatens the entire region. NYT:

Saudi Arabia's foreign minister said Thursday that he had been warning the Bush administration in recent days that Iraq is hurtling toward disintegration, a development that he said could drag the region into war.

"There is no dynamic now pulling the nation together," Prince Saud al-Faisal said in a meeting with reporters at the Saudi Embassy. "All the dynamics are pulling the country apart."

He said he was so concerned that he was carrying this message "to everyone who will listen" in the Bush administration.

Saud's statements, some of the most pessimistic public comments on Iraq by a Middle East leader in recent months, were in stark contrast to the generally upbeat assessments that the White House and the Pentagon have been offering. [...]

Saud, in Washington for meetings with administration officials, blamed several U.S. decisions for what he sees as a slide toward disintegration, though he did not refer to the Bush administration directly. Primary among them was designating "every Sunni as a Baathist criminal," he said. [...]

Saud, who said he met with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice last week, said American officials generally responded to his warnings by telling him that the United States successfully carried off the Iraqi elections, and "they say the same things about the constitution" and the broader situation in Iraq now. [...]

Saud argued: "But what I am trying to do is say that unless something is done to bring Iraqis together, elections alone won't do it. A constitution alone won't do it."

Saud, a son of the late King Faisal who has been foreign minister for 30 years, said he sits on a council of Iraq's neighboring countries — Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia — "and the main worry of all the neighbors" is that the potential disintegration of Iraq into Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish states would "bring other countries in the region into the conflict." [My emphasis]

There are people who think the disintegration of Iraq into three weak statelets (Kurd, Sunni, Shiite) has been an unspoken goal among administration neocons from the outset. Certainly, everything they've done has contributed to that outcome, so much so that one is tempted to think they must be doing it on purpose.

Personally, I think that's giving them way too much credit. No doubt there are various elements operating at cross-purposes in Iraq — agents of Israel, among them — some of whom would love to see Iraq's disintegration. But the administration as a whole is so universally incompetent that there seems to be no basis for believing that in this one thing they're suddenly geniuses who've engineered exactly the outcome they desire.

If Saud is right and a regional war ensues, we may end up paying a very high price for the administration's incompetence before this is over. Given the dependence of the world's industrial powers on Middle Eastern oil, regional war would generate hair-trigger instability. Events could easily spin out of control. Think 1914.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:24 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 20, 2005

How Are We Doing?

Iraq

Paul Craig Roberts, via ICH:

The "cakewalk war" is now two and one-half years old. US casualties (dead and wounded) number 20,000. As 20,000 is the number of Iraqi insurgents according to US military commanders, each insurgent is responsible for one US casualty.

US troops in Iraq number about 150,000. Obviously, US troops have not inflicted 150,000 casualties on the Iraqi insurgents. US troops have perhaps inflicted 150,000 casualties on the Iraqi civilian population, primarily women and children who are the "collateral damage" of the "righteous" and "virtuous" US invasion that is spreading civilian deaths all over Mesopotamia in the name of democracy.

What could the US have possibly done to give America a worse name than to invade Iraq and murder its citizens?

According to the September 1 Manufacturing & Technology News, the Government Accounting Office has reported that over the course of the cakewalk war, the US military’s use of small caliber ammunition has risen to 1.8 billion rounds. Think about that number. If there are 20,000 insurgents, it means US troops have fired 90,000 rounds at each insurgent.

Very few have been hit. We don’t know how many. To avoid the analogy with Vietnam, until last week the US military studiously avoided body counts. If 2,000 insurgents have been killed, each death required 900,000 rounds of ammunition.

The combination of US government owned ammo plants and those of US commercial producers together cannot make bullets as fast as US troops are firing them. The Bush administration has had to turn to foreign producers such as Israel Military Industries. Think about that. Hollowed out US industry cannot produce enough ammunition to defeat a 20,000 man insurgency. [My emphasis]

Worst. Administration. Ever.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:51 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 19, 2005

When Gangsters Rule II

Iraq

I've ended a number of recent posts by saying: this is how it works when gangsters rule. That's not just a figure of speech. Consider this report from Patrick Cockburn in The Independent:

One billion dollars has been plundered from Iraq's defence ministry in one of the largest thefts in history. [...]

The money, intended to train and equip an Iraqi army capable of bringing security to a country shattered by the US-led invasion and prolonged rebellion, was instead siphoned abroad in cash and has disappeared.

"It is possibly one of the largest thefts in history," Ali Allawi, Iraq's Finance Minister, told The Independent.

"Huge amounts of money have disappeared. In return we got nothing but scraps of metal."

The carefully planned theft has so weakened the army that it cannot hold Baghdad against insurgent attack without American military support, Iraqi officials say, making it difficult for the US to withdraw its 135,000-strong army from Iraq, as Washington says it wishes to do.

Most of the money was supposedly spent buying arms from Poland and Pakistan. The contracts were peculiar in four ways. According to Mr Allawi, they were awarded without bidding, and were signed with a Baghdad-based company, and not directly with the foreign supplier. The money was paid up front, and, surprisingly for Iraq, it was paid at great speed out of the ministry's account with the Central Bank. Military equipment purchased in Poland included 28-year-old Soviet-made helicopters. The manufacturers said they should have been scrapped after 25 years of service. Armoured cars purchased by Iraq turned out to be so poorly made that even a bullet from an elderly AK-47 machine-gun could penetrate their armour. A shipment of the latest MP5 American machine-guns, at a cost of $3,500 (£1,900) each, consisted in reality of Egyptian copies worth only $200 a gun. Other armoured cars leaked so much oil that they had to be abandoned. A deal was struck to buy 7.62mm machine-gun bullets for 16 cents each, although they should have cost between 4 and 6 cents. [...]

The Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit says in a report to the Iraqi government that US-appointed Iraqi officials in the defence ministry allegedly presided over these dubious transactions.

Senior Iraqi officials now say they cannot understand how, if this is so, the disappearance of almost all the military procurement budget could have passed unnoticed by the US military in Baghdad and civilian advisers working in the defence ministry.

Government officials in Baghdad even suggest that the skill with which the robbery was organised suggests that the Iraqis involved were only front men, and "rogue elements" within the US military or intelligence services may have played a decisive role behind the scenes.

Given that building up an Iraqi army to replace American and British troops is a priority for Washington and London, the failure to notice that so much money was being siphoned off at the very least argues a high degree of negligence on the part of US officials and officers in Baghdad. [...]

"If you compare the amount that was allegedly stolen of about $1bn compared with the budget of the ministry of defence, it is nearly 100 per cent of the ministry's [procurement] budget that has gone Awol," said Mr Allawi.

The money missing from all ministries under the interim Iraqi government appointed by the US in June 2004 may turn out to be close to $2bn. Of a military procurement budget of $1.3bn, some $200m may have been spent on usable equipment, though this is a charitable view, say officials. As a result the Iraqi army has had to rely on cast-offs from the US military, and even these have been slow in coming.

Mr Allawi says a further $500m to $600m has allegedly disappeared from the electricity, transport, interior and other ministries. This helps to explain why the supply of electricity in Baghdad has been so poor since the fall of Saddam Hussein 29 months ago despite claims by the US and subsequent Iraqi governments that they are doing everything to improve power generation.

The sum missing over an eight-month period in 2004 and 2005 is the equivalent of the $1.8bn that Saddam allegedly received in kick- backs under the UN's oil-for-food programme between 1997 and 2003. The UN was pilloried for not stopping this corruption. The US military is likely to be criticised over the latest scandal because it was far better placed than the UN to monitor corruption. [My emphasis]

The entire military procurement budget for Iraq stolen. This on top of the at least $8.8 billion of Iraq money previously reported missing. That's serious money. And Katrina reconstruction is going to make Iraq look like chump change.

It's time that we wake up to the fact that these people are world-class gangsters. This isn't run-of-the-mill political corruption we're talking about. It's pillage and plunder on a scale never before seen, and it's all happening in broad daylight. They've got nothing to fear, and they know it. Who's going to stop them? The news media? The Democrats? Not likely.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:14 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 18, 2005

1900

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 1900.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:24 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

September 14, 2005

Galloway-Hitchens Debate To Stream On The Web

Iraq

British MP George Galloway will debate Christopher Hitchens tonight on the Iraq War. The debate, hosted by Amy Goodman in NYC, is set for 7-10PM ET. It should be a doozy.

Catch it on the web, here and here. More info.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:18 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 05, 2005

August Was 4th Deadliest Month For US Troops

Iraq

85 US troops were killed in Iraq in August.

That makes August the fourth deadliest month of the entire war for US troops.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 1887.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:21 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

September 01, 2005

Paul Craig Roberts On New Orleans And Iraq

Disasters  Iraq  Politics

Paul Craig Roberts is no liberal. His pedigree includes the Reagan administration, the Hoover Institution, the Cato Institute, the Wall Street Journal, the National Review. Here's what he has to say about the disaster unfolding in New Orleans:

Chalk up the city of New Orleans as a cost of Bush's Iraq war.

There were not enough helicopters to repair the breeched levees and rescue people trapped by rising water. Nor are there enough Louisiana National Guards available to help with rescue efforts and to patrol against looting.

The situation is the same in Mississippi.

The National Guard and helicopters are off on a fool's mission in Iraq.

The National Guard is in Iraq because fanatical neoconservatives in the Bush administration were determined to invade the Middle East and because the incompetent Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld refused to listen to the generals, who told him there were not enough regular troops available to do the job.

After the invasion, the arrogant Rumsfeld found out that the generals were right. The National Guard was called up to fill in the gaping gaps.

Now the Guardsmen, trapped in the Iraqi quagmire, are watching on TV the families they left behind trapped by rising waters and wondering if the floating bodies are family members. None know where their dislocated families are, but, shades of Fallujah, they do see their destroyed homes.

The mayor of New Orleans was counting on helicopters to put in place massive sandbags to repair the levee. However, someone called the few helicopters away to rescue people from rooftops. The rising water overwhelmed the massive pumping stations, and New Orleans disappeared under deep water.

What a terrible casualty of the Iraqi war – one of our oldest and most beautiful cities, a famous city, a historic city.

Distracted by its phony war on terrorism, the US government had made no preparations in the event Hurricane Katrina brought catastrophe to New Orleans. No contingency plan existed. Only now after the disaster are FEMA and the Corp of Engineers trying to assemble the material and equipment to save New Orleans from the fate of Atlantis.

Even worse, articles in the New Orleans Times-Picayune and public statements by emergency management chiefs in New Orleans make it clear that the Bush administration slashed the funding for the Corp of Engineers’ projects to strengthen and raise the New Orleans levees and diverted the money to the Iraq war.

Walter Maestri, emergency management chief for Jefferson Parish, told the New Orleans Times-Picayune (June 8, 2004): "It appears that the money has been moved in the president's budget to handle homeland security and the war in Iraq, and I suppose that's the price we pay. Nobody locally is happy that the levees can't be finished, and we are doing everything we can to make the case that this is a security issue for us." [...]

What we have is a Republican war for oil company profits while New Orleans sinks beneath the waters. [My emphasis]

Chickens come home to roost. You don't have to be a liberal to see it.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:17 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 31, 2005

Bush: It's About The Oil

Iraq

President Bush offers reason #1002 for the Iraq war:

President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields, which he said would otherwise fall under the control of terrorist extremists.

So, it's about the oil after all?

[Thanks, Mark]

Posted by Jonathan at 10:49 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

"War On Terror" Costs Top World War I

9/11, "War On Terror"  Afghanistan  Iraq

Despite the relatively small number of soldiers involved, the Iraq-Afghanistan war has already cost the US more, in constant dollars, than World War I.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 30, 2005

Liberation

Iraq

From Digby. Safia Taleb al-Suhail, the Iraqi woman whom Bush used as a prop at last year's State of the Union address, has this to say about Iraq's new constitution:

"When we came back from exile, we thought we were going to improve rights and the position of women. But look what has happened — we have lost all the gains we made over the last 30 years. It's a big disappointment." [My emphasis]

"All the gains we made over the last 30 years". That would be the gains made under the regime of Saddam Hussein, before the US "liberation".

And then there's Dr. Raja Kuzai, another favorite White House prop, about whom Bush said in March, 2004:

The first time we met, she walked into the Oval Office...The door opened up. She said, "My liberator," and burst out in tears — (laughter) — and so did I. (Applause.) [...]

I want to thank you, Doctor, for your hard work on the writing of the basic law for your people. You have stood fast, you have stood strong. Like me, you've got liberty etched in your heart, and you're not going to yield. And you are doing a great job and we're proud to have you back. Thanks for coming. (Applause.) [My emphasis]

This is what Dr. Kuzai said last week:

"This is the future of the new Iraqi government — it will be in the hands of the clerics," said Dr. Raja Kuzai, a secular Shiite member of the Assembly. "I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around."

"I am not going to stay here." [My emphasis]

He's got liberty etched in his heart, and he's not going to yield. Yeah, whatever.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:37 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 26, 2005

Regaining Our National Soul

Ethics  Iraq  Politics

Ex-Senator Gary Hart has an extraordinary op-ed in Wednesday's WaPo in which he calls on Democrats who supported the war to step forward and forthrightly admit they were wrong. Exerpt:

In their leaders, the American people look for strength, determination and self-confidence, but they also look for courage, wisdom, judgment and, in times of moral crisis, the willingness to say: "I was wrong."

To stay silent during such a crisis, and particularly to harbor the thought that the administration's misfortune is the Democrats' fortune, is cowardly. In 2008 I want a leader who is willing now to say: "I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."

Further, this leader should say: "I am now going to give a series of speeches across the country documenting how the administration did not tell the American people the truth, why this war is making our country more vulnerable and less secure, how we can drive a wedge between Iraqi insurgents and outside jihadists and leave Iraq for the Iraqis to govern, how we can repair the damage done to our military, what we and our allies can do to dry up the jihadists' swamp, and what dramatic steps we must take to become energy-secure and prevent Gulf Wars III, IV and so on." [My emphasis]

"I made a mistake, and for my mistake I am going to Iraq and accompanying the next planeload of flag-draped coffins back to Dover Air Force Base. And I am going to ask forgiveness for my mistake from every parent who will talk to me."

My God, what an extraordinary vision. Can you imagine it? It makes me want to weep just to think of it. How cleansing, how profoundly moving, how revelatory that would be. We could regain our national soul.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:59 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

August 22, 2005

Are We Really Better Off Without Saddam?

Iraq

Paleocon Jude Wanniski is no liberal. Formerly an associate editor of The Wall Street Journal, he coined the term "supply-side economics" and framed many of the ideas that inspired Reagan administration economic policies.

Now, Wanniski poses the question, "Are we really better off without Saddam?" Here's an excerpt from his answer, couched as an open letter to Senator Trent Lott:

In your "Meet the Press" interview this morning, I noticed you made the obligatory remark that "Of course we are all better off without Saddam Hussein." Practically every politico in every party makes that exact statement on all the talk shows in recent weeks and months. Maybe if I were a politician I would also include it in my litany. Which may be why I've rejected every suggestion that I should be a politician. It is dismaying to me, even disgusting, to see your congressional colleagues prattle on about how Iraqis are better off without Saddam, when more than 100,000 of their sons and daughters would still be alive if we had not gone to war. Are the dead "better off"? Are their families? [...]

In your heart, I think you know that all things considered, we are not "better off" without Saddam Hussein. If we could roll back the clock and do it all over again and accepted his invitation to prowl Iraq in perpetuity in search of weapons of mass destruction, we would be a lot better off. I noticed this morning that you again cited Saddam's "rewards" to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers as evidence of his evil nature, as if that is the best reason you can come up with for the war.

Sorry again, Trent, but the Palestinian leaders themselves have vehemently argued that Americans who made that charge against Saddam were "racist," a term I know you abhor. What they meant was that Muslim fathers and mothers are not so inhuman as to encourage their sons and daughters to blow themselves up in order to get a $25,000 check from Baghdad. [...]

As I noted, you are not alone in using the fig-leaf phrase, "We are all better off without Saddam Hussein." Senator Joe Biden, a Democrat who supported the war unconditionally against Saddam when he was ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, never fails to mouth that rationale for the war. He's running for President in 2008 by criticizing Republicans for not prosecuting the war effectively enough, practically promising more American fighting men and women into the maw if he had his way. When last seen, Hillary Clinton has been parroting the same line. Her political counselors have been "positioning her" for a presidential run, I guess. Disappointing to me, as I have been coming to admire her progress since she came to the Senate.

Remember, Trent, more than 2000 Americans have died in Iraq, including the private contractors. Another 25,000 have been wounded, with a high percentage losing arms or legs or both. If it is to be "all things considered," I'd hope you would shed a tear for the 100,000+ Iraqi dead, military and civilian, who would still be alive if not for the war. There are probably another 200,000 at least who have been mutilated in the combat, or in the insurgency, and you can't chalk their suffering up to the insurgents if you are honest, because if it were not for the war, there would have been no insurgents. [...]

I'm with Cindy Sheehan, who still doesn't understand why we continue to send young men and women into the Iraqi meat grinder. She suspects it is because President Bush and his team simply think because our government has invested so much in Iraq that we might as well throw a few thousand more into the maw and hope it all turns out right in the end. [My emphasis]

US politics are so thoroughly corrupted that almost no one in national office can or will come out and state even the most obvious truths. I suppose we can take some small comfort in the fact that more and more conservatives (of the "paleo" variety) are joining the left in denouncing the utterly disastrous Bush administration and its neocon allies. But why is Congress so gutless?

Posted by Jonathan at 08:54 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

August 21, 2005

An Islamist Iraq

Iraq

More great news from Iraq. Negotiators working on Iraq's new constitution have agreed to make Islam "the main source" of Iraqi law. Parliament will be prohibited from passing laws that contradict Islamic principles. Reuters:

Islam will be "the main source" of Iraq's law and parliament will observe religious principles, negotiators said on Saturday after what some called a major turn in talks on the constitution and a shift in the U.S. position. If agreed by Monday's parliamentary deadline, it would appear to be a major concession to Islamist leaders from the Shi'ite Muslim majority and sit uneasily with U.S. insistence [sic] on the primacy of democracy and human rights in the new Iraq.

U.S. diplomats, who have been shepherding the process closely, declined immediate comment and at least one secular Kurdish politician said Kurds would try to block such a deal.

But an official from one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties and a leading Sunni Arab negotiator said agreement had been reached, reversing an understanding reached earlier in the recent talks that Islam would simply be "a main source" of law.

Parliament would not be able to pass legislation that contradicted the principles of Islam, several negotiators told Reuters. One Shi'ite official said that a constitutional court would decide whether laws conformed to Islamic faith. [My emphasis]

So the neocon dream of transforming the Middle East is, like everything else they've touched, turning into the opposite of what they intended. They've managed to turn secular Iraq into a hard-line Islamist state, the reverberations from which will carry heaven knows how far. Nice going.

And where does this leave Iraq's 13 million women?

Posted by Jonathan at 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 19, 2005

Cheney: US Will Hunt Insurgents One At A Time If Necessary

Iraq  Politics

Despite President Bush's approval rating having fallen five percentage points in a mere five days, largely because of increasing opposition to continuing the war in Iraq, Dick Cheney's talking tough. WaPo:

Vice President Cheney declared yesterday that the United States "will not relent" in the war in Iraq and will hunt down insurgents there "one at a time if necessary," implicitly rebutting escalating pressure on the Bush administration to bring U.S. troops home.

Addressing a friendly audience of combat veterans a day after antiwar candlelight vigils were held around the nation, Cheney cast victory in Iraq as "critical to the future security of the U.S." and said the country should not lose its resolve to defeat the militants.

"They believe that America will lose our nerve and let down our guard," he said at the 73rd national convention of the Military Order of the Purple Heart held in Springfield, Mo., according to a transcript provided by the White House. "They are sorely mistaken."

Cheney's speech represented the first high-profile White House response in the past week to gathering antiwar demonstrations galvanized by Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq. [...]

Some Republicans have concluded that the White House mishandled the Sheehan situation. Bush sent two top aides to talk with her but refused to see her himself, having already met her once last year as part of a larger session with relatives of war casualties. [...]

Two months after declaring that the Iraqi insurgency was in its "last throes," Cheney painted a starker picture yesterday, acknowledging that "there is still tough fighting" to come. Rather than promising quick victory, he reminded Americans that after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks Bush warned that the broader struggle with terrorism would be "a lengthy campaign."

The vice president cited the darkest days of the American Revolution, when the war was going badly and ragtag rebels were ready to go home until George Washington rallied them. "They stayed in the fight, and America won the war," he said. "From that day to this, our country has always counted on the bravest among us to answer the call of duty." [My emphasis]

Oh, how I hate this kind of atavistic, macho rhetoric. What are we, Neanderthals?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:26 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

August 18, 2005

Feingold: Withdraw Troops By End Of 2006

Iraq  Politics

Our Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold has called for a withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq by the end of next year, the first Senator to do so. WaPo:

Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin called on the White House yesterday to withdraw all US forces from Iraq by the end of next year and criticized fellow Democrats for being too "timid" in challenging the Bush administration's war policy.

Feingold, who is among the Democrats considering a run for president in 2008, became the first senator to propose a specific deadline for pulling all 138,000 US troops from Iraq. His comments also laid bare the rising tension within his party about how to respond to President Bush on the war. [...]

In a telephone interview from Wisconsin, Feingold said he has heard a wave of public disenchantment at 15 town hall meetings so far during the August recess, leading him to propose a Dec. 31, 2006, deadline.

"There's a deepening feeling of dismay in the country about the way things are going in Iraq," Feingold said. He rejected Bush's assertion that a deadline would make it easier for insurgents to simply hang on. "I think he's wrong. I think not talking about endgames is playing into our enemies' hand." [My emphasis]

He's got a point. By not setting a deadline for withdrawal, we give Iraqis every reason to believe we will be there indefinitely, which cannot help but fuel the insurgency.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 16, 2005

Aaron Glantz Coming To Madison

Activism  Iraq

For those of us living in the Madison WI area: Aaron Glantz, author of How America Lost Iraq, will speak at the Wil-Mar Neighborhood Center, 953 Jenifer Street, at 7 PM next Tuesday, August 23. From the blurb:

Aaron Glantz is a reporter for Pacifica Radio, who lives in Los Angeles. He wrote the recently published book, "How America Lost Iraq." According to a Publishers Weekly review, this book tells the story of how the U.S. government squandered, through a series of blunders and brutalities, the goodwill with which Iraqis greeted the American invasion and the elation they felt at the fall of Saddam Hussein.

But as the occupation dragged on — as more and more Iraqis were thrown in Abu Ghraib without being charged; as the necessities of daily life, such as drinking water and electricity, went lacking; and as the American army failed to control lootings and rampant street violence — tensions began to rise.

Then, with the spectacular killings and grisly display of four American contractors, those tensions exploded. Instead of negotiating, the United States made the fateful decision to attack Fallujah, a colossal mistake that would enrage even moderate Muslims and turn simmering resentment into armed resistance.

With gripping eyewitness accounts, Glantz takes readers inside Fallujah and shows what embedded reporters failed to reveal — the deliberate killing of Iraqi civilians by American Marines and the devastating effects of American bombing in a densely populated city. Glantz shows that ordinary Iraqi civilians — men, women, and children — were shot and killed simply for leaving their houses, or for trying to rescue those who lay wounded in the streets. Even humanitarian aid workers who tried to take the wounded to the hospital in clearly marked ambulances were shot at by American snipers. We learn of one brave couple that held their marriage ceremony with bombs falling around them. When the fighting in Fallujah was over, after the relentless aerial assault and sniper fire had ceased, 600 Iraqi citizens were dead and America's status as liberators had been completely destroyed. [My emphasis]

The event is free and open to the public and will include a Q&A session.

[Thanks, Jeanne]

Posted by Jonathan at 02:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 15, 2005

Get Ready For WWIII?

Iraq  Politics

Paleocon Paul Craig Roberts, former Senior Research Fellow of the Hoover Institution, former associate editor of the Wall Street Journal, and former Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under Reagan (i.e., definitely no liberal) writes, Get Ready for WWIII. Excerpt:

With every poll showing majorities of Americans both fed up with Bush's war against Iraq and convinced that Bush's invasion of Iraq has made Americans less safe, the White House moron proposes to start another war by attacking Iran. VP Cheney has already ordered the U.S. Strategic Command to come up with plans to strike Iran with tactical nuclear weapons. [...]

Iran has signed the nonproliferation pact and is willing for the International Atomic Energy Agency to monitor the nuclear energy program.

Bush, however, dismisses all facts and assurances and is willing to attack Iran based on nothing but Israel's paranoia.

Bush can ignore the American public, because the Democrats, like the Tory Party in the UK, have completely collapsed as an opposition party. [...]

The only check on Bush is the lack of U.S. troops. Bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire, U.S. commanders are stating that a third rotation of our exhausted and demoralized troops in Iraq can be avoided only by troop withdrawals by next spring.

However, on Aug. 11, Bush nixed the military's talk of reducing U.S. troops in Iraq. The next day, the commander of U.S. logistics in Iraq announced that the number of insurgent attacks on US forces along supply routes has doubled in the last year, making it clear that far from winning, the U.S. is not even holding its own.

Cindy Sheehan has the right question for Bush: What noble cause is being served by all this suffering and destruction?

Bush is in hiding from Mrs. Sheehan, because he knows only ignoble causes are being served. According to the CIA, the main beneficiary of the war is Osama bin Laden's recruitment drives. While America's military recruitment falters and U.S. generals announce that the war has broken the Reserves and National Guard, the cause of Islamic extremism basks in the Iraqi war.

Gentle reader, do you realize the danger of having a president so disconnected from reality that he plots to attack Iran — a country three times the size of Iraq — when he lacks sufficient forces to occupy Baghdad and to protect the road from Baghdad to the airport? [...]

The Bush administration is insane. If the American people do not decapitate it by demanding Bush's impeachment, the Bush administration will bring about Armageddon. This may please some Christian evangelicals conned by Rapture predictions, but World War III will please no one else. [My emphasis]

Roberts' point about the Democrats is an important one. Is the two-party system now nothing more than window dressing? Why is there no significant opposition from what is ostensibly the opposition party?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:14 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Keeping A Balanced Life

Activism  Iraq  Politics

President Bush seems incapable of realizing the utter grotesquerie of a lot of the stuff he says. From Cox News Service (via Digby):

President Bush, noting that lots of people want to talk to the president and "it's also important for me to go on with my life," on Saturday defended his decision not to meet with the grieving mom of a soldier killed in Iraq.

Bush said he is aware of the anti-war sentiments of Cindy Sheehan and others who have joined her protest near the Bush ranch.

"But whether it be here or in Washington or anywhere else, there's somebody who has got something to say to the president, that's part of the job," Bush said on the ranch. "And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say."

"But," he added, "I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

The comments came prior to a bike ride on the ranch with journalists and aides. [...]

In addition to the two-hour bike ride, Bush's Saturday schedule included an evening Little League Baseball playoff game, a lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a nap, some fishing and some reading. "I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy," he said when asked about bike riding while a grieving mom wanted to speak with him. "And part of my being is to be outside exercising." [My emphasis]

A two-hour bike ride, lunch with Condi, a nap, some fishing, some reading, a Little League game. Yeah, that's what the people want from their president when the country's losing a pointless war.

Just how juvenile is this guy? Could the contrast between Cindy Sheehan's dignity and seriousness of purpose and Bush's adolescent superficiality possibly be any more stark?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:29 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 14, 2005

1850

Iraq

Less than two weeks ago, the number of US troops killed in Iraq passed the 1800 mark. Today, it's more than 1850.

US troops killed in Iraq as of today: 1853.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 11:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 13, 2005

Thugs In Suits

Activism  Iraq  War and Peace

The incomparable Howard Zinn, author of A People's History of the United States, writes in the Guardian that not only Iraq is occupied, the US is, too — by "thugs in suits". Excerpt:

It has quickly become clear that Iraq is not a liberated country, but an occupied country. We became familiar with that term during the second world war. We talked of German-occupied France, German-occupied Europe. And after the war we spoke of Soviet-occupied Hungary, Czechoslovakia, eastern Europe. It was the Nazis, the Soviets, who occupied countries. The United States liberated them from occupation.

Now we are the occupiers. True, we liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussein, but not from us. Just as in 1898 we liberated Cuba from Spain, but not from us. Spanish tyranny was overthrown, but the US established a military base in Cuba, as we are doing in Iraq. US corporations moved into Cuba, just as Bechtel and Halliburton and the oil corporations are moving into Iraq. The US framed and imposed, with support from local accomplices, the constitution that would govern Cuba, just as it has drawn up, with help from local political groups, a constitution for Iraq. Not a liberation. An occupation. [...]

But more ominous, perhaps, than the occupation of Iraq is the occupation of the US. I wake up in the morning, read the newspaper, and feel that we are an occupied country, that some alien group has taken over. I wake up thinking: the US is in the grip of a president surrounded by thugs in suits who care nothing about human life abroad or here, who care nothing about freedom abroad or here, who care nothing about what happens to the earth, the water or the air, or what kind of world will be inherited by our children and grandchildren.

More Americans are beginning to feel, like the soldiers in Iraq, that something is terribly wrong. More and more every day the lies are being exposed. And then there is the largest lie, that everything the US does is to be pardoned because we are engaged in a "war on terrorism", ignoring the fact that war is itself terrorism, that barging into homes and taking away people and subjecting them to torture is terrorism, that invading and bombing other countries does not give us more security but less. [...]

The "war on terrorism" is not only a war on innocent people in other countries; it is a war on the people of the US: on our liberties, on our standard of living. The country's wealth is being stolen from the people and handed over to the super-rich. The lives of the young are being stolen. [...]

Our faith is that human beings only support violence and terror when they have been lied to. And when they learn the truth, as happened in the course of the Vietnam war, they will turn against the government. We have the support of the rest of the world. The US cannot indefinitely ignore the 10 million people who protested around the world on February 15 2003.

There is no act too small, no act too bold. The history of social change is the history of millions of actions, small and large, coming together at points in history and creating a power that governments cannot suppress. [My emphasis]

Find a way to act. Add your light to the sum of light. History needs you.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:43 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 10, 2005

Air Force Colonel Tags Cars Bearing Pro-Bush Bumper Stickers

Iraq  Politics

At least one Air Force colonel's not happy with the president. AP:

An Air Force Reserve colonel could face criminal charges for allegedly vandalizing cars at Denver International Airport bearing pro-Bush bumper stickers.

Lt. Col. Alexis Fecteau, director of operations for reserve forces at the National Security Space Institute in Colorado Springs, is believed responsible for defacing at least 10 parked vehicles between December and June, police spokesman Sonny Jackson said Tuesday. [...]

Jackson said Fecteau is suspected of blacking out the Bush bumper stickers and then spray painting an expletive and the president's name on the vehicles. [My emphasis]

[Thanks, Kent]

Posted by Jonathan at 04:36 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Gold Star Families Joining Cindy Sheehan

Activism  Iraq

Other families who have lost family members in Iraq, or who have family members currently serving there, are traveling from around the country to join Cindy Sheehan's protest outside the Bush "ranch" in Crawford. US Newswire (via GNN):

More members of Gold Star Families for Peace (GSFP) and Military Families Speak Out (MFSO) are traveling to Texas to join the protest outside of President Bush's ranch in Crawford, Texas, where he is vacationing for the month of August.

Starting today, Gold Star families from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Arkansas and other states whose loved ones have died as a result of the war in Iraq will be joining one of their members, Cindy Sheehan, at the protest. Ms. Sheehan, whose son Army Specialist Casey Sheehan was killed in Sadr City, Iraq on April 4, 2004, has been in Crawford since August 5th, demanding a meeting with the President. These families will be joined by military families with loved ones currently serving in Iraq or about to deploy or redeploy to Iraq. All of these families are coming to Crawford, Texas to share their stories about the personal costs of the war in Iraq and add their voices to the call for a meeting with President Bush. [My emphasis]

Things could get interesting if the White House goes through with its threat to declare the protestors a "threat to national security" and arrest them tomorrow. Let's hope it turns into a PR rout for the White House. Hauling a bunch of bereaved moms off to jail as threats to national security while the president takes a month off — no way that looks good.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:04 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 09, 2005

Saddam's Anthrax Supplied By US

Iraq

Via Deep Blade Journal, a report in the Times of London that the anthrax used by Iraq in its biological WMD program has been traced back to its source. It originated in a cow in the UK, and was provided to Saddam Hussein by the United States. Times excerpt:

A British cow that died in an Oxfordshire field in 1937 has emerged as the source of Saddam Hussain's "weapons of mass destruction" programme that led to the Iraq war.

An ear from the cow was sent to an English laboratory, where scientists discovered anthrax spores that were later used in secret biological warfare tests by Winston Churchill.

The culture was sent to the United States, which exported samples to Iraq during Saddam’s war against Iran in the 1980s. Inspectors have found that this batch of anthrax was the dictator's choice in his attempts to create biological weapons.

The discovery has angered some British politicians. Austin Mitchell, the Labour MP for Great Grimsby, has renewed his call, supported by 126 MPs in the last Parliament, for a UN investigation into whether Washington broke a weapons control agreement. "It just makes them look more hypocritical than ever," he said.

The odyssey of the Iraqi anthrax was unravelled by Geoffrey Holland, a politics student and antiwar campaigner at the University of Sussex. The exact batch chosen by Saddam was disclosed in the CIA report by Charles Duelfer, the former UN weapons inspector, last autumn. [...]

A congressional investigation into Gulf War syndrome by Don Riegle had already uncovered invoices showing that this batch was shipped from the United States between 1986 and 1988. [My emphasis]

Oh, the hypocrisy.

Deep Blade Journal has the 21-page white paper on which the Times report is based, here.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:22 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

German Intelligence: Terrorism "Radiating Outward" From Iraq

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

The head of the German equivalent of the CIA says he fears that terrorism is "radiating outwards" from Iraq. Reuters:

German intelligence fears terrorism is "radiating" from Iraq around the Middle East and expects further attacks across the region, its spy chief said on Monday.

"We fear developments in Iraq are radiating outwards," foreign intelligence chief August Hanning said in brief comments to Reuters.

He said it was possible that an intensification of insurgent attacks on Iraqi security forces and the U.S.-led coalition was encouraging like-minded militants to step up attacks in the wider region as well.

Hanning cited bombings that killed 64 people last month in Egypt's Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, and security alerts in recent days forcing cruise liners carrying Israeli tourists to divert from Turkey to Cyprus. [My emphasis]

The war that supposedly was intended to make us safer has instead put us in far greater danger, and at this point there is no telling where it will all end. British intelligence has concluded that Britain likely faces a sustained insurgency. How long before that happens here?

One of the truly horrific things about all this is that US military actions provoke further attacks against the West, which, in turn, stampede people into supporting intensification of US military actions — which provoke further attacks against the West. It's hard to imagine how this can end without its spinning out of control. As the German intelligence estimate shows, the idea that the US can somehow militarily "drain the swamp" of terrorists/insurgents is a suicidal delusion.

It's a big unconquerable world out there, containing billions of potential adversaries. Hubris inevitably leads to disaster. Inevitably.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:59 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 08, 2005

CIA Commander: US Let Bin Laden "Slip Away"

9/11, "War On Terror"  Afghanistan  Iraq

This Past Peak post from over a year ago presented evidence that the US intentionally allowed Osama bin Laden to escape capture in Afghanistan.

Newsweek's August 15 issue contains new evidence. It reports that the CIA field commander at Tora Bora says that Bin Laden was within the US's grasp there and was allowed to "slip away", in Newsweek's words. Excerpt:

[I]n a forthcoming book, the CIA field commander for the agency's Jawbreaker team at Tora Bora, Gary Berntsen, says he and other U.S. commanders [knew] that bin Laden was among the hundreds of fleeing Qaeda and Taliban members. Berntsen says he had definitive intelligence that bin Laden was holed up at Tora Bora — intelligence operatives had tracked him — and could have been caught. "He was there," Berntsen tells NEWSWEEK. Asked to comment on Berntsen's remarks, National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones passed on 2004 statements from former CENTCOM commander Gen. Tommy Franks. "We don't know to this day whether Mr. bin Laden was at Tora Bora in December 2001," Franks wrote in an Oct. 19 New York Times op-ed. "Bin Laden was never within our grasp." Berntsen says Franks is "a great American. But he was not on the ground out there. I was."

In his book—titled Jawbreaker — the decorated career CIA officer criticizes Donald Rumsfeld's Defense Department for not providing enough support to the CIA and the Pentagon's own Special Forces teams in the final hours of Tora Bora, says Berntsen's lawyer, Roy Krieger. (Berntsen would not divulge the book's specifics, saying he's awaiting CIA clearance.) That backs up other recent accounts, including that of military author Sean Naylor, who calls Tora Bora a "strategic disaster" because the Pentagon refused to deploy a cordon of conventional forces to cut off escaping Qaeda and Taliban members. Maj. Todd Vician, a Defense Department spokesman, says the problem at Tora Bora "was not necessarily just the number of troops." [My emphasis]

Why would the White House and Pentagon want to allow bin Laden to escape? If bin Laden had been captured in December, 2001, the administration never could have sold the Iraq war to Congress and the American public. As we know from a number of sources, the administration was determined to invade Iraq even before 9/11. But as an American official said back in November, 2001, "casting our objectives too narrowly" risked "a premature collapse of the international effort if by some lucky chance Mr. bin Laden was captured." It's all been a treasonous charade.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 07, 2005

British Intelligence: UK Facing An Insurgency

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

The Independent reports that British intelligence believes Britain may be facing a "full-blown Islamist insurgency." Excerpt:

Intelligence chiefs are warning Tony Blair that Britain faces a full-blown Islamist insurgency, sustained by thousands of young Muslim men with military training now resident in this country.

The grim possibility that the two London attacks were not simply a sporadic terror campaign is being discussed at the highest levels in Whitehall. Fears of a third strike remain high this weekend, based on concrete evidence supplied by an intercepted text message and the interrogation of a terror suspect being held outside Britain, say US reports.

As police and the security services work to prevent another cell murdering civilians, attention is focusing on the pool of migrants to this country from the Horn of Africa and central Asia. MI5 is working to an estimate that more than 10,000 young men from these regions have had at least basic training in light weapons and military explosives.

A well-connected source said there were more than 100,000 people in Britain from "completely militarised" regions, including Somalia and its neighbours in the Horn of Africa, and Afghanistan and territories bordering the country. "Every one of them knows how to use an AK-47," said the source. "About 10 per cent can strip and reassemble such a weapon blindfolded, and probably a similar proportion have some knowledge of how to use military explosives. That adds up to tens of thousands of men."

Even though the vast majority had come to Britain to escape the lawlessness of their homelands, the source added, there remained an alarmingly large pool of trained men who could be lured into violent action here.

This threat had been largely neglected while attention focused on British-born militants who had been through training camps run by al-Qa'ida in Afghanistan.

"There has been a debate on whether we are facing an insurgency or terrorism," said the source, "and the verdict is on the side of an insurgency." [My emphasis]

What a nightmare. History is not going to look kindly on Mr. George W. Bush. He has started something that may yet spin completely out of control.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:06 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Cindy Sheehan Comes To Crawford

Iraq  Politics

As President Bush settles in for his month-long vacation at his "ranch", Cindy Sheehan has come to Crawford to ask him why her son had to die in Iraq. AP (with photo):

CRAWFORD — The angry mother of a fallen U.S. soldier staged a protest near President Bush's ranch today, demanding an accounting from the president of how he has conducted the war in Iraq.

Supported by more than 50 shouting demonstrators, Cindy Sheehan, 48, told reporters, "I want to ask George Bush: Why did my son die?"

Sheehan arrived in Crawford aboard a bus painted red, white and blue and emblazoned with the words, "Impeachment Tour."

Her son, Casey, 24, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, on April 4, 2004. He was an Army specialist, a Humvee mechanic.

Sheehan, from Vacaville, Calif., had been attending a Veterans for Peace Convention in Dallas. She vowed she would camp out as close as she could get to the president's ranch until Bush comes out and talks to her.

Local law enforcement officials were keeping Sheehan four to five miles away from the ranch's entrance. [My emphasis]

Good for Cindy Sheehan for focusing the spotlight on Bush and his unearned month-long vacation in time of war. Sheehan has her own particular reasons for detesting Bush: see this account.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:20 AM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

August 05, 2005

Rummy: London-Iraq Link Is "Nonsense"

Iraq

Donald Rumsfeld think we're idiots. He says it's "nonsense" to suggest the London bombings were retaliation for the US attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan. WaPo:

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld on Thursday rejected as "nonsense" the notion that recent terrorist attacks in London were retaliation for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"Some people seem confused about the motivations and intentions of terrorists and about our coalition's defense of the still young democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq," Rumsfeld said in a speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.

"They seem to cling to the discredited theory that the recent attacks in London and elsewhere, for example, are really in retaliation for the war in Iraq or for the so-called occupation of Afghanistan," he added. "That is nonsense." [My emphasis]

Ken Livingstone, London's mayor, begs to differ, as do a majority of the British public. Livingstone writes:

It is four weeks since bombers indiscriminately killed and maimed ordinary Londoners. Protecting London from terrorists requires the best possible policing — which, in turn, needs the greatest possible flow of information from all communities. It also demands that we shrink the pool of the alienated that bombers draw on by treating all communities as equal parts of British society — not only theoretically, but in reality. And it means withdrawing from Iraq. All are interrelated.

Acceptance that the invasion of Iraq increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack on London now extends far beyond the usual suspects — from Guardian writers to MI5, Douglas Hurd, the Daily Mail, the Spectator, and a majority of the British public. Jack Straw has also acknowledged this debate. If the invasion of Iraq had been justified, it would be possible to argue that we must bear the sacrifices necessary to achieve a just outcome. However, it is evident that the war in Iraq was not justified. It has made the situation worse. The illusions with which it was launched are collapsing.

The reason the US is not able to stabilise Iraq is related to the same critical issue that affects policing in Britain: information. Which is simply another way of saying the attitude of the population.

US forces are ineffective because the great bulk of the population will not give them intelligence voluntarily. Therefore elements within the US military are led to resort to ritual humiliation and torture. This does not yield remotely sufficient information. Therefore US forces are led to relatively blind strikes against those opposing them — inevitably killing innocent civilians. This, of course, has the effect of alienating the population further.

The Iraqi people see US policy in practice. Successive US administrations showed no interest in Iraqi democracy — so long as Saddam Hussein gassed Iranians, Kurds or other US opponents he was supplied with weapons and other support. Only when he struck a US ally was he opposed.

After the 2003 invasion, when US troops were deployed to protect the oil ministry while looting gripped Iraq, when key reconstruction contracts were awarded to US companies, Iraqis understood what was in store for them. US forces cannot win over Iraq's population because the formally stated democratic goals of the forces have nothing to do with the actual policy pursued.

That is also why al-Qaida, previously without a presence in Iraq, now has a strong base there — damaging the fight against international terrorism. [My emphasis]

Obvious, but still it's nice to see a public figure come right out and say it so clearly and so forcefully.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:13 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 04, 2005

An Iraq Veteran Speaks

Iraq

Iraq veteran John Bruhns speaks out about his time there (via ICH). Excerpt:

I participated in the invasion, stayed in Iraq for a year afterward, and what I witnessed was the total opposite of what President Bush and his Administration stated to the American People.

The invasion was very confusing, and so was the period of time I spent in Iraq afterward. At first it did seem as if some of the Iraqi people were happy to be rid of Saddam Hussein. But that was only for a short period of time. Shortly after Saddam's regime fell, the Shiite Muslims in Iraq conducted a pilgrimage to Karbala, a pilgrimage prohibited by Saddam while he was in power. As I witnessed the Shiite pilgrimage, which was a new freedom that we provided to them, they used the pilgrimage to protest our presence in their country. I watched as they beat themselves over the head with sticks until they bled, and screamed at us in anger to leave their country. Some even carried signs that stated, "No Saddam, No America." These were people that Saddam oppressed; they were his enemies. To me, it seemed they hated us more than him.

At that moment I knew it was going to be a very long deployment. I realized that I was not being greeted as a liberator. I became overwhelmed with fear because I felt I never would be viewed that way by the Iraqi people. As a soldier this concerned me. Because if they did not view me as a liberator, then what did they view me as? I felt that they viewed me as foreign occupier of their land. That led me to believe very early on that I was going to have a fight on my hands.

During my year in Iraq I had many altercations with the so-called "insurgency." I found the insurgency I saw to be quite different from the insurgency described to the American people by the Bush Administration, the media, and other supporters of the war. There is no doubt in my mind there are foreigners from other surrounding countries in Iraq. Anyone in the Middle East who hates America now has the opportunity to kill Americans because there are roughly 140,000 US troops in Iraq. But the bulk of the insurgency I faced was primarily the people of Iraq who were attacking us as a reaction to what they felt was an occupation of their country.

I was engaged actively in urban combat in the Abu Ghraib area west of Baghdad. Many of the people who were attacking me were the poor people of Iraq. They were definitely not members of Al Qaeda, left over Baath Party members, and they were not former members of Saddam's regime. They were just your average Iraqi civilian who wanted us out of their country.

On October 31st, 2003, the people of Abu Ghraib organized a large uprising against us. They launched a massive assault on our compound in the area. We were attacked with AK-47 machine guns, RPGs and mortars. Thousands of people took to the streets to attack us. As the riot unfolded before my eyes, I realized these were just the people who lived there. There were men, women, and children participating. Some of the Iraqi protesters were even carrying pictures of Saddam Hussein. My battalion fought back with everything we had and eventually shut down the uprising.

So while President Bush speaks of freedom and liberation of the Iraqi people, I find his statements are not credible after witnessing events such as these. [My emphasis]

How can you have a democracy when the government lies on such a massive scale on matters of such fundamental importance?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:05 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

August 03, 2005

1822

Iraq

Yesterday, US troop deaths in Iraq passed the 1800 mark.

Today, the total is already 1822.

For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:38 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

T. E. Lawrence On Insurgencies

Iraq  War and Peace

T. E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) knew what makes for a successful insurgency — so much so, in fact, that his thinking was the gospel for legendary Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap, the commander who defeated first the French and then the Americans. Quoting from an article by James J. Scheider, professor of military theory at the School of Advanced Military Studies, U.S. Command and Gen. Staff College, Fort Leavenworth, Kansas (link via Xymphora):

In 1946 French Gen. Raoul Salan conducted several interviews vith Vo Nguyen Giap, the Vietnamese general who planned and directed the military operations against the French that culminated in their defeat at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu...During the 1946 interviews, Salan was struck by the influence of one man upon the thinking of Giap; that man was Thomas Edward Lawrence. Giap told Salan: "My fighting gospel is T. E. Lawrence's Seven Pillars of Wisdom. I am never without it." [My emphasis]

It might, therefore, be worth taking a look at what Lawrence listed as the key elements for success by an insurgency. Quoting Schneider again (reformatted as a bulleted list):

Lawrence distilled six fundamental principles of insurgency that even today have remarkable relevance.

First, a successful guerrilla movement must have an unassailable base — a base secure not only from direct physical assault, but from attack in other forms as well, including psychological attack.

Second, the guerrilla must have a technologically sophisticated enemy. The greater this sophistication, the greater this alien force would rely on forms of communications and logistics that must necessarily present vulnerabilities to the irregular.

Third, the enemy must be sufficiently weak in numbers so as to be unable to occupy the disputed territory in depth with a system of interlocking fortified posts.

Fourth, the guerrilla must have at least the passive support of the populace, if not its full involvement. By Lawrence's calculation, 'Rebellions can be made by 2 percent active in striking force and 98 percent passively sympathetic.'

Fifth, the irregular force must have the fundamental qualities of speed, endurance, presence and logistical independence.

Sixth, the irregular must be sufficiently advanced in weaponry to strike at the enemy's logistics and signals vulnerabilities.

Or, to summarize: the US is completely screwed in Iraq.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:28 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

August 02, 2005

1800

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq: 1806.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 10:04 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 30, 2005

Neck Deep In The Big Muddy

Iraq

During Vietnam, Pete Seeger sang,

We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

Andrew Greeley recalls Seeger's words in yesterday's Chicago Sun-Times:

The Big Muddy is deeper and darker. Two Pentagon reports this week show just how muddy. In a survey of the morale of soldiers in Iraq, the Pentagon found that more than half said that morale in their units was either "low" or "very low." Morale was especially low, as one would have expected, among the National Guard and Reserve units. Only half of them said they had "real confidence" in their ability to carry out their mission...

Another report raises questions about the development of the Iraqi fighting units. Half of the police units are still in training and cannot conduct combat operations. The other half, and two-thirds of the army battalions, are only partially capable of combat and then only with the help of Americans. [...]

In the meantime, the Iraqi parliament, working erratically on their constitution, has decided to abrogate most of the rights of women in their preliminary constitution and to subject them to "Religious Law." That means in the new "democracy" that we are supporting in Iraq women will be more subject to male oppression than they were under Saddam Hussein. This is what our young men and women are dying for in Iraq? [My emphasis]

Pete Seeger again:

Well, I'm not going to paint any moral;
I'll leave that for yourself
Maybe you're still walking, you're still talking
You'd like to keep your health.
But every time I read the papers
That old feeling comes on;
We're neck deep in the Big Muddy
And the big fool says to push on.

In the words of another song of the period, "Oh, when will they ever learn?"

Posted by Jonathan at 11:55 AM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

July 28, 2005

Beyond The Worst-Case Scenario

Iraq

Patrick Cockburn, reporting from Iraq for the Sunday Independent, says "Iraq has descended into chaos way beyond [the] West's worst-case scenario." Excerpt:

The [suicide] bombers have paralysed Baghdad. I have spent half my time living in Iraq since the invasion. The country has never been as dangerous as it is today. Some targets have been hit again and again. The army recruiting centre at Al-Muthana municipal airport in the middle of Baghdad has been attacked eight times, the last occasion being on Wednesday, when eight people were killed. The detonations of the suicide bombs make my windows shake in their frames in my room in the al-Hamra Hotel. The hotel is heavily guarded. At one time the man who looked for bombs under cars entering the compound, with a mirror on the end of a stick, carried a pistol in his right hand. He reckoned if he did discover a suicide bomber he had a split second in which to shoot him in the head before the driver detonated his bomb.

The bombers, or rather the defences against them, have altered the appearance of Baghdad. US army and Iraqi government positions in Baghdad are surrounded by ramparts of enormous cement blocks that snake through the city...These concrete megaliths are strangling the city by closing off many streets.

For all the newspaper and television coverage of Iraq the foreign media still fail to convey the lethal and anarchic quality of day-to-day living. The last time I drove into west Baghdad from the airport early in July we were suddenly stopped by the sound of volleys of shots. This turned out to be the police commandos, a 12 000-strong paramilitary force which is meant to be the cutting edge of the government offensive against the insurgents.

On this occasion they had loaded coffins wrapped in Iraqi flags, containing the bodies of two of their officers murdered that morning, onto the backs of their pick-ups and were weaving through the traffic blazing away over our heads. Drivers slammed on their brakes, since people detained by the commandos, often for no known reason, are often found later on rubbish dumps tortured and executed.

The government, whose members seldom emerge from the Green Zone, make bizarre efforts to pretend that there are signs of a return to normality. Last week a pro-government newspaper had an article on the reconstruction of Baghdad. Above the article was a picture of a crane at a building site. But there are no cranes at work in Baghdad, so the paper was compelled to use a photograph of a crane that has been rusting for more than two years and was abandoned at the site of a giant mosque Saddam Hussein was constructing.

The motto of the British and US governments is "to stay the course in Iraq". This may be useful propaganda at home, but Iraqi government officials counter that London and Washington have no "course" in Iraq, only a policy of endless zig-zags. [My emphasis]

That crane anecdote would be funny if it were satire; unfortunately, it's neither.

The dissolution of the nation-state of Iraq continues. The civil war has already begun.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:00 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 27, 2005

Majority: Bush Deliberately Lied On WMD

Iraq  Politics

A new USA Today poll shows a majority of Americans now think that the White House "deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction", that the US will not be able to establish a stable, democratic Iraq, and that the US will not win the war. USA Today:

For the first time, a majority of Americans, 51%, say the Bush administration deliberately misled the public about whether Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction — the reason Bush emphasized in making the case for invading. The administration's credibility on the issue has been steadily eroding since 2003.

By 58%-37%, a majority say the United States won't be able to establish a stable, democratic government in Iraq.

About one-third, 32%, say the United States can't win the war in Iraq. Another 21% say the United States could win the war, but they don't think it will. Just 43% predict a victory.

Still, on the question that tests fundamental attitudes toward the war — was it a mistake to send U.S. troops? — the public's view has rebounded. By 53%-46%, those surveyed say it wasn't a mistake, the strongest support for the war since just after the Iraqi elections in January.

"I think the American people understand the importance of completing the mission," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said when asked about the poll results. "Success in Iraq will help transform a dangerous region." [My emphasis]

More likely explanations why slightly fewer people (46%) call the war a mistake are that people don't want to say the nearly 1800 US troops killed in Iraq were killed for a mistake and they don't like the idea of "losing" a war. Clearly, though, people are unhappy.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:50 PM | Comments (4) | Link to this  

July 24, 2005

Iraq: The Unwinnable War

Iraq

From ICH:

An English Plea For Peace With The American Colonies

My Lords, this ruinous and ignominious situation, where we cannot act with success, nor suffer with honour, calls upon us to remonstrate in the strongest and loudest language of truth, to rescue the ear of Majesty from the delusions which surround it. You cannot, I venture to say, you CANNOT conquer America.

What is your present situation there? We do not know the worst; but we know that in three campaigns we have done nothing and suffered much. You may swell every expense, and strain every effort, still more extravagantly; accumulate every assistance you can beg or borrow; traffic and barter with every pitiful German Prince, that sells and sends his subjects to the shambles of a foreign country: your efforts are forever vain and impotent — doubly so from this mercenary aid on which you rely; for it irritates to an incurable resentment the minds of your enemies, to overrun them with the sordid sons of rapine and of plunder, devoting them and their possessions to the rapacity of hireling cruelty! If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms! Never! Never! Never! — William Pitt, November 18, 1777

And, as George Santayana said so famously, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Posted by Jonathan at 06:32 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Ministry Of Truth, Your Slip Is Showing

Iraq

They can't even lie competently. CNN:

The U.S. military on Sunday said it was looking into how virtually identical quotations ended up in two of its news releases about different insurgent attacks.

Following a car bombing in Baghdad on Sunday, the U.S. military issued a statement with a quotation attributed to an unidentified Iraqi that was virtually identical to a quote reacting to an attack on July 13.

Following are the two quotes as provided by the U.S. military in news releases:

Sunday's news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the ISF and all of Iraq. They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified."

The July 13 news release said: "'The terrorists are attacking the infrastructure, the children and all of Iraq,' said one Iraqi man who preferred not to be identified. 'They are enemies of humanity without religion or any sort of ethics. They have attacked my community today and I will now take the fight to the terrorists.'" [My emphasis]

Copy. Paste. Oops.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 22, 2005

Raging Grannies Busted

Activism  Iraq

Some people have no sense of humor. AP:

A group of anti-war senior citizens calling themselves the "Tucson Raging Grannies" say they want to enlist in the U.S. Army and go to Iraq so that their children and grandchildren can come home.

Five members of the group — which is associated with the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom — are due in court Monday to face trespassing charges after trying to enlist at a military recruitment center last week.

The group has protested every week for the last three years outside the recruitment center.

"We went in asking to be sent to Iraq so our kids and grandchildren can be sent home, but rather than listening to us, they called the police," said 74-year-old Betty Schroeder. "It was their place to tell us the qualifications, but they wouldn't even speak to us. They should've said, 'You're too old.'"

Schroeder said her group may approach the Pentagon to see if they could be sent to Iraq.

Good old WILPF.

In a related story, Reuters reports:

Faced with major recruiting problems sparked by troop deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Pentagon has asked Congress to raise the maximum age for U.S. military enlistees from 35 to 42 years old.

The Raging Grannies may not have long to wait.

[Thanks, Charyn]

Posted by Jonathan at 02:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 20, 2005

WHIG And The Eight Blacked-Out Pages

Iraq  Politics

Bernard Weiner, of Crisis Papers, says the Rove/Plame investigation may be headed for much deeper waters than the Plame leak per se. Excerpts:

It would appear that this scandal goes way beyond Karl Rove and who said what to whom when about Ms. Plame. It certainly is true, though, that turning over that slimy Rove-Plame rock was the way into the larger issues upon which Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and his grand jury apparently are focusing.

(Ain't it almost always so in Washington? The cover-up is always a greater problem for the perpetrators than the original crime, for inevitably even seamier scandals are unearthed one by one...)

What's being covered up in the Plame/Rove case seems to revolve around the Bush Administration's orchestrated, and perhaps illegal, propaganda campaign to justify its invasion of Iraq. Valerie Plame and her husband Ambassador Joseph Wilson...are just the tips of very large icebergs, and one of those icebergs has a name: the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), which we'll examine below.

One of the ruling judges on the case of the two reporters who refused to divulge their Plame-outing source was about to go easy on them when he read Fitzgerald's new information — eight pages of which were redacted from the public — and said that the national-security seriousness of what he read changed his mind. The court then ordered Time's Matthew Cooper and the New York Times' Judith Miller to testify or else; Cooper finally did, and Miller is in jail for contempt of court.

We don't know what is in those eight blacked-out pages...[b]ut apparently they provide the locus around which Fitzgerald is building a case that could result in perjury indictments, at the least, for a number of Administration officials and perhaps journalists as well.

(Another judge said that the prosecutor's classified filing — those missing eight pages — "decides the case." In other words, to quote Lawrence O'Donnell: "All the judges who have seen the prosecutors secret evidence firmly believe he is pursuing a very serious crime, and they have done everything they can to help him get an indictment.")

Further, depending on what Bush and Cheney knew and when they knew it — and what they did or covered-up in the possible light of such knowledge — there may be plenty of ammunition for likely impeachment hearings. (Note: Bush hired a private attorney last summer for this CIA-leak case.) [...]

Why Judith Miller is not testifying apparently goes to the heart of Fitzgerald's case. There are reasonable grounds for wondering whether Miller might have been aiding, inadvertently or consciously, Rove and the rest of the WHIG to help move the country toward war with Iraq. [...]

But, from what Fitzgerald has suggested, he and the grand jury long ago determined who the leakers were. That's not what is at issue now. The investigation is all tied in with the national-security matters talked about on those blacked-out eight pages.

And, a reasonable guess is that those pages deal in some fashion with the actions — legal or illegal, overt or covert, actual or covered-up — of the members of an inner council of Administration heavies called the White House Iraq Group.

Just one example of the WHIG's function and influence: "The escalation of nuclear rhetoric a year ago [in 2002], including the introduction of the term 'mushroom cloud' into the debate, coincided with the formation of ... WHIG, a task force assigned to 'educate the public' about the threat from Hussein, as a participant put it." (This quote comes from a groundbreaking 2003 article by investigative reporters Barton Gelman and Walter Pincus of the Washington Post.) [...]

[A]s Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz later said, the Administration settled on WMD ("for bureaucratic reasons"), apparently realizing that it would be the most effective, frightening, and thus acceptable justification. And so the WMD scare campaign began, with nightmarish tales of biological and chemical agents (which senators were told could be delivered by a drone Iraqi air force over East Coast cities), huge missile armadas, and, most tellingly, nuclear weapons. Of course, none of this was true. [...]

But someone, or some entity, within the Administration had to coordinate these concerted propaganda campaigns. That was the bailiwick and job-assignment of the WHIG, chaired by Bush's Chief of Staff Andrew Card, the regular members of which were Karl Rove, the president's senior political adviser; communications strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; and policy advisers led by Rice and her deputy, Stephen J. Hadley, along with "Scooter" Libby, Cheney's Chief of Staff. In other words, WHIG included the key decision makers (Rove, Rice, Card, Cheney-via Libby), and the key propaganda specialists (Hughes, Matalin, et al.).

They waited a month to launch their first public-relations bombardment. Why September? Andy Card let slip the reason in an interview with the New York Times: "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," he said. [...]

In sum, the White House Iraq Group was tasked to come up with propaganda campaigns that would work on the Congress and American people — no matter how great the fib; indeed, the bigger the lie, the easier it seemed to be to sell it. And their mission included coordinating those campaigns through the various stages, and denouncing and destroying the reputations of those [like Joseph Wilson] who dared to confront their lies and deceptions. [...]

Again, it's not totally clear how far Special Counsel/U.S Attorney Fitzgerald is willing to go to clear out this nest of Administration vipers. He could choose to stick close to the Valerie Plame/Joe Wilson case itself, or he could keep heading in the direction of indicting a good many Administration officials — perhaps with Bush and Cheney as unindicted co-conspirators — for their part in lying about classified national-security matters to the Congress and American people. A wild card: If Judith Miller were to trade immunity for prosecution and decide to testify about Rove/Libby/Cheney, anything could happen. [My emphasis]

Word is that Patrick Fitzgerald is a tenacious, take-no-prisoners kind of prosecutor. Several days ago, Billmon told the following anecdote:

I just got off the phone with a friend of mine, a veteran investigative reporter, who in turn said he recently talked to one of his old editors, who covered Patrick Fitzgerald when he was an assistant U.S. attorney going after mob guys in New York. So my friend asked him what he thought of the guy.

This is from my friend's memory, but given that he's got 20+ years in the business, and I've known him longer than that, I trust his quotes:

"Fitzgerald is a prosecution machine," the old editor said. "When he wants somebody, he goes after them with whatever he's got. If he can't make the case he started with, he'll figure out what you did do and hit you with that. He's relentless, and he doesn't give a flying fuck about the press or the First Amendment. He'd throw us all in jail if it would help him make his case." [My emphasis]

It would be nice if the mainstream media's attention span were up to the task of following through on this story. But if Fitzgerald is half the Terminator he's said to be, it may not even matter what happens in the media.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:00 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 19, 2005

Al-Sistani: A "Genocidal War" Threatens Iraq

Iraq

Patrick Cockburn, reporting from Baghdad. Belfast Telegraph (via Cursor):

The slaughter of hundreds of civilians by suicide bombers shows that a "genocidal war" is threatening Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the country's most influential Shia cleric, warned yesterday.

So far he has persuaded most of his followers not to respond in kind against the Sunni, from whom the bombers are drawn, despite repeated massacres of Shia. But sectarian divisions between Shia and Sunni are deepening across Iraq after the killing of 18 children in the district of New Baghdad last week and the death of 98 people caught by the explosion of a gas tanker in the market town of Musayyib. Many who died were visiting a Shia mosque.

There are also calls for the formation of militias to protect Baghdad neighbourhoods. Khudayr al-Khuzai, a Shia member of parliament, said the time had come to "bring back popular militias". He added: "The plans of the interior and the defence ministries to impose security in Iraq have failed to stop the terrorists."

Against the wishes of the Grand Ayatollah, who has counselled restraint, some Shia have started retaliatory killings of members of the former regime, most of whom but not all are Sunni. Some carrying out the attacks appear to belong to the 12,000-strong paramilitary police commandos. Mystery surrounds many killings. [...]

Fear of Shia death squads, perhaps secretly controlled by the Badr Brigade, the leading Shia militia, frightens the Sunni. The patience of the Shia is wearing very thin. But their leaders want them to consolidate their strength within the government after their election victory in January.

The radical Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr, whose Mehdi Army militia twice fought US troops, has called for restraint. "The occupation itself is the problem," he said. "Iraq not being independent is the problem. And the other problems stem from that — from sectarianism to civil war. The entire American presence causes this." [My emphasis]

Civil war seems inevitable. Where that will lead is not something I even want to think about.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

"Now I Feel Only Hatred"

Iraq

From the BBC, an alarming report on the chaos in Iraq:

It is early afternoon in the emergency room of Baghdad's Yarmouk hospital. [...]

Several doctors, blood spattered on their white coats, are calmly trying to save the life of a young man who has just been rushed in with a bullet-wound that has punctured his lung.

He appears to have been shot, by mistake, by US troops on the road to Baghdad airport.

On an average day, between 20 and 50 people, injured in unrelenting violence, are treated in the emergency room at Yarmouk alone.

Most have been hurt in insurgent bombs, doctors say. But there is also a steady flow of people coming into Iraqi hospitals who have been injured by US soldiers.

"It's very sad," says Dr Mohaned Rahe, "but things aren't improving." [...]

The hospital's director, Dr Faeq Baker, has a shocking statistic.

"On average we have 28 bodies turning up every day - 90% of them victims of violence," he says.

"And we don't even see the people killed by explosions because they don't require autopsies."

Last month, his teams had to deal with over 860 bodies, some of them bound and shot in the head.

A significant number, he believes, have been murdered for sectarian motives.

And several had been wearing handcuffs.

Baker thinks they may have been killed by the Iraqi police.

"From what we're seeing, things are getting worse," says Dr Baker...

"There are mass killings going on. It is a mess. No-one knows who is killing who. Everything is out of control."

In the Yarmouk hospital men's ward, a young bomb victim, Omar Attiya, lies beside a 50-year old man, Dhia Abbas, who has gunshots to his back and leg.

He says his car was peppered with bullets by US soldiers as he was driving home from visiting his daughter at 2230 local time (1830 GMT).

"I thought I was going to die, they just shot and shot and shot," he says. "The roads were empty and maybe they suspected me of something, but there was no warning, they just opened fire."

And there was no warning when Omar Attiya was hit by shrapnel from one of 10 suicide bombings in Baghdad alone last Friday.

In the ward next door, 30-year old Shia Nadhem Farhan is even more seriously injured, his spleen ruptured by gunfire.

He had been in a minibus driving from Najaf to Baghdad, to try to join up to the new Iraqi army.

"I was asleep when the bullets started to hit, but other passengers told me we were shot at by US troops, maybe for getting too close to their convoy". [...]

"When the Americans first came I was so happy that we were saved from Saddam Hussein," says Farhan.

"Now I feel only hatred. The way things are now, you don't know when you're going to die and who will kill you, the Americans or the insurgents. And civilians, innocent people are being caught in the middle." [My emphasis]

Madness.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Charleston Gazette: It Isn't Just About A Leak

Iraq  Politics

From an editorial today in West Virginia's Charleston Gazette (via DTR):

By now, it's obvious that White House insiders attempted to damage retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson by secretly telling Washington reporters that Wilson's wife was a CIA agent. Both the president's political strategist, Karl Rove, and the vice president's chief of staff, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, have been identified as leakers.

Comprehending this tangled mess may seem difficult, but it's actually simple. The White House acted in desperation because its reasons for launching the Iraq war were being exposed as untrue.

Since the 1990s, top Republicans allied to George W. Bush wanted an invasion of Iraq. They openly advocated it through an organization called the Project for the New American Century. After Bush won the presidency, his first confidential actions in office were preparations for an Iraq attack — long before the 9/11 terrorism tragedy stampeded US hostility toward Arab Muslims.

To muster public support for an Iraq invasion, the White House repeatedly made baseless claims about supposed danger posed by the little Mideast nation. One claim said Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from the African country of Niger, to make nuclear bombs that terrorists might use on America.

Wilson knew that this claim was untrue...But the White House continued asserting the uranium allegation. So Wilson went public in a New York Times commentary and an appearance on "Meet the Press."

Immediately after his damaging disclosure, White House insiders attempted to convince reporters that Wilson wasn't trustworthy. They noted that Wilson's wife, a CIA agent, had helped plan his Africa trip. [...]

Repeatedly, the White House denied that Rove and Libby were sources of the leak. But it's clear that those denials weren't correct.

Remember: This fracas isn't just about a leak. It's about the false claims that sucked America into the needless Iraq war.

They were lying then. They are lying now. The war goes on.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:17 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

A Reality-Based Look At Foreign Fighters In Iraq

Iraq

A recent post looked at Robert Pape's painstaking research that shows that our deeply-held beliefs about who suicide bombers are and what motivates them are dead wrong.

Here's another set of assumptions down the drain: the Boston Globe reports on two research studies that found that the great majority of foreign fighters in Iraq, far from being hard-core al Qaeda mujahideen, are newcomers who have been radicalized by the US war:

New investigations by the Saudi Arabian government and an Israeli think tank — both of which painstakingly analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States — have found that the vast majority of them are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war.

The studies cast serious doubt on President Bush's claim that those responsible for some of the worst violence are terrorists who seized on the opportunity to make Iraq the "central front" in a battle against the United States.

"The terrorists know that the outcome in Iraq will leave them emboldened or defeated," Bush said in a nationally televised address last month. "So they are waging a campaign of murder and destruction."

However, interrogations of nearly 300 Saudis captured trying to sneak into Iraq and case studies of more than three dozen others who blew themselves up in suicide attacks show that most were heeding calls to drive infidels out of Arab land, according to a study by Saudi investigator Nawaf Obaid.

An analysis of 154 foreign fighters compiled by a leading terrorism researcher found that despite the presence of some senior al-Qaida operatives, "the vast majority of non-Iraqi Arabs killed in Iraq have never taken part in any terrorist activity prior to their arrival in Iraq."

The Israel study says: "Only a few were involved in past Islamic insurgencies in Afghanistan, Bosnia, or Chechnya." [My emphasis]

The war is making insurgents and terrorists out of people who were not insurgents and terrorists before.

The fundamental question for us is whether we are going to base our actions on reality or on rhetoric. If on reality, then it is clear (as it has always been clear) that the policies of Bush and the neocons are the exact opposite of what rational, reality-based grownups would do. If only Democrats had the guts to come out and say so, firmly and without equivocation. Meanwhile, our country sinks deeper and deeper into the darkness.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:59 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 17, 2005

Iraq Progress Report

Iraq

Another horrible weekend in Iraq. Via Billmon and Juan Cole:

A suicide bomber in a fuel truck killed 55 people in a town south of Baghdad on Saturday, the latest in a series of spectacular guerrilla attacks to rattle Iraq. The bomb, which police said exploded near a Shi'ite mosque and market, also wounded 82 people in the town of Musayyib.

---

Guerrillas killed at least 15 people in Iraq on Saturday, including three British soldiers, a day after spectacular suicide bombings struck across Baghdad.

---

A suicide bomber struck a police patrol [Saturday] in al-Dura, a southern district of Baghdad. He killed 2 policemen and 2 civilians, and wounded 10.

---

Suicide car bombs and explosions rocked wide areas of the Iraqi capital Friday, targeting U.S. and Iraqi security forces and killing at least 29 people. Two U.S. Marines died in a blast near the Jordanian border...One of the suicide bombings occurred after sundown on a bridge over the Tigris River near the home of President Jalal Talabani.

---

Somewhere in Falluja, the former guerrilla stronghold 55 kilometers, or 35 miles, west of Baghdad, where the charred bodies of two American contractors were strung up on a bridge in March 2004, insurgents are building suicide car bombs again. At least four have exploded in recent weeks, one of them killing six U.S. troops, including four women. Two of five police forts being erected have been firebombed.

---

In Samarra...US forces fought running street battles with guerrillas. Guerrillas armed with machine guns,anti-tank missile launchers and mortars had spread out in the streets of al-Mu`tasim district in the center of the city. Al-Hayat says that guerrillas destroyed one Bradley fighting vehicle in the course of the fighting.

Samarra is one of those cities that the US claims to have conquered over and over again, but the guerrillas always come back...[E]ven in devastated and tightly controlled Fallujah, the guerrilla movement is making a comeback.

Reuters reports a number of other incidents on Saturday alone.

You think it can't get any worse, and then it does.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 16, 2005

A Reality-Based Look At Suicide Terrorism

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq  War and Peace

University of Chicago professor Robert Pape has assembled a database of every suicide bombing attack in the world over the past 25 years. Based on this data, he has discovered that most of what we think we know about suicide bombing is wrong. Suicide bombing is not the product of Muslim fundamentalism. It is invariably a response to occupation by an outside force. If we want suicide bombers to stop targeting us, we will withdraw our troops from Iraq and Saudi Arabia.

Here are excerpts from an interview Pape gave to The American Conservative (link via Xymphora):

Robert Pape: Over the past two years, I have collected the first complete database of every suicide-terrorist attack around the world from 1980 to early 2004. This research is conducted not only in English but also in native-language sources — Arabic, Hebrew, Russian, and Tamil, and others — so that we can gather information not only from newspapers but also from products from the terrorist community. The terrorists are often quite proud of what they do in their local communities, and they produce albums and all kinds of other information that can be very helpful to understand suicide-terrorist attacks.

This wealth of information creates a new picture about what is motivating suicide terrorism. Islamic fundamentalism is not as closely associated with suicide terrorism as many people think. The world leader in suicide terrorism is a group that you may not be familiar with: the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka.

This is a Marxist group, a completely secular group that draws from the Hindu families of the Tamil regions of the country. They invented the famous suicide vest for their suicide assassination of Rajiv Ghandi in May 1991. The Palestinians got the idea of the suicide vest from the Tamil Tigers.

TAC: So if Islamic fundamentalism is not necessarily a key variable behind these groups, what is?

RP: The central fact is that overwhelmingly suicide-terrorist attacks are not driven by religion as much as they are by a clear strategic objective: to compel modern democracies to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. From Lebanon to Sri Lanka to Chechnya to Kashmir to the West Bank, every major suicide-terrorist campaign — over 95 percent of all the incidents — has had as its central objective to compel a democratic state to withdraw.

TAC: That would seem to run contrary to a view that one heard during the American election campaign, put forth by people who favor Bush's policy. That is, we need to fight the terrorists over there, so we don't have to fight them here.

RP: Since suicide terrorism is mainly a response to foreign occupation and not Islamic fundamentalism, the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies over there, if you would, is only likely to increase the number of suicide terrorists coming at us.

Since 1990, the United States has stationed tens of thousands of ground troops on the Arabian Peninsula, and that is the main mobilization appeal of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. People who make the argument that it is a good thing to have them attacking us over there are missing that suicide terrorism is not a supply-limited phenomenon where there are just a few hundred around the world willing to do it because they are religious fanatics. It is a demand-driven phenomenon. That is, it is driven by the presence of foreign forces on the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland. The operation in Iraq has stimulated suicide terrorism and has given suicide terrorism a new lease on life. [...]

TAC: If you were to break down causal factors, how much weight would you put on a cultural rejection of the West and how much weight on the presence of American troops on Muslim territory?

RP: The evidence shows that the presence of American troops is clearly the pivotal factor driving suicide terrorism.

If Islamic fundamentalism were the pivotal factor, then we should see some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world, like Iran, which has 70 million people — three times the population of Iraq and three times the population of Saudi Arabia — with some of the most active groups in suicide terrorism against the United States. However, there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Iran, and we have no evidence that there are any suicide terrorists in Iraq from Iran.

Sudan is a country of 21 million people. Its government is extremely Islamic fundamentalist. The ideology of Sudan was so congenial to Osama bin Laden that he spent three years in Sudan in the 1990s. Yet there has never been an al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from Sudan.

I have the first complete set of data on every al-Qaeda suicide terrorist from 1995 to early 2004, and they are not from some of the largest Islamic fundamentalist countries in the world. Two thirds are from the countries where the United States has stationed heavy combat troops since 1990.

Another point in this regard is Iraq itself. Before our invasion, Iraq never had a suicide-terrorist attack in its history. Never. Since our invasion, suicide terrorism has been escalating rapidly with 20 attacks in 2003, 48 in 2004, and over 50 in just the first five months of 2005. Every year that the United States has stationed 150,000 combat troops in Iraq, suicide terrorism has doubled.

TAC: So your assessment is that there are more suicide terrorists or potential suicide terrorists today than there were in March 2003?

RP: I have collected demographic data from around the world on the 462 suicide terrorists since 1980 who completed the mission, actually killed themselves. This information tells us that most are walk-in volunteers. Very few are criminals. Few are actually longtime members of a terrorist group. For most suicide terrorists, their first experience with violence is their very own suicide-terrorist attack.

There is no evidence there were any suicide-terrorist organizations lying in wait in Iraq before our invasion. What is happening is that the suicide terrorists have been produced by the invasion.

TAC: Do we know who is committing suicide terrorism in Iraq? Are they primarily Iraqis or walk-ins from other countries in the region?

RP: Our best information at the moment is that the Iraqi suicide terrorists are coming from two groups — Iraqi Sunnis and Saudis — the two populations most vulnerable to transformation by the presence of large American combat troops on the Arabian Peninsula. This is perfectly consistent with the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. [...]

RP: I not only study the patterns of where suicide terrorism has occurred but also where it hasn't occurred. Not every foreign occupation has produced suicide terrorism. Why do some and not others? Here is where religion matters, but not quite in the way most people think. In virtually every instance where an occupation has produced a suicide-terrorist campaign, there has been a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied community. That is true not only in places such as Lebanon and in Iraq today but also in Sri Lanka, where it is the Sinhala Buddhists who are having a dispute with the Hindu Tamils.

When there is a religious difference between the occupier and the occupied, that enables terrorist leaders to demonize the occupier in especially vicious ways. Now, that still requires the occupier to be there. Absent the presence of foreign troops, Osama bin Laden could make his arguments but there wouldn't be much reality behind them. The reason that it is so difficult for us to dispute those arguments is because we really do have tens of thousands of combat soldiers sitting on the Arabian Peninsula.

TAC: Has the next generation of anti-American suicide terrorists already been created? Is it too late to wind this down, even assuming your analysis is correct and we could de-occupy Iraq?

RP: Many people worry that once a large number of suicide terrorists have acted that it is impossible to wind it down. The history of the last 20 years, however, shows the opposite. Once the occupying forces withdraw from the homeland territory of the terrorists, they often stop — and often on a dime.

In Lebanon, for instance, there were 41 suicide-terrorist attacks from 1982 to 1986, and after the U.S. withdrew its forces, France withdrew its forces, and then Israel withdrew to just that six-mile buffer zone of Lebanon, they virtually ceased. They didn't completely stop, but there was no campaign of suicide terrorism. Once Israel withdrew from the vast bulk of Lebanese territory, the suicide terrorists did not follow Israel to Tel Aviv.

This is also the pattern of the second Intifada with the Palestinians. As Israel is at least promising to withdraw from Palestinian-controlled territory (in addition to some other factors), there has been a decline of that ferocious suicide-terrorist campaign. This is just more evidence that withdrawal of military forces really does diminish the ability of the terrorist leaders to recruit more suicide terrorists.

That doesn't mean that the existing suicide terrorists will not want to keep going. I am not saying that Osama bin Laden would turn over a new leaf and suddenly vote for George Bush. There will be a tiny number of people who are still committed to the cause, but the real issue is not whether Osama bin Laden exists. It is whether anybody listens to him. That is what needs to come to an end for Americans to be safe from suicide terrorism. [...]

TAC: What do you think the chances are of a weapon of mass destruction being used in an American city?

RP: I think it depends not exclusively, but heavily, on how long our combat forces remain in the Persian Gulf. The central motive for anti-American terrorism, suicide terrorism, and catastrophic terrorism is response to foreign occupation, the presence of our troops. The longer our forces stay on the ground in the Arabian Peninsula, the greater the risk of the next 9/11, whether that is a suicide attack, a nuclear attack, or a biological attack.

If you are a rational person who believes in basing decisions on actual data, take careful note. Bush's "we fight them over there so we don't have to fight them here" is, the data shows, the exact opposite of a rational policy. It is precisely because we fight them over there that we will have to fight them here. And the whole "flypaper" strategy is nonsense. There isn't a finite pool of "terrorists" that, if we can just drain it, the attacks will end and we'll be safe. Pape's data shows that so long as US troops remain as occupiers, there will be an endless supply of suicide bombers, a supply created by the occupation. Finally, note Pape's assertion that when the occupation ends, the attacks cease.

Of course, the real reasons for the US presence in Iraq have nothing much to do with combating terrorism. They have a lot more to do with establishing strategic control of the world's major remaining oil resources in the face of the imminent peak in world oil production, in my opinion. But most Americans who still support the US occupation of Iraq probably believe the "we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here" argument. They still buy the flypaper rationale. Bush may buy it, too, for all we know.

Pape's data shows, however, that this is just another phony justification, like the WMD that never existed. Anyone who uses that justification is a liar (whose real agenda is something else altogether), a fool, or both.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:53 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

July 15, 2005

Iraq And Vietnam

Iraq

Iraq is not Vietnam. Or is it?

This article, by a conservative economist writing on a conservative/libertarian website, makes the comparison. Recommended.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:20 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 14, 2005

100,000-128,000 Iraqi Deaths To Date

Iraq

UPI reports (via ICH) that a humanitarian organization in Iraq estimates that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the US invaded:

An Iraqi humanitarian organization is reporting that 128,000 Iraqis have been killed since the U.S. invasion began in March 2003.

Mafkarat al-Islam reported that chairman of the 'Iraqiyun humanitarian organization in Baghdad, Dr. Hatim al-'Alwani, said that the toll includes everyone who has been killed since that time, adding that 55 percent of those killed have been women and children aged 12 and under.

'Iraqiyun obtained data from relatives and families of the deceased, as well as from Iraqi hospitals in all the country's provinces. The 128,000 figure only includes those whose relatives have been informed of their deaths and does not include those were abducted, assassinated or simply disappeared.

A report (via ICH) by the Turkish Cihan News Agency puts the death toll at 100,000:

The US invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein's regime has cost 100,000 Iraqi civilian lives.

An international research organization in Switzerland said US troops killed 39,000 civilians since the beginning of the war.

The organization indicated there were far more civilian casualties than the number announced as the "Iraqi Body Count." US troops' direct fire or clashes have claimed 39,000 Iraqi civilians' lives.

With suicide attacks and other accidents, the death toll amounts to 100,000 civilian dead in 28 months. The number of the losses of US and other coalition forces for the same period is 1,937.

100,000 or 128,000. Either figure, as a percentage of population, is equivalent to well over a million deaths in the US, or roughly equal to the total number of American servicemen and women killed in all the wars in our nation's history.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:57 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 10, 2005

Paymasters Of Carnage

Activism  Iraq  Media

This piece by John Pilger (via ICH) is an absolute must-read.

It is the necessary antidote to the G8 coverage, to Bono and the other rock-star embeds, and to much else besides. Go read it, and clear your head. Go!

Posted by Jonathan at 07:36 PM | Comments (4) | Link to this  

From Bad To Much, Much Worse

9/11, "War On Terror"  Iraq

The "global war on terror" isn't going so well.

The Sunday Times today quotes US friend Iyad Allawi, the former interim prime minister of Iraq, as saying Iraq is descending into civil war and the Americans don't know what they're doing:

Iraq's former interim prime minister Iyad Allawi has warned that his country is facing civil war and has predicted dire consequences for Europe and America as well as the Middle East if the crisis is not resolved.

"The problem is that the Americans have no vision and no clear policy on how to go about in Iraq," said Allawi, a long-time ally of Washington.

In an interview with The Sunday Times last week as he visited Amman, the Jordanian capital, he said: "The policy should be of building national unity in Iraq. Without this we will most certainly slip into a civil war. We are practically in stage one of a civil war as we speak."

Allawi, a secular Shi’ite, said that Iraq had collapsed as a state and needed to be rebuilt. The only way forward, he said, was through "national unity, the building of institutions, the economy and a firm but peaceful foreign relation policy". Unless these criteria were satisfied, "the country will deteriorate".

Allawi's concern comes amid signs of growing violence between Shi'ites, who make up 60% of Iraq's estimated 26m people, and the Sunni minority who dominated the upper reaches of the civilian bureaucracy and officer corps under Saddam Hussein.

The Shi'ites, who endured decades of oppression, are threatening to purge members of Saddam's former Ba'ath party from the army and the intelligence services, a move that would provoke fierce retaliation from the Sunnis. [...]

Tension has increased in the past two weeks following the return of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian-born head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. Zarqawi left the country in May to seek medical treatment for a chest wound suffered in an American airstrike, but has now recovered sufficiently to resume his activities. [...]

Zarqawi has now released an audiotape in which he announces the formation of a new militant unit, the Omar Corps. Its avowed aim is to "eradicate" the Badr brigade, the armed wing of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country's largest Shi'ite political party, which has targeted Sunnis.

Allawi, who became head of the interim government council created after the American-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, said it was imperative that the security services and military be rebuilt. He has been a staunch critic of the policy followed by Paul Bremer, the American former head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, of removing former Ba'athists from positions of power and disbanding Saddam's army without putting anything else in place.

Allawi said that he had discussed the urgency of rebuilding Iraq's military with President George W Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, last year. "Bush earmarked $5.7 billion...but I did not receive the money," Allawi said.

His experience as prime minister had taught him that "force alone will not solve the problems in Iraq". It needed to be combined with dialogue and money to ensure stability. [...]

"If we don't build a state we will lose," Allawi warned. "Not just as Iraq, but the region as a whole and Europe should say goodbye to stability and so should the United States. Iraq will become a breeding ground for terrorists." [My emphasis]

Meanwhile, AP reports that international terrorism experts see the situation rapidly worsening, largely because of the US attack on Iraq:

New York and Washington. Bali, Riyadh, Istanbul, Madrid. And now London.

When will it end? Where will it all lead?

The experts aren't encouraged. One prominent terrorism researcher sees the prospect of "endless" war. Adds the man who tracked Osama bin Laden for the CIA, "I don't think it’s even started yet."

An Associated Press survey of longtime students of international terrorism finds them ever more convinced, in the aftermath of London's bloody Thursday, that the world has entered a long siege in a new kind of war. They believe that al-Qaida is mutating into a global insurgency, a possible prototype for other 21st-century movements, technologically astute, almost leaderless. And the way out is far from clear.

In fact, says Michael Scheuer, the ex-CIA analyst, rather than move toward solutions, the United States took a big step backward by invading Iraq.

Now, he said, "we're at the point where jihad is self-sustaining," where Islamic "holy warriors" in Iraq fight America with or without allegiance to al-Qaida's bin Laden.

The cold statistics of a RAND Corp. database show the impact of the explosion of violence in Iraq: The 5,362 deaths from terrorism worldwide between March 2004 and March 2005 were almost double the total for the same 12-month period before the 2003 U.S. invasion. [My emphasis]

And then we have this from President Bush. Reuters:

President Bush praised the resilience of Londoners on Saturday after the deadly bombings there and pledged to "stay on the offense" in the war on terrorism as he urged Americans to remain on alert. [...]

"We need to finally bring Osama bin Laden to account for his crimes," [Bush] said. "And we need to get much more serious about protecting America from attack — about securing our roads and rails, our borders and bridges, our seaports and airports, our nuclear and chemical plants."

Democrats have long pushed for spending more money on security for domestic transit other than airlines, but Republicans have resisted. [Thank you, Reuters.]

After returning from the summit on Friday, Bush visited the British Embassy in Washington and signed a book of condolence and laid a wreath in front of the ambassador's residence.

Bush said the London attacks were a reminder of the "evil" of the Sept. 11 attacks and underscored that the United States and its allies were fighting a "global war on terror."

"We will stay on the offense, fighting the terrorists abroad so we do not have to face them at home," Bush said. [My emphasis]

How do you suppose Londoners feel about that last sentence?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:03 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 09, 2005

Stealing Iraq

Iraq

An earlier post told how $12 billion (with a "b") in US paper currency, including 107 million $100 bills — money that belonged to Iraq not the US — had been airlifted to Iraq in giant cargo planes to be spent, with no accounting or accountability, by the Coalition Provisional Authority. Auditors later found that $8.8 billion had disappeared without a trace. Imagine that.

The Guardian Thursday had more (excerpt):

The "financial irregularities" described in audit reports carried out by agencies of the American government and auditors working for the international community collectively give a detailed insight into the mentality of the American occupation authorities and the way they operated. Truckloads of dollars were handed out for which neither they nor the recipients felt they had to be accountable.

The auditors have so far referred more than a hundred contracts, involving billions of dollars paid to American personnel and corporations, for investigation and possible criminal prosecution. They have also discovered that $8.8bn that passed through the new Iraqi government ministries in Baghdad while Bremer was in charge is unaccounted for, with little prospect of finding out where it has gone. A further $3.4bn appropriated by Congress for Iraqi development has since been siphoned off to finance "security".

Although Bremer was expected to manage Iraqi funds in a transparent manner, it was only in October 2003, six months after the fall of Saddam, that an International Advisory and Monitoring Board (IAMB) was established to provide independent, international financial oversight of CPA spending. (This board includes representatives from the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.)

The IAMB first spent months trying to find auditors acceptable to the US. The Bahrain office of KPMG was finally appointed in April 2004. It was stonewalled.

"KPMG has encountered resistance from CPA staff regarding the submission of information required to complete our procedures," they wrote in an interim report. "Staff have indicated ... that cooperation with KPMG's undertakings is given a low priority." KPMG had one meeting at the Iraqi Ministry of Finance; meetings at all the other ministries were repeatedly postponed. The auditors even had trouble getting passes to enter the Green Zone.

There appears to have been good reason for the Americans to stall. At the end of June 2004, the CPA would be disbanded and Bremer would leave Iraq. There was no way the Bush administration would want independent auditors to publish a report into the financial propriety of its Iraqi administration while the CPA was still in existence and Bremer at its head still answerable to the press. So the report was published in July.

The auditors found that the CPA didn't keep accounts of the hundreds of millions of dollars of cash in its vault, had awarded contracts worth billions of dollars to American firms without tender, and had no idea what was happening to the money from the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI), which was being spent by the interim Iraqi government ministries.

This lack of transparency has led to allegations of corruption. An Iraqi hospital administrator told me that when he came to sign a contract, the American army officer representing the CPA had crossed out the original price and doubled it. The Iraqi protested that the original price was enough. The American officer explained that the increase (more than $1m) was his retirement package.

When the Iraqi Governing Council asked Bremer why a contract to repair the Samarah cement factory was costing $60m rather than the agreed $20m, the American representative reportedly told them that they should be grateful the coalition had saved them from Saddam. [My emphasis]

There's a longer version of the article here.

Talk about a conflict of interest. People responsible for prosecuting the war and rebuilding Iraq are getting rich off of the war. Think they want it to end?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 08, 2005

No Drinking While Armed

Iraq

Maybe you've already seen these, but I've only just discovered them, thanks to Billmon. They're a series of dispatches by a pseudonymous "Bart" from the Green Zone in Baghdad. Part Catch-22 and part "Apocalypse Now" — as disturbing as they are hilarious.

A sample:

The Green Zone is a curious place. Next to the Republican Palace, leading to the little PX, the Burger King, the Pizza Inn and the crumby Romainian gyro shop, you find two large parking lots. They're guarded 24/7 by the Gurkhas, who, incidentally, live in squalid conditions in the part of the Green Zone that is most exposed to insurgent fire. Every morning in the parking lots, you see a strange ritual, as a lot of people are bending over and checking under their cars. They're checking for bombs, which you're supposed to check for everyday day before you get in the car. Even though your car will probably get searched at least twice more, and thoroughly, for bombs anywhere you go in the Green Zone.

There are similarities to what Vietnam must have been like. The enemy is everywhere and nowhere. People get pissed when they close the swimming pool because of actual or expected mortar fire. Every night there are high stakes poker games next to the pool. People with some time off covort in the pool, while down the street guys go out in various convoys, risking their lives. Go to the Assassin's gate and you'll see helicopter gunships dropping flares and sometimes hear small arms fire.

A sign at the pool sums things up: NO DRINKING WHILE ARMED.

To read them in chronological order, use the list of links at the bottom of this post, going from the bottom up.

There's a lot of funny stuff (like the Army chaplain whose Armed Forces Radio commercial urges listeners to "secure your spiritual perimeter"), but the overall impression is of a hellish, out-of-control craziness. A lot of people making a lot of money and getting a big kick out of their little "Apocalypse Now" adventure, all pumped up on adrenaline and testosterone and greed — and wrecking someone else's country in the process. God, what a mess.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:17 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 06, 2005

It's Imperialism, Stupid

Iraq

Noam Chomsky on the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, published July Fourth, here.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 04, 2005

"The Disease Is The War"

Iraq

The Baltimore Sun's editorial of yesterday:

The Army can't find enough recruits. Could there be a clearer expression of Americans' disenchantment with the war in Iraq?

This is democracy where it matters. No one should doubt that young Americans would willingly go to war if they believed in it. But this is a war of choice that began with fabrications and has been marked by blunders at the highest level — blunders that have resulted in many lives lost. Over two years, the aims of this war have shifted like dunes in the desert. President Bush, moreover, has told Americans they need not make any sacrifices; to the contrary, he has pursued tax cuts. This is not inspiring. This is deceptive and dishonorable. Yet the Army expects young idealists to sign up anyway, for hazardous duty in a treacherous country, where the violence shows no signs of letting up and the generals show no signs of knowing what to do about it.

It's no surprise that the idealists are staying away. Certainly, the sons and daughters of the unimpeachably idealistic neoconservatives who prayed for the war and brayed for what they stupidly supposed was victory back in 2003 are staying as far away from it as they possibly can. So now the Army's recruiters, who reached their goal in June for the first time in five months, but still expect to fall short for the year, have another plan.

For starters, ease the requirements. School dropouts, drug users, petty criminals may all get a second look.

Next step, ramp up a national Pentagon database that will try to track every young person in the United States. Civil liberties proponents are denouncing the government's collection of so much personal information, especially since it has been in the works for three years and may not be legal.

We share those concerns, but this is what is truly disturbing: The database is obviously an attempt to pinpoint those who would be most vulnerable to a recruiter's pitch — young people who need the bonus money, or want a one-way ticket away from wherever they are, or are willing to fall for the lure of drumrolls and adventure. This is the real Army of the future — not the lean, smart, competent fighting force that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld likes to imagine. [...]

Army recruiters say that they could sign up more young people if it weren't for the parents. That may be so, but if it is, no amount of exhortation will change the parents' minds. The Army is looking at ways to heal its problems, but those problems are merely symptoms. The disease is the war. The war has to be fixed. [My emphasis]

What if they gave a war and nobody came?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

July 03, 2005

Feingold Fundraiser

Iraq  Peak Oil  Politics

Kent (Gumpa) and Kathy (Mrs. Gumpa) took me with them yesterday to a backyard gathering/fundraiser for Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold up here in Ashland WI, where I'm visiting. There were maybe 75 people there, so everybody got a chance to meet Russ (if I can call him "Russ") and chat with him for a few minutes. He also made some remarks that lasted 20 minutes or so. It was all very informal and casual, your basic Fourth of July backyard get-together, but with a Senator.

More photos	© Kent Tenney

Feingold is a great public servant, a man of impeccable honesty and integrity, dedicated to doing what's right, not just what's politically expedient or beneficial to his campaign contributors. In his Senate campaigns, he refuses soft money contributions because he sees them as corrosive to democracy. It's one thing to criticize soft money; it's another to refuse to accept it even when your opponent is accepting it with both hands. But that's Russ. There's talk of Feingold's running for President, possibly even in 2008, and he would certainly have my whole-hearted support.

In his remarks, Feingold talked about Sandra Day O'Connor's announced retirement and about the challenges facing Democrats, but mostly he talked about Iraq. He called the administration's misleading the Congress and the public into going to war one of the most dishonest acts by a government in our nation's history. He talked about a trip he took to Iraq with Senators Lindsey Graham, Susan Collins, John McCain, and Hillary Clinton. He said that what they saw was that the situation on the ground in Iraq is bad and getting worse. He also joked that it was fascinating having breakfast each day with McCain and Clinton, watching them size each other up as they prepare for their Presidential runs in 2008.

What I mostly wanted to write about, though, is this. In the few minutes I had personally to talk to Feingold, I tried to give him a capsule summary of the Peak Oil story: that world energy production is on track to fall short of world demand in the very near future; that the gap between supply and demand will mean rapidly rising prices with severe economic consequences; that oil production will soon peak and begin its inexorable, irreversible, and permanent decline; that the CEO of Exxon had just announced that natural gas production in North America has already peaked. I said that these are big problems that are not being addressed.

Feingold's response was illuminating and somewhat disheartening. He said that three years ago, before the war, the NYT's Thomas Friedman, a supporter of the war, had said that three years hence one would know if the war had succeeded by looking at the price of oil. If it was $6 a barrel, the war would have been a success. If it was $60 a barrel, the war would have been a failure. Here, three years later, oil is indeed $60 a barrel. He said also that it's a problem that India and China are buying up so much oil, and said something about Venezuela being a problem. He finished by saying we need to increase our independence from foreign oil.

In other words, he sees our problems with energy as political, not geological. Peak oil, the idea that permanently declining oil and gas production is just over the horizon, does not seem to be anywhere on his radar screen. This from one of the smartest and most progressive members of the Senate. And it was clear from other things Feingold said that he, like everyone in politics, has a relatively short-term focus. A lot of his focus is on 2006 and 2008. That kind of short-term focus is understandable; it's built into the system. Unfortunately, given the deep, fundamental, tectonic shifts that are underway, a purely short-term focus invites disaster.

I wanted to tell him as well about the new research that suggests global warming may be far more drastic than even the worst-case scenarios have suggested heretofore. And I wanted to point out that when people wake up to the reality of peak oil and global warming, they are going to be very, very angry that their leadership has failed them so disastrously. They are going to look around for a person who has been telling them the truth about these issues all along. I was going to suggest that Feingold make himself that person.

Maybe next time.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:20 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

July 02, 2005

GOP Senators Blame Media For Recruiting Shortfalls

Iraq  Media  Politics

It's the media's fault that nobody wants to enlist, say several Republican Senators. Reuters:

Several Senate Republicans denounced other lawmakers and the news media on Thursday for unfavorable depictions of the Iraq war and the Pentagon urged members of Congress to talk up military service to help ease a recruiting shortfall.

Families are discouraging young men and women from enlisting "because of all the negative media that's out there," Sen. James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, said at a U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee hearing.

Inhofe also said that other senators' criticism of the war contributed to the propaganda of U.S. enemies. He did not name the senators. [...]

The Army on Wednesday said it was 14 percent, or about 7,800 recruits, behind its year-to-date recruitment target even though it exceeded its monthly target in June. With extended deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan, recruiting also is down for the National Guard and the Reserves.

"With the deluge of negative news that we get daily, it's just amazing to me that anybody would want to sign up," said Sen. Pat Roberts, a Kansas Republican.

I agree. It's just amazing to me, too. And of course it's all the media's fault. As Jon Stewart said, they never tell us about the cars in Iraq that don't blow up.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:37 AM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

Poll: 42% Favor Bush Impeachment If He Lied About Iraq

Iraq  Politics

Pollster John Zogby finds that Bush's Iraq speech failed to help his poll numbers. More importantly, he finds that 42% of voters (including 25% of Republicans and 43% of independents) say they would favor impeachment if Bush lied about the reasons for going to war. Zogby:

President Bush's televised address to the nation produced no noticeable bounce in his approval numbers, with his job approval rating slipping a point from a week ago, to 43%, in the latest Zogby International poll. And, in a sign of continuing polarization, more than two-in-five voters (42%) say they would favor impeachment proceedings if it is found the President misled the nation about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. [...]

Just one week ago, President Bush's job approval stood at a previous low of 44% — but it has now slipped another point to 43%, despite a speech to the nation intended to build support for the Administration and the ongoing Iraq War effort. [...]

Where voters live has some impact on their perceptions. The President’s job rating remains relatively strong in the South, with 51% rating his performance favorably; in all other regions, those disapproving his performance are in the majority. [...]

[S]upporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country.

Among those living in the Western states, a 52% majority favors Congress using the impeachment mechanism while just 41% are opposed; in Eastern states, 49% are in favor and 45% opposed. In the South, meanwhile, impeachment is opposed by three-in-five voters (60%) and supported by just one-in-three (34%); in the Central/Great Lakes region, 52% are opposed and 38% in favor.

Impeachment is overwhelmingly rejected in the Red States — just 36% say they agree Congress should use it if the President is found to have lied on Iraq, while 55% reject this view; in the "Blue States"...meanwhile, a plurality of 48% favors such proceedings while 45% are opposed.

A large majority of Democrats (59%) say they agree that the President should be impeached if he lied about Iraq, while just three-in-ten (30%) disagree. Among President Bush’s fellow Republicans, a full one-in-four (25%) indicate they would favor impeaching the President under these circumstances, while seven-in-ten (70%) do not. Independents are more closely divided, with 43% favoring impeachment and 49% opposed.

Of course, the evidence is overwhelming that Bush and everyone around him lied through their teeth about Iraq from the very beginning. Our job now is to see that the evidence becomes widely known and that the fact of Bush's lying becomes the accepted mainstream view.

Not that Bush would be impeached, but these poll numbers suggest that once people realize the truth on Iraq, the spell will be broken and they'll finally see how very naked the Emperor has always been.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:56 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 29, 2005

Raising The Bloody Flag Of 9/11

Iraq  Politics

Today's NYT editorial neatly summarizes how far off the mark President Bush's speech was last night. Excerpt:

President Bush told the nation last night that the war in Iraq was difficult but winnable. Only the first is clearly true. Despite buoyant cheerleading by administration officials, the military situation is at best unimproved. The Iraqi Army, despite Mr. Bush's optimistic descriptions, shows no signs of being able to control the country without American help for years to come. There are not enough American soldiers to carry out the job they have been sent to do, yet the strain of maintaining even this inadequate force is taking a terrible toll on the ability of the United States to defend its security on other fronts around the world.

We did not expect Mr. Bush would apologize for the misinformation that helped lead us into this war, or for the catastrophic mistakes his team made in running the military operation. But we had hoped he would resist the temptation to raise the bloody flag of 9/11 over and over again to justify a war in a country that had nothing whatsoever to do with the terrorist attacks. We had hoped that he would seize the moment to tell the nation how he will define victory, and to give Americans a specific sense of how he intends to reach that goal — beyond repeating the same wishful scenario that he has been describing since the invasion.

Sadly, Mr. Bush wasted his opportunity last night, giving a speech that only answered questions no one was asking. He told the nation, again and again, that a stable and democratic Iraq would be worth American sacrifices, while the nation was wondering whether American sacrifices could actually produce a stable and democratic Iraq. [My emphasis]

Meanwhile, the CIA has concluded that the war has turned Iraq into "an even more effective training ground for Islamic extremists than Afghanistan was in Al Qaeda's early days, because it is serving as a real-world laboratory for urban combat."

In other words, the war is not making us safer, as Bush claims. It's doing exactly the opposite.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:51 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 28, 2005

"The Terrorists"

Iraq  Politics

Clearly, one of the White House goals tonight was to hammer home the idea that the insurgents in Iraq are "the terrorists" — equivalent, if not actually identical, to "the terrorists" responsible for 9/11.

In his speech, Bush repeated that phrase — "the terrorists" — again and again. Based on the White House text, Bush referred to "terrorists" — almost always in the phrase "the terrorists" — a total of 23 times. "Insurgents", on the other hand, were mentioned only six times, four of which linked "insurgents" with "terrorists" in the phrase "terrorists and insurgents".

That phrase, "the terrorists", is the enemy of thought. It takes as given the blanket assumption that all adversaries of the United States are terrorists, and all terrorists are indistinguishable members of one single entity, one single phenomenon, so it's enough just to say "the" terrorists. I.e., our adversaries are all terrorists, and terrorists are all the same.

And then since some terrorists attacked the US on 9/11, it follows that all terrorists, which is to say all US adversaries, are guilty of the 9/11 attacks.

Which, supposedly, pretty much gives us carte blanche.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:05 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

Bush To Blur Iraq And 9/11, As Usual

Iraq  Politics

The White House has released some excerpts from the speech Bush will deliver tonight on Iraq. As always, Bush will attempt to conflate Iraq and 9/11. Here's a sample:

We have more work to do, and there will be tough moments that test America's resolve. We are fighting against men with blind hatred — and armed with lethal weapons — who are capable of any atrocity. They wear no uniform; they respect no laws of warfare or morality. They take innocent lives to create chaos for the cameras. They are trying to shake our will in Iraq — just as they tried to shake our will on September 11, 2001. [My emphasis]

9/11. Terror. Terror. 9/11. Terror. 9/11. 9/11. Iraq. 9/11. Terror. 9/11. 9/11. Iraq. 9/11. Terror.

He thinks we're idiots.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:36 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Jon Stewart Looks At The "Last Throes"

Humor & Fun  Iraq  Politics

Stop what you're doing and watch this clip from "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart", courtesy of Crooks and Liars. Stewart and Stephen Colbert look at the administration's weirdly rosy appraisals of the situation in Iraq.

Once again, we have to ask why the best news analysis on tv is coming from a comedy show.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:20 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 27, 2005

Hagel: US Is In Deep Trouble In Iraq

Iraq  Politics

A week ago, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel publicly declared the US is losing in Iraq. Speaking before the American Legion yesterday, Hagel talked about his views. Excerpt (via Kos):

More than 200 Nebraska American Legion members, who have seen war and conflict themselves, fell quiet here Saturday as Sen. Chuck Hagel bluntly explained why he believes that the United States is losing the war in Iraq.

It took 20 minutes, but it boiled down to this:

The Bush team sent in too few troops to fight the war leading to today's chaos and rising deaths of Americans and Iraqis. Terrorists are "pouring in" to Iraq.

Basic living standards are worse than a year ago in Iraq. Civil war is perilously close to erupting there. Allies aren't helping much. The American public is losing its trust in President Bush's handling of the conflict.

And Hagel's deep fear is that it will all plunge into another Vietnam debacle, prompting Congress to force another abrupt pullout as it did in 1975.

"What we don't want to happen is for this to end up another Vietnam," Hagel told the legionnaires, "because the consequences would be catastrophic."

It would be far worse than Vietnam, says Hagel, a twice-wounded veteran of that conflict, which killed 58,000 Americans.

Failure in Iraq could lead to many more American deaths, disrupt U.S. oil supplies, damage the Middle East peace effort, spread terrorism and harm America's stature worldwide, Hagel said. [...]

"The point is, we're going to have to make some changes or we will lose, we will lose in Iraq," he told the legionnaires. [...]

Aboard a plane back to Omaha, Hagel was asked whether he thought Bush was aware that adjustments might be needed in his Iraq policy.

"I don't know," Hagel said. [...]

He lays part of the blame on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who argued before the war that he needed only 150,000 American troops in Iraq. That caused more casualties than were needed, Hagel said.

"We still don't have enough troops," he said. "We should have had double or triple the number."

It has led to a bleak situation, Hagel said:

Insurgent attacks are more frequent than a year ago. Bombs used by insurgents are growing more deadly, piercing America's best protective clothing and equipment. Oil production is down. Electricity is less available than a year ago. Economic development is lagging. Ninety percent of the humanitarian and economic aid pledged by 60 nations hasn't reached Iraq because of the continuing violence. Only one Middle Eastern country has an ambassador in Iraq. [...]

"We are destroying the finest military in the history of mankind, and the (National) Guard, too," he said. "We're stretching our Army to the breaking point."

Public pronouncements from the Bush administration also have gotten under Hagel's skin. Vice President Dick Cheney's recent comments that the insurgents in Iraq are in "the last throes" echo a refrain of the Vietnam era, he said.

Back then, officials saw "the light at the end of the tunnel" in Vietnam, Hagel said.

Toting up all those points, he said, leads him to conclude that the United States is losing in Iraq. [...]

The United States has only about six more months to begin to turn things around in Iraq, he said. [My emphasis]

Hagel may simply be an opportunist who sees which way the wind's blowing and wants to position himself for a presidential run in 2008, by which time, he figures, voters will be looking for a candidate with his views. Be that as it may, the fact that a prominent Republican senator is airing such views suggests that establishment paleocons have soured on the war and are mobilizing to bring about a change in direction.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:12 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 26, 2005

US General Admits Secret Air War Against Iraq

Iraq

The London Sunday Times today provides further corroboration for the earlier report that the US and UK started their air war against Iraq some nine months prior to the invasion and months before any Congressional or UN authorization (or what was claimed to be authorization). Excerpts:

The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

Addressing a briefing on lessons learnt from the Iraq war Lieutenant-General Michael Moseley said that in 2002 and early 2003 allied aircraft flew 21,736 sorties, dropping more than 600 bombs on 391 "carefully selected targets" before the war officially started.

The nine months of allied raids "laid the foundations" for the allied victory, Moseley said. They ensured that allied forces did not have to start the war with a protracted bombardment of Iraqi positions.

If those raids exceeded the need to maintain security in the no-fly zones of southern and northern Iraq, they would leave President George W Bush and Tony Blair vulnerable to allegations that they had acted illegally. [...]

Moseley told the briefing at Nellis airbase in Nebraska on July 17, 2003, that the raids took place under cover of patrols of the southern no-fly zone; their purpose was ostensibly to protect the ethnic minorities. [My emphasis]

The president as emperor, launching wars without authorization or public knowledge. I can understand why neoconservatives are all for it. But why don't more true conservatives and libertarians speak out against this unconstitutional arrogation of power?

Posted by Jonathan at 02:41 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 25, 2005

Fixin' To Stay

Iraq

Riverbend, the anonymous young Iraqi woman who writes the blog Baghdad Burning, gave this update recently on the situation in Baghdad where she lives (excerpt):

The electrical situation differs from area to area. On some days, the electricity schedule is two hours of electricity, and then four hours of no electricity. On other days, it's four hours of electricity to four or six hours of no electricity. The problem is that the last couple of weeks, we don't have electricity in the mornings for some reason. Our local generator is off until almost 11 am, and the house generator allows for ceiling fans (or "pankas"), the refrigerator, television and a few other appliances. Air conditioners cannot be turned on and the heat is oppressive by 8 am these days.

Detentions and assassinations, along with intermittent electricity, have also been contributing to sleepless nights. We're hearing about raids in many areas in the Karkh half of Baghdad in particular. On the television the talk about 'terrorists' being arrested, but there are dozens of people being rounded up for no particular reason. Almost every Iraqi family can give the name of a friend or relative who is in one of the many American prisons for no particular reason. They aren't allowed to see lawyers or have visitors and stories of torture have become commonplace. Both Sunni and Shia clerics who are in opposition to the occupation are particularly prone to attacks by "Liwa il Theeb" or the special Iraqi forces Wolf Brigade. They are often tortured during interrogation and some of them are found dead.

There were also several explosions and road blocks today... Baghdad has been cut up into sections and several of them may be found to be off limits immediately after an explosion or before a Puppet meeting. The least pleasant situation is to be caught in mid-day traffic, on a crowded road, in the heat — waiting for the next bomb to go off.

What people find particularly frustrating is the fact that while Baghdad seems to be falling apart in so many ways with roads broken and pitted, buildings blasted and burnt out and residential areas often swimming in sewage, the Green Zone is flourishing. [...]

The price of building materials has gone up unbelievably, in spite of the fact that major reconstruction has not yet begun. I assumed it was because so much of the concrete and other building materials was going to reinforce the restricted areas. A friend who recently got involved working with an Iraqi subcontractor who takes projects inside of the Green Zone explained that it was more than that. The Green Zone, he told us, is a city in itself. He came back awed, and more than a little bit upset. He talked of designs and plans being made for everything from the future US Embassy and the housing complex that will surround it, to restaurants, shops, fitness centers, gasoline stations, constant electricity and water — a virtual country inside of a country with its own rules, regulations and government. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the Republic of the Green Zone, also known as the Green Republic.

"The Americans won't be out in less than ten years." Is how the argument often begins with the friend who has entered the Green Republic. "How can you say that?" Is usually my answer — and I begin to throw around numbers — 2007, 2008 maximum… Could they possibly want to be here longer? Can they afford to be here longer? At this, T. shakes his head — if you could see the bases they are planning to build — if you could see what already has been built — you'd know that they are going to be here for quite a while.

The Green Zone is a source of consternation and aggravation for the typical Iraqi. It makes us anxious because it symbolises the heart of the occupation and if fortifications and barricades are any indicator — the occupation is going to be here for a long time. It is a provocation because no matter how anyone tries to explain or justify it, it is like a slap in the face. It tells us that while we are citizens in our own country, our comings and goings are restricted because portions of the country no longer belong to its people. They belong to the people living in the Green Republic. [My emphasis]

Meanwhile, construction continues on 14 "enduring" bases for US forces throughout Iraq. People are realizing now that our entry into the war was based on a massive, deliberate campaign of lies. We need to realize also that when anybody in the administration says the US presence will be short-lived, they're lying all over again. Their actions on the ground in Iraq prove they intend to stay there for a very long time.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 24, 2005

Kleptocracy In Action

Iraq  Politics

This is a hugely important story, a small peek behind the curtain; watch it disappear in 24 hours or less.

A new Congressional report shows that the Coalition Provisional Authority robbed Iraq blind, with a final frenzy of theft of $4 billion (with a "b") occurring in just the last week before the handover of sovereignty. War is business, and business is good. Reuters (via GNN):

A report by Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman of California, said in the week before the hand-over on June 28, 2004, the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority ordered the urgent delivery of more than $4 billion in Iraqi funds from the U.S. Federal Reserve in New York.

One single shipment amounted to $2.4 billion — the largest movement of cash in the bank's history, said Waxman.

Most of these funds came from frozen and seized assets and from the Development Fund for Iraq. [...]

Cash was loaded onto giant pallets for shipment by plane to Iraq, and paid out to contractors who carried it away in duffel bags.

The report, released at a House of Representatives committee hearing, said despite the huge amount of money, there was little U.S. scrutiny in how these assets were managed.

"The disbursement of these funds was characterized by significant waste, fraud and abuse," said Waxman.

An audit by the U.S. Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction said U.S. auditors could not account for nearly $8.8 billion in Iraqi funds and the United States had not provided adequate controls for this money. [...]

Contractors were told to turn up with big duffel bags to pick up their payments and some were paid from the back of pick-up trucks. [...]

Citing documents from the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank in New York, Waxman said the United States flew in nearly $12 billion overall in U.S. currency to Iraq from the United States between May 2003 and June 2004. [...]

In total, more than 281 million individual bills, including more than 107 million $100 bills, were shipped to Iraq on giant pallets loaded onto C-130 planes, the report said. [My emphasis]

Twelve billion dollars in paper currency. 107 million $100 bills. Are you kidding me? What possible reason is there to do all transactions in cash other than to make an audit impossible? And if you doubt that millions — if not billions — made their way into Swiss bank accounts held by the Bush family and assorted cronies, not to mention political slush funds for the White House and Republican Party — well, just stop for a second and consider what you'd think if you heard of some other country conducting business in this way, let's say some Third World country with one-party rule. Billions of dollars in untraceable bills there for the taking. No possible way to get caught. Human nature being what it is. Would you doubt for an instant that a truly massive theft was occurring?

$8.8 billion missing and a whole war based on lies, courtesy of the party of "values", while Ken Starr spent $60 million investigating a lousy $80,000 real estate deal and a lie about sex. And people act as if it all makes sense. Up is down, black is white, war is peace. And the war goes on.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:41 AM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

June 23, 2005

Iraqi Justice Minister: US Hiding Saddam Secrets

Iraq  Politics

AP yesterday quoted Iraq's justice minister, who says the US is interfering with Iraq's interrogation of Saddam Hussein because the US doesn't want Saddam spilling the beans on his long-standing relationship with and backing by the US. Excerpt (via CommonDreams):

Iraq's justice minister on Tuesday accused the United States of trying to delay Iraqi efforts to interrogate Saddam Hussein, saying "it seems there are lots of secrets they want to hide." [...]

Shandal alleged that U.S. officials deliberately are trying to limit access to Saddam because they have their own secrets to protect, including funnelling money and support to Iraqi leader during his rule.

"There should be transparency and there should be frankness, but there are secrets that if revealed, won't be in the interest of many countries," he said. "Who was helping Saddam all those years?" [My emphasis]

Who indeed?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 20, 2005

"We Went To War Because We Were Attacked"

Iraq  Politics

Bush continues to try to link 9/11 and Iraq and to equate Iraqi insurgents with foreign terrorists. Here's an excerpt from his radio address Saturday:

As we work to deliver opportunity at home, we're also keeping you safe from threats from abroad. We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens. Some may disagree with my decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, but all of us can agree that the world's terrorists have now made Iraq a central front in the war on terror. These foreign terrorists violently oppose the rise of a free and democratic Iraq, because they know that when we replace despair and hatred with liberty and hope, they lose their recruiting grounds for terror.

Our troops are fighting these terrorists in Iraq so you will not have to face them here at home. [...]

I am confident that Iraqis will continue to defy the skeptics as they build a new Iraq that represents the diversity of their nation and assumes greater responsibility for their own security. And when they do, our troops can come home with the honor they have earned.

This mission isn't easy, and it will not be accomplished overnight. We're fighting a ruthless enemy that relishes the killing of innocent men, women, and children. By making their stand in Iraq, the terrorists have made Iraq a vital test for the future security of our country and the free world. We will settle for nothing less than victory. [My emphasis]

These utterances reveal such contempt for his audience that it's amazing that anybody still listens to the guy. What does he takes us for?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:37 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

June 19, 2005

UK Foreign Office Warned Bombing Raids Were Illegal

Iraq  Politics

Michael Smith, the British reporter who broke the Downing Street memo story, has a new article in today's London Sunday Times. It shows that the British Foreign Office decided that pre-war US and UK bombing raids aimed at goading Saddam into doing something that could serve as a pretext for war were illegal under international law. Excerpts:

A sharp increase in British and American bombing raids on Iraq in the run-up to war "to put pressure on the regime" was illegal under international law, according to leaked Foreign Office legal advice.

The advice was first provided to senior ministers in March 2002 [a year before the war]. Two months later RAF and USAF jets began "spikes of activity" designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.

The Foreign Office advice shows military action to pressurise the regime was "not consistent with" UN law, despite American claims that it was. [...]

Ministry of Defence figures for bombs dropped by the RAF on southern Iraq, obtained by the Liberal Democrats through Commons written answers, show the RAF was as active in the bombing as the Americans and that the "spikes" began in May 2002 [10 months before the war].

However, the leaked Foreign Office legal advice, which was also appended to the Cabinet Office briefing paper for the July meeting, made it clear allied aircraft were legally entitled to patrol the no-fly zones over the north and south of Iraq only to deter attacks by Saddam's forces on the Kurdish and Shia populations.

The allies had no power to use military force to put pressure of any kind on the regime.

The increased attacks on Iraqi installations, which senior US officers admitted were designed to "degrade" Iraqi air defences, began six months before the UN passed resolution 1441, which the allies claim authorised military action. The war finally started in March 2003. [...]

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, one of the Foreign Office lawyers who wrote the report, resigned in March 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war without a UN resolution specifically authorising military force.

Further intensification of the bombing, known in the Pentagon as the Blue Plan, began at the end of August, 2002, following a meeting of the US National Security Council at the White House that month.

General Tommy Franks, the allied commander, recalled in his autobiography, American Soldier, that during this meeting he rejected a call from Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to cut the bombing patrols because he wanted to use them to make Iraq's defences "as weak as possible". [...]

Although the legality of the war has been more of an issue in Britain than in America, the revelations indicate Bush may also have acted illegally, since Congress did not authorise military action until October 11 2002.

The air war had already begun six weeks earlier and the spikes of activity had been underway for five months. [My emphasis]

The UK, unlike the US, is a member of the International Criminal Court. British leaders could conceivably find themselves someday facing charges before an international tribunal. (An aside: the countries who voted against the establishment of the ICC were the US, Israel, People's Republic of China, Iraq (under Saddam), Qatar, Libya and Yemen.)

Meanwhile, here in the US, the 2006 Congressional elections are going to be a high-stakes game. If the Democrats can regain a majority in the House, they can finally hold investigative hearings with subpoena power. Of course, that assumes fair elections are still possible in this country.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Hagel: "We're Losing In Iraq"

Iraq

As Bush's poll numbers plummet and the war news continues to be grim, members of the president's own party are starting to break ranks. USNews:

Nebraska Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel is angry. He's upset about the more than 1,700 U.S. soldiers killed and nearly 13,000 wounded in Iraq. He's also aggravated by the continued string of sunny assessments from the Bush administration, such as Vice President Dick Cheney's recent remark that the insurgency is in its "last throes." "Things aren't getting better; they're getting worse. The White House is completely disconnected from reality," Hagel tells U.S. News. "It's like they're just making it up as they go along. The reality is that we're losing in Iraq." [...]

"If things don't start to turn around in six months, then it may be too late," says Hagel. "I think it's that serious." [My emphasis]

Hagel knows which way the wind's blowing and he's positioning himself for 2008. The fact that pessimism on the war is now seen as a good political move for a Republican with presidential ambitions is a measure of just how desperate the situation in Iraq really is.

If you voted for Bush — are you sorry yet?

Posted by Jonathan at 02:57 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 18, 2005

More British Memo Bombshells

Iraq  Politics

AP reports (via ICH) today on additional secret British memos that AP has obtained. They make clear that the Bush administration was pressuring the Brits to join in bringing about "regime change" in Iraq just six months after 9/11 and more than a year before the war. Excerpts:

When Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief foreign policy adviser dined with Condoleezza Rice six months after Sept. 11, the then-U.S. national security adviser didn't want to discuss Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida. She wanted to talk about "regime change" in Iraq, setting the stage for the U.S.-led invasion more than a year later.

President Bush wanted Blair's support, but British officials worried the White House was rushing to war, according to a series of leaked secret Downing Street memos that have renewed questions and debate about Washington's motives for ousting Saddam Hussein.

In one of the memos, British Foreign Office political director Peter Ricketts openly asks whether the Bush administration had a clear and compelling military reason for war.

"U.S. scrambling to establish a link between Iraq and al-Qaida is so far frankly unconvincing," Ricketts says in the memo. "For Iraq, 'regime change' does not stack up. It sounds like a grudge between Bush and Saddam."

The documents confirm Blair was genuinely concerned about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction, but also indicate he was determined to go to war as America's top ally, even though his government thought a pre-emptive attack may be illegal under international law. [...]

Details from Rice's dinner conversation also are included in one of the secret memos from 2002, which reveal British concerns about both the invasion and poor postwar planning by the Bush administration, which critics say has allowed the Iraqi insurgency to rage. [...]

The AP obtained copies of six of the memos (the other two have circulated widely). A senior British official who reviewed the copies said their content appeared authentic. [...]

Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert who teaches at Queen Mary College, University of London, said the documents confirmed what post-invasion investigations have found.

"The documents show what official inquiries in Britain already have, that the case of weapons of mass destruction was based on thin intelligence and was used to inflate the evidence to the level of mendacity," Dodge said. "In going to war with Bush, Blair defended the special relationship between the two countries, like other British leaders have. But he knew he was taking a huge political risk at home. He knew the war's legality was questionable and its unpopularity was never in doubt."

Dodge said the memos also show Blair was aware of the postwar instability that was likely among Iraq's complex mix of Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds once Saddam was defeated.

The British documents confirm, as well, that "soon after 9/11 happened, the starting gun was fired for the invasion of Iraq," Dodge said. [...]

It was in a March 14, 2002, memo that Blair's chief foreign policy adviser, David Manning, told the prime minister about the dinner he had just had with Rice in Washington.

"We spent a long time at dinner on Iraq," wrote Manning, who's now British ambassador to the United States. Rice is now Bush's secretary of state. [...]

Manning said, "Condi's enthusiasm for regime change is undimmed." But he also said there were signs of greater awareness of the practical difficulties and political risks. [...]

A July 21 briefing paper given to officials preparing for a July 23 meeting with Blair says officials must "ensure that the benefits of action outweigh the risks."

"In particular we need to be sure that the outcome of the military action would match our objective... A postwar occupation of Iraq could lead to a protracted and costly nation-building exercise. As already made clear, the U.S. military plans are virtually silent on this point." [...]

In the March 22 memo from Foreign Office political director Ricketts to Foreign Secretary Straw, Ricketts outlined how to win public and parliamentary support for a war in Britain: "We have to be convincing that: the threat is so serious/imminent that it is worth sending our troops to die for; it is qualitatively different from the threat posed by other proliferators who are closer to achieving nuclear capability (including Iran)."

Blair's government has been criticized for releasing an intelligence dossier on Iraq before the war that warned Saddam could launch chemical or biological weapons on 45 minutes' notice.

On March 25 Straw wrote a memo to Blair, saying he would have a tough time convincing the governing Labour Party that a pre-emptive strike against Iraq was legal under international law.

"If 11 September had not happened, it is doubtful that the U.S. would now be considering military action against Iraq," Straw wrote. "In addition, there has been no credible evidence to link Iraq with OBL (Osama bin Laden) and al-Qaida."

He also questioned stability in a post-Saddam Iraq: "We have also to answer the big question what will this action achieve? There seems to be a larger hole in this than on anything." [My emphasis]

What is disheartening is that the Brits correctly identified that the US had no post-war plan and that the whole purpose of the attack and what it could achieve were completely unclear — but they went ahead anyway.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 16, 2005

Watch The Conyers Hearing Online

Iraq  Politics

C-SPAN has put the video of today's Conyers hearing online. Go here and under "Recent Programs" click: "House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Meeting on Downing Street Memo and Iraq War (06/16/2005)". If the video doesn't work for you, read the help here.

It's worth watching in full, but check out especially the statement by Constitutional attorney John Bonifaz, co-founder of AfterDowningStreet.org, beginning at the 43:30 mark. He makes a stirring and well-argued case that the Downing Street minutes, if true, show that the White House is guilty of felonious and impeachable conduct.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:58 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Conyers Hearing On C-SPAN3

Iraq  Politics

The Conyers hearing on the Downing Street memo and related topics is online now on C-SPAN3.

Update: (4:36 PM) Wow. If you missed seeing this, you really should make an effort either to see the rebroadcast Friday at 8 PM Eastern on C-SPAN2 or hopefully it will be posted online. It was quite something. It started slowly, but the drama really built: there was a whole lot more talk of impeachment than I had expected. Thank you, John Conyers.

Update 2: (5:42 PM) C-SPAN has put the video online. Go here and under "Recent Programs" click: "House Judiciary Cmte. Democrats Meeting on Downing Street Memo and Iraq War (06/16/2005)". If the video doesn't work for you, read the help here.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:36 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Pelosi Amendment Demands Success Strategy

Iraq  Politics

Rep. Nancy Pelosi is offering the following amendment to the defense spending bill. It is addressed to President Bush:

Within 30 days of the enactment of this legislation, Congress expects an accounting from you as to what the strategy for success is. What are the security and political measures that you are putting forth that can lead us to bring our troops home?

Says Pelosi:

We can no longer afford to sit quietly while we wait for lights at the end of the tunnel and corners to be turned. It will take a clear, transparent process and input from both parties in Congress to win in Iraq, something that is impossible as long as we do not have a plan to work from. This amendment, along with a parallel one in the Senate, says that Democrats will no longer allow Congress and the American people to be marginalized from this process. It is critical to our chances of success in Iraq.

Go here to sign on as a citizen co-sponsor. Urge family and friends to do likewise.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:05 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 15, 2005

Star-Tribune: US Appeal To UN Was A Scam

Iraq

The Minneapolis Star-Tribune has again stepped out of the mainstream media pack. On Memorial Day, their editorial was the first by a major US paper to say forthrightly that Bush lied us into war. Today's editorial examines the British briefing paper that I called the "smoking-est gun." Excerpt:

It's safe to say that most Americans [in 2002] viewed the American-British approach to the United Nations as an alternative to war...

Now comes, however, a classified briefing paper prepared for a July 23, 2002, British cabinet meeting, the minutes of which have come to be known as the Downing Street memo. The briefing paper makes clear that both the British and American administrations viewed action by the Security Council not as an alternative to war, but as a means of justifying a war already decided on.

It observes that U.S. "military planning for action against Iraq is proceeding apace." But, it says, "little thought has been given to creating the political conditions for military action, or the aftermath and how to shape it." [...]

But more important here is the use of the United Nations to fashion a rationale for war. The British briefing paper says that when Blair met Bush at his ranch in Texas, in April 2002, Blair said "the UK would support military action to bring about regime change...." But in order to do that, the paper continues, it "is necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."

The paper goes on to explain that "Regime change per se is not a proper basis for military action under international law." But it would be lawful if "authorized by the U.N. Security Council." It goes on to say that this is the preferable route, provided the Security Council does not allow the weapons-inspections process to continue indefinitely.

This is where the plot really thickens. Perhaps readers will recall that Bush's nominee for U.N. ambassador, John Bolton, recently was accused of orchestrating the 2002 ouster of Jose Bustani, head of the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons, a U.N. agency. Why did Bolton want Bustani replaced? Because Bustani was aggressively seeking to reinsert chemical weapons inspectors into Iraq. The conclusion of many observers is that the United States did not want inspectors in Iraq because it undercut the U.S. case for an invasion.

Many Bush critics accused him of "using" the United Nations to justify war, rather than truly working to avoid military conflict. But they were naturally suspect because they oppose U.S. policy. The British briefing paper is especially significant because it comes from a government that is not only astute, but is also quite friendly to Bush's objective of invading Iraq. The unavoidable conclusion is that both British and American citizens were duped into hoping that the United Nations would make such a conflict unnecessary. In fact, Britain eagerly and the United States reluctantly went to the United Nations to get a fig leaf of respectability for a war on which they had already decided.

Of course, this is what many of us have been saying all along. We didn't need the Downing Street memo to see what was perfectly obvious. But still, even now, with the proof in hand, most of the media continue to pretend the Emperor's fully clothed. And so we will sleepwalk into the next catastrophe, and the next.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:10 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 14, 2005

Commanders: No Military Solution In Iraq

Iraq

Knight-Ridder reports that senior US military officers in Iraq now say there is "no long-term military solution" to the insurgency there. Excerpt:

A growing number of senior American military officers in Iraq have concluded that there is no long-term military solution to an insurgency that has killed thousands of Iraqis and more than [1700] U.S. troops...

Instead, officers say, the only way to end the guerilla war is through Iraqi politics — an arena that so far has been crippled by divisions between Shiite Muslims, whose coalition dominated the January elections, and Sunni Muslims, who are a minority in Iraq but form the base of support for the insurgency.

"I think the more accurate way to approach this right now is to concede that...this insurgency is not going to be settled, the terrorists and the terrorism in Iraq is not going to be settled, through military options or military operations," Brig. Gen. Donald Alston, the chief U.S. military spokesman in Iraq, said last week, in a comment that echoes what other senior officers say. "It's going to be settled in the political process."

Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, expressed similar sentiments, calling the military's efforts "the Pillsbury Doughboy idea" — pressing the insurgency in one area only causes it to rise elsewhere. [...]

The message is markedly different from previous statements by U.S. officials who spoke of quashing the insurgency by rounding up or killing "dead enders" loyal to former dictator Saddam Hussein. As recently as two weeks ago, in a Memorial Day interview on CNN's "Larry King Live," Vice President Dick Cheney said he believed the insurgency was in its "last throes."

But the violence has continued unabated, even though 44 of the 55 Iraqis portrayed in the military's famous "deck of cards" have been killed or captured, including Saddam.

Lt. Col. Frederick P. Wellman, who works with the task force overseeing the training of Iraqi security troops, said the insurgency doesn't seem to be running out of new recruits, a dynamic fueled by tribal members seeking revenge for relatives killed in fighting.

"We can't kill them all," Wellman said. "When I kill one I create three." [My emphasis]

It has all been so predictable, right from the outset. Hubris never goes unpunished.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:22 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 13, 2005

Lies And Accountability

Iraq  Politics

Excerpts from an excellent piece by a Maine writer named Robert Shetterly (via Lew Rockwell):

It was all a lie. Many of us have said for a long time it was a lie. But here it is in black and white: Lies from a president who has taken a sacred trust to uphold the Constitution of the United States.

So, what does it mean? It means that our president and all of his administration are war criminals. It's as simple as that. They lied to the American people, have killed and injured and traumatized thousands of American men and women doing their patriotic duty, killed at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians, destroyed Iraq's infrastructure and poisoned its environment, squandered billions and billions of our tax dollars, made a mockery of American integrity in the world, changed the course of history, tortured Iraqi prisoners, and bound us intractably to an insane situation that they have no idea how to fix because they had no plan, but greed and empire, in the first place.

What does it mean? It means that everyone in this administration should be impeached. It means that our [Senators and Representatives] should call for immediate impeachment. They were lied to by their president, voted for war, and are thus complicit in the multiply betrayals of the American people unless they stand up now for the truth.

Richard Nixon was impeached for a cover-up of a two-bit break-in. William Cohen, a young Maine Republican, played an important role for the prosecution in those proceedings. Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about sex with an intern. Now we have the irrefutable evidence that George W. Bush lied about the reasons for taking the United States to war. The intelligence wasn't flawed. The weapons weren't hidden. Our elected leaders were lying.

Democracy, like any sound relationship between people, is built on trust. We trust our leaders to tell the truth so that the consent that we give them is honestly informed. If the consent is won through manipulation, propaganda, fear, or lies, the basis of our democracy has been subverted. It is no longer democracy at all, but we continue to call it that because we have not the courage or stamina to demand its overhaul.

We live a lie when we fail to hold leaders accountable for their lies. By not calling now for impeachment, we are saying that we condone hypocrisy, pseudo-democracy, and murdering thousands of Americans and Iraqis for strategic control of energy resources that we have no right to. Patriotism demands that we insist on the ideals of democracy, not that we support the "leaders" who cynically destroy them.

What's curious is why anyone like me should have to even point this out. Don't our senators and congressmen feel betrayed? Are they content to continue the murdering rather than do what truth demands? Do they think they can lie to history, too? Do they think that this little Iraq problem will somehow just go away, that the courageous resistance to the United States occupation will give up and hand Bush the keys to the oil wells? Do they think that any of the grave crises facing the world now — energy consumption, global warming, species extinction — can be solved by lying about them?

We are living in an age of no accountability. It's also an age upon which may hang the survival of human life on this earth. One should not bet one's future on people who abjure responsibility. The first courageous step is to come to terms with what we know is true: America's president lied to America's people to create an unnecessary war. I ask Sens. Snowe and Collins, Reps. Allen and Michaud to take that step. Begin impeachment proceedings. It's really no more or less than their duty. It's also the first step toward restoring America's integrity. [My emphasis]

Shetterly challenges us to look within ourselves. Are we content to stand idly by while America dies? Do we care nothing for the truth? Nothing for freedom? Have we, at long last, grown so supine, so fat and lazy, so morally bankrupt that we just can't be bothered? Is it, finally, our path of least resistance to just let the slaughter continue? Has it come to that?

If there is no accountability for lies of this magnitude and import — for crimes of this magnitude and import — then the republic is well and truly over. Will we allow that to happen, or will we act?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:40 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 12, 2005

Smoking-est Gun

Iraq

This is bigger than the Downing Street Memo. Today's Sunday Times of London:

Ministers were warned in July 2002 that Britain was committed to taking part in an American-led invasion of Iraq and they had no choice but to find a way of making it legal.

The warning, in a leaked Cabinet Office briefing paper, said Tony Blair had already agreed to back military action to get rid of Saddam Hussein at a summit at the Texas ranch of President George W Bush three months earlier [April, 2002].

The briefing paper, for participants at a meeting of Blair's inner circle on July 23, 2002, said that since regime change was illegal it was "necessary to create the conditions" which would make it legal.

This was required because, even if ministers decided Britain should not take part in an invasion, the American military would be using British bases. This would automatically make Britain complicit in any illegal US action.

"US plans assume, as a minimum, the use of British bases in Cyprus and Diego Garcia," the briefing paper warned. This meant that issues of legality "would arise virtually whatever option ministers choose with regard to UK participation".

The paper was circulated to those present at the meeting, among whom were Blair, Geoff Hoon, then defence secretary, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of MI6. The full minutes of the meeting were published last month in The Sunday Times.

The document said the only way the allies could justify military action was to place Saddam Hussein in a position where he ignored or rejected a United Nations ultimatum ordering him to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. But it warned this would be difficult.

"It is just possible that an ultimatum could be cast in terms which Saddam would reject," the document says. But if he accepted it and did not attack the allies, they would be "most unlikely" to obtain the legal justification they needed.

The suggestions that the allies use the UN to justify war contradicts claims by Blair and Bush, repeated during their Washington summit last week, that they turned to the UN in order to avoid having to go to war. The attack on Iraq finally began in March 2003.

The briefing paper is certain to add to the pressure, particularly on the American president, because of the damaging revelation that Bush and Blair agreed on regime change in April 2002 and then looked for a way to justify it.

There has been a growing storm of protest in America, created by last month's publication of the minutes in The Sunday Times. A host of citizens, including many internet bloggers, have demanded to know why the Downing Street memo...has been largely ignored by the US mainstream media. [My emphasis]

In the social sciences, it's not often that you get the chance to perform a controlled experiment. Now we've got one. Bill Clinton lied about a sexual indiscretion. George Bush (and everybody around him, including Tony Blair) lied repeatedly before the whole world, and continue to lie to this day, about launching an illegal war of aggression. The experiment: compare the responses of the media and Congress to the two examples of Presidential lying.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:29 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

1700

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq: 1701.

And God knows how many Iraqis. For what?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:57 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

June 11, 2005

Army Outsources Propaganda Effort

Iraq

Army manpower problems are a factor, apparently, in their outsourcing the generation of propaganda overseas. Richmond Times-Dispatch (via GNN):

The US Special Operations Command has hired three firms to produce newspaper stories, television broadcasts and Web sites to spread American propaganda overseas.

The Tampa-based military headquarters, which oversees commandos and psychological warfare, may spend up to $100 million for the media campaign in the next five years.

The Pentagon backed away from a similar campaign in 2002.

The use of contractors in psyops is a new wrinkle. But psychological warfare expert Herb Friedman said he is not surprised.

With only one active-duty and two reserve psyops units remaining, Friedman said, "The bottom line is, they don’t have the manpower."

Federal law prohibits sending propaganda to Americans, and some experts worry that psychological warfare messages, especially disinformation efforts, might blow back to American audiences via the Internet and satellite news channels.

"In this age of the Internet and instant access, it's of great concern," said Nancy Snow, a propaganda expert at California State University-Fullerton. "If you plant false stories, how can you control where that story goes? You can't." [My emphasis]

You can see it now. They'll plant phony stories, the right-wing blogs will hype them, and then the US media will pick them up. Hey, not their fault, right?

Posted by Jonathan at 03:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Bring 'Em On, And All That

Iraq

The New York Times reports "Islamic militants from northern and sub-Saharan Africa" are joining the insurgency in Iraq.

The numbers involved are relatively small. NYT:

About 25 percent of the nearly 400 foreign fighters captured in Iraq come from Africa, according to the military's European Command, which oversees military operations in most of the African continent. [...]

American military officers and defense officials...said the number of African militants and the funds they have provided for the fighting in Iraq — perhaps several hundred thousand dollars — are not large compared with support from countries like Syria or [US ally] Saudi Arabia.

The problem is not the impact the Africans are having in Iraq, it's that some of them are taking their newly learned skills home to use against their own governments. NYT:

A small vanguard of veterans are also returning home to countries like Morocco and Algeria, poised to use skills they learned on the battlefield in Iraq, from bomb making to battle planning, against their native governments, the officials said.

That is the reason — or the excuse — for Bush administration moves to expand US military presence and training in a number of African countries:

To combat the immediate threat and to prevent terrorists from gaining new safe havens in the region, the Bush administration is expanding a small military training program that has operated on a shoestring the past two years into a more ambitious program spending $100 million annually to provide airport security, money-handling controls, school construction and other assistance to nine African nations.

As part of this broader strategy, the United States on Monday began training exercises in Mali, Chad, Mauritania, Niger and Algeria. Four other countries, Senegal, Nigeria, Tunisia and Morocco, will also participate by the time the exercises finish in two weeks. About 1,000 American troops, including 700 Special Operations forces, will train 3,000 African soldiers in marksmanship, border patrol and airborne operations.

Everything we've ever said about Iraq is coming true. The US military is pinned down in an unwinnable quagmire as the conflict widens. This image from Billmon pretty much captures the essence of the situation:

Unfortunately, real people are suffering terribly because of these lunatics.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:40 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 10, 2005

"Them"

Iraq

As an addendum to the earlier post regarding Charlie Company, the Iraqi army unit profiled by the Washington Post, here's an excerpt from billmon's comments on the same piece:

The punchline to this gag is that the Army (the US one, I mean) selected Charlie Company as the Iraqi unit it most wanted the Washington Post and its readers to get acquainted with. Which either means this is the very best they've got, or, someone in the chain of command deliberately picked one of the worst units in hopes of cutting through the oceans of Bush administration bullshit and showing the American people exactly how desperate the situation is in Iraq — and not for the insurgents.

Good point.

The WaPo article ends with this:

Along dirt roads bisected by sewage canals, the men of Charlie Company crouched, their weapons ready. Before them was their home town, dilapidated and neglected. Cpl. Amir Omar, 19, gazed ahead. "Look at the homes of the Iraqis," he said, a handkerchief concealing his face. "The people have been destroyed."

By whom? he was asked.

"Them," Omar said, pointing at the US Humvees leading the patrol.

This from an Iraqi fighting on the US side. Are we screwed or what.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Effectiveness Of IEDs Increasing

Iraq

The number and percentage of US troops killed by IEDs is increasing rapidly. Knight-Ridder:

Improvised explosive devices, the roadside bombs that insurgents build from castoff artillery shells and other munitions, have become the No. 1 killer of American troops in Iraq this year, despite a massive U.S. campaign to blunt their effectiveness.

American commanders have dispatched newly armored Humvees, Army engineers have begun a yearlong program to clear vegetation and debris along major transportation routes, and military technicians have equipped vehicles with devices that jam cell phones and garage-door openers, which are used to trigger the explosives.

In spite of those efforts, deaths due to IEDs rose by more than 41 percent in the first five months of this year, compared with the same period last year, and account for nearly 51 percent of the 255 U.S. combat deaths so far this year, according to statistics assembled by Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, an Internet site that assembles statistics based on official U.S. casualty reports.

That's a change from 2004, when IEDs accounted for 189 of the 720 combat deaths among U.S. troops - about 26 percent.

Not a good trend. IEDs give the insurgents a way to kill US troops without incurring casualties of their own, and they're obviously getting good at it.

To date, 1692 US troops have been killed in Iraq.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Not For A Thousand Years

Iraq

Bush, Rumsfeld, and the rest of the junta tell us that Iraqis are making great progress toward taking over fighting the insurgents. The Washington Post (via Atrios) begs to differ. Excerpt:

An hour before dawn, the sky still clouded by a dust storm, the soldiers of the Iraqi army's Charlie Company began their mission with a ballad to ousted president Saddam Hussein. "We have lived in humiliation since you left," one sang in Arabic, out of earshot of his U.S. counterparts. "We had hoped to spend our life with you."

But the Iraqi soldiers had no clue where they were going. They shrugged their shoulders when asked what they would do. The U.S. military had billed the mission as pivotal in the Iraqis' progress as a fighting force but had kept the destination and objectives secret out of fear the Iraqis would leak the information to insurgents. [...]

The reconstruction of Iraq's security forces is the prerequisite for an American withdrawal from Iraq. But as the Bush administration extols the continuing progress of the new Iraqi army, the project in Baiji, a desolate oil town at a strategic crossroads in northern Iraq, demonstrates the immense challenges of building an army from scratch in the middle of a bloody insurgency.

Charlie Company disintegrated once after its commander was killed by a car bomb in December. And members of the unit were threatening to quit en masse this week over complaints that ranged from dismal living conditions to insurgent threats. [...] Young Iraqi soldiers, ill-equipped and drawn from a disenchanted Sunni Arab minority, say they are not even sure what they are fighting for. They complain bitterly that their American mentors don't respect them.

In fact, the Americans don't: Frustrated U.S. soldiers question the Iraqis' courage, discipline and dedication and wonder whether they will ever be able to fight on their own, much less reach the U.S. military's goal of operating independently by the fall.

"I know the party line. You know, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Army, five-star generals, four-star generals, President Bush, Donald Rumsfeld: The Iraqis will be ready in whatever time period," said 1st Lt. Kenrick Cato, 34, of Long Island, N.Y., the executive officer of McGovern's company, who sold his share in a database firm to join the military full time after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "But from the ground, I can say with certainty they won't be ready before I leave. And I know I'll be back in Iraq, probably in three or four years. And I don't think they'll be ready then."

"We don't want to take responsibility; we don't want it," said Amar Mana, 27, an Iraqi private whose forehead was grazed by a bullet during an insurgent attack in November. "Here, no way. The way the situation is, we wouldn't be ready to take responsibility for a thousand years." [My emphasis]

Americans don't want to go fight. Iraqis don't want to go fight. There's got to be a rising feeling of desperation — panic, even — at the Pentagon these days. There should be at the White House, too, but you get the sense they're living in a dream world over there.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:59 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Kurds, Shiites Bless Each Other's Militias

Iraq

Iraq moves a giant step closer to sectarian civil war. NYT:

In a move certain to further inflame sectarian tensions with Sunni Arabs, the country's top leaders said today that they strongly supported the existence of an Iranian-trained Shiite militia and praised the militia's role in trying to secure the country.

It was the first time the new Iraqi government has publicly backed an armed group that was created along sectarian lines, and it was an implicit rejection of repeated requests by American officials that the government disband all militias in the country.

The widening sectarian rift was further underscored today when top Sunni Arab leaders demanded that a 55-member constitutional committee dominated by Shiites and Kurds add at least 25 Sunni seats to the committee. The Sunnis said they wanted those seats to have full membership powers.

In recent days, Shiite committee members have proposed adding 12 to 15 non-voting seats to the committee for Sunnis. [...]

The remarks supporting the Shiite militia were made in the morning at an unusual news conference whose speakers included Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Iraqi prime minister and a Shiite Arab; Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish president and a militia leader himself, and Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Shiite political party that created the Shiite militia, known as the Badr Organization.

In recent weeks, some Sunni Arab leaders have vociferously blamed the Badr militia for the murders of prominent Sunni clerics and others. Among the Badr's harshest critics is Harith al-Dhari, leader of the Muslim Scholars Association, a powerful group of Sunni clerics that says it represents 3,000 mosques.

Indeed, from the time the Badr militia entered Iraq from Iran during the American-led invasion, Sunnis have blamed Badr fighters for assassinations across the country, especially the killings of former Baath Party officials.

The joint appearance of Mr. Talabani and the Shiite leaders indicated that Shiite and Kurdish leaders seemed willing to endorse the existence of each group's militias. The two main Kurdish parties together have the strongest militia in the country, a force that totals 100,000 fighters and is known as the pesh merga, or "those who face death." In negotiations with the Shiites to assemble the current government, Kurdish leaders argued vehemently that the Kurds, as part of their right to broad autonomy, must be allowed to keep the pesh merga intact.

The issue was expected to be raised again during the drafting of the new constitution, but Mr. Talabani's support of the Badr Organization appears to show that the Kurds and Shiites have reached some sort of understanding that their respective militias should continue to exist. [...]

The militia numbers in the tens of thousands, and American officials now privately acknowledge that they have failed to disband any of the country's major militias.

When asked about the continuing existence of the militias, American military commanders refer reporters to the Iraqi government, saying the issue is now in the hands of leaders like Dr. Jaafari, Mr. Talabani and Mr. Hakim. The commanders say they cannot give orders to a sovereign Iraq, even if the existence of the militias increases the possibility of large-scale civil war. [My emphasis]

"American military...commanders say they cannot give orders to a sovereign Iraq" — what do they take us for?

The question is: is the US just begging off to evade responsibility for something it is powerless to stop, or is it the US strategy to allow Iraq to descend into civil war so it can eventually be broken up into three sectarian statelets (one Kurdish, one Sunni, one Shiite) to permanently disempower Iraq?

Posted by Jonathan at 01:08 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 09, 2005

Recruiting Shortfalls Continue

Iraq

What if they had a war and nobody came?

We're starting to find out. AP:

Officials said Wednesday that although the Army will not release its numbers until Friday, it fell about 25 percent short of its target of signing up 6,700 recruits in May. The gap would have been even wider but for the fact that the military lowered the target by 1,350.

The Army said it lowered the May target to "adjust for changing market conditions," knowing that the difference will have to be made up in the months ahead.

The Army also missed its monthly targets in April, March and February — each month worse than the one before. In February it fell 27 percent short; in March the gap was 31 percent, and in April it was 42 percent.

"It's like having a persistent drought," said Daniel Goure, a military analyst at the private Lexington Institute. "At some point when you have drought conditions you have to institute water rationing, and that's what you potentially face in the military if it goes on long enough. You would get to a stage where you don't have enough people to staff your organizations."

Before February, the last time the Army missed a monthly recruiting goal was May 2000.

The Army National Guard and Army Reserve are even farther behind in recruiting this year. [My emphasis]

If my math is correct, the Army missed its original May target (i.e., the target they had before they lowered it by 1350) by 35%.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:01 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 07, 2005

Gorby: US Going Down "Blind Alley"

Iraq  War and Peace

Mikhail Gorbachev had some good advice last week for the US. Reuters:

U.S. efforts to dominate the world could end in disaster, the Reuters news agency quoted former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev as saying on Monday.

A critic of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, Gorbachev called for the rapid withdrawal of what he called occupation forces, warning: "The longer they stay, the worse the situation will get.

"You cannot get anywhere ... by trying to dominate," he told a meeting marking the 20th anniversary of his 1985 Geneva summit with U.S. President Ronald Reagan, a turning point in then frigid East-West relations.

"That doesn't work with small countries nowadays, and even less with big ones like Russia, Iran and — heaven forbid — China. That way lies disaster," said Gorbachev, who lost his post as president when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991.

"Trying to be a world gendarme today is an illusion. That is not the way ahead, but a blind alley."

Insistence by the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush that it had the right to use nuclear weaponry amounted to a renunciation of the course he charted with Reagan and Bush's father in the second half of the 1980s, he said.

If Washington pursued its efforts to put a defensive [sic] weapons system in space, the 74-year-old Gorbachev told the meeting at the United Nations European headquarters, "it will spark a new arms race, with all the consequences....

"Surely it would be better if we worked together to eliminate nuclear weapons entirely and to use the resources that are freed to eradicate poverty and misery around the globe?" he asked his audience, which included U.S. diplomats. [My emphasis]

Surely it would.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:57 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

June 04, 2005

There Are "Facts", And There Are Facts

Iraq

Saddam Hussein isn't a nice man, but there are many things that people think they "know" about him that apparently just aren't true.

Go here and be surprised.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:44 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 03, 2005

Irony, And Then Some

Iraq  Politics  Rights, Law

As the previous post noted, the administration loves Amnesty International when it suits their purposes, hates them when it doesn't. Kind of like their approach to the Geneva Conventions.

Yesterday a Federal judge ordered the Pentagon to release photos and videos of detainee abuse at Abu Ghraib following a lawsuit by the ACLU.

Government attorneys had the nerve to argue that releasing the photos would violate the Geneva Conventions — the same Conventions that the administration has always claimed do not apply to persons detained in their so-called "war on terror". ACLU:

"It is indeed ironic that the government invoked the Geneva Conventions as a basis for withholding these photographs," said Amrit Singh, a staff attorney at the ACLU. "Had the government genuinely adhered to its obligations under these Conventions, it could have prevented the widespread abuse of detainees held in its custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay."

Ironic. Yeah, you could say that.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:28 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Amnesty International's Reply To Rumsfeld

Iraq  Politics  Rights, Law

When Amnesty International called the US detention centers at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere the "gulag of our times", Donald Rumsfeld joined other administration figures in attacking AI's credibility, saying:

Those who make such outlandish charges lose any claim to objectivity or seriousness.

Amnesty International countered with this statement (excerpt):

Donald Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration ignored or dismissed Amnesty International's reports on the abuse of detainees for years, and senior officials continue to ignore the very real plight of men detained without charge or trial. Amnesty International first communicated its concerns at the treatment of prisoners to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld in January 2002 and continued to raise these concerns at the highest levels as allegations of abuse mounted from Afghanistan, Guantanamo and Iraq. The response was to bar AI's human rights investigators from visiting U.S. detention facilities, in contrast to countries as diverse as Libya and Sudan, where governments have accepted the value of independent monitoring.

Twenty years ago, Amnesty International was criticizing Saddam Hussein's human rights abuses at the same time Donald Rumsfeld was courting him. In 2003 Rumsfeld apparently trusted our credibility on violations by Iraq, but now that we are criticizing the United States he has lost his faith again. [see quotes below]

The deliberate policy of this administration is to detain individuals without charge or trial in prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Bagram Air Base and other locations, where their treatment has not conformed to international standards. Donald Rumsfeld personally approved a December 2002 memorandum that permitted such unlawful interrogation techniques as stress positions, prolonged isolation, stripping, and the use of dogs at Guantanamo Bay, and he should be held accountable, as should all those responsible for torture, no matter how senior.

There has yet to be a full independent investigation, and the content of some of the government's own reports into human rights violations in these prisons remain classified and unseen. If this administration is committed to transparency, it should immediately open the network of detention centers operated by the United States around the world to scrutiny by independent human rights groups. It is also worth noting that this administration eagerly cites Amnesty International research when we criticize Cuba and extensively quoted our criticism of the violations in Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the run up to the war. [My emphasis]

Libya and Sudan allow international monitoring, but we do not. That is absolutely chilling.

Here are some earlier Rumsfeld quotes that cited AI on Saddam Hussein:

We know that it's a repressive regime...Anyone who has read Amnesty International or any of the human rights organizations about how the regime of Saddam Hussein treats his people... — March 27, 2003

[I]t seems to me a careful reading of Amnesty International or the record of Saddam Hussein, having used chemical weapons on his own people as well as his neighbors, and the viciousness of that regime, which is well known and documented by human rights organizations, ought not to be surprised. — March 28, 2003

[I]f you read the various human rights groups and Amnesty International's description of what they know has gone on, it's not a happy picture. — April 1, 2003

Posted by Jonathan at 06:17 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Must-See TV

Humor & Fun  Iraq  Politics

There's probably only one news show on corporate television that's worth watching anymore, and it isn't even a news show, it's a comedy show. That pretty much tells you all you need to know about the state of corporate media.

Courtesy of Crooks and Liars, here's a must-see segment from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on US "progress" in Iraq.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:33 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 02, 2005

"The Smoking Bullet In The Smoking Gun"

Iraq  Politics

Writing for The Nation, Jeremy Scahill expands on Sunday's story that the US and British air forces went to war with Iraq well before the Congressional and UN votes related to the war. Excerpts:

It was a huge air assault: Approximately 100 US and British planes flew from Kuwait into Iraqi airspace. At least seven types of aircraft were part of this massive operation, including US F-15 Strike Eagles and Royal Air Force Tornado ground-attack planes. They dropped precision-guided munitions on Saddam Hussein's major western air-defense facility, clearing the path for Special Forces helicopters that lay in wait in Jordan. Earlier attacks had been carried out against Iraqi command and control centers, radar detection systems, Revolutionary Guard units, communication centers and mobile air-defense systems. The Pentagon's goal was clear: Destroy Iraq's ability to resist. This was war.

But there was a catch: The war hadn't started yet, at least not officially. This was September 2002 — a month before Congress had voted to give President Bush the authority he used to invade Iraq, two months before the United Nations brought the matter to a vote and more than six months before "shock and awe" officially began.

At the time, the Bush Administration publicly played down the extent of the air strikes, claiming the United States was just defending the so-called no-fly zones. But new information that has come out in response to the Downing Street memo reveals that, by this time, the war was already a foregone conclusion and attacks were no less than the undeclared beginning of the invasion of Iraq. [...]

The implications of this information for US lawmakers are profound. It was already well known in Washington and international diplomatic circles that the real aim of the US attacks in the no-fly zones was not to protect Shiites and Kurds. But the new disclosures prove that while Congress debated whether to grant Bush the authority to go to war, while Hans Blix had his UN weapons-inspection teams scrutinizing Iraq and while international diplomats scurried to broker an eleventh-hour peace deal, the Bush Administration was already in full combat mode — not just building the dossier of manipulated intelligence, as the Downing Street memo demonstrated, but acting on it by beginning the war itself. And according to the Sunday Times article, the Administration even hoped the attacks would push Saddam into a response that could be used to justify a war the Administration was struggling to sell.

On the eve of the official invasion, on March 8, 2003, Bush said in his national radio address: "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force." Bush said this after nearly a year of systematic, aggressive bombings of Iraq, during which Iraq was already being disarmed by force, in preparation for the invasion to come. By the Pentagon's own admission, it carried out seventy-eight individual, offensive airstrikes against Iraq in 2002 alone. [...]

Michigan Democratic Representative John Conyers has called the latest revelations about these attacks "the smoking bullet in the smoking gun," irrefutable proof that President Bush misled Congress before the vote on Iraq. When Bush asked Congress to authorize the use of force in Iraq, he also said he would use it only as a last resort, after all other avenues had been exhausted. But the Downing Street memo reveals that the Administration had already decided to topple Saddam by force and was manipulating intelligence to justify the decision. That information puts the increase in unprovoked air attacks in the year prior to the war in an entirely new light: The Bush Administration was not only determined to wage war on Iraq, regardless of the evidence; it had already started that war months before it was put to a vote in Congress.

It only takes one member of Congress to begin an impeachment process, and Conyers is said to be considering the option. The process would certainly be revealing. Congress could subpoena Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Richard Myers, Gen.Tommy Franks and all of the military commanders and pilots involved with the no-fly zone bombings going back into the late 1990s. What were their orders, both given and received? In those answers might lie a case for impeachment. [My emphasis]

Do we live live in a republic or not? When Bush went to Congress for authorization, the air war was already underway. When he declared to the nation, "We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq," the air war was already six months old. But the war wasn't on tv yet, which apparently means it wasn't yet real.

If this is allowed to go unchallenged, we can pretty much kiss our republic goodbye.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:14 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Rumsfeld's Wreckage

Iraq  War and Peace

Donald Rumsfeld's making such a mess of things that it's hard not to wonder if he's doing it on purpose. The wreckage he'll leave behind will take years to clean up, as William Lind explains on AntiWar.com:

When Rumsfeld leaves office, what will his successor inherit?

A volunteer military without volunteers. The Army missed its active-duty recruiting goal in April by almost half. Guard and Reserve recruiting are collapsing. Retention will do the same as "stop loss" orders are lifted. [...]

The world's largest pile of wrecked and worn-out military equipment (maybe second-largest if we remember the old Soviet Navy). I'm talking about basic stuff here: trucks, Humvees, personnel carriers, crew-served weapons, etc. This is gear the Rumsfeld Pentagon hates to spend money on, because it does not represent "transformation" to the hi-tech, video-game warfare it wrongly sees as the future. So far, deploying units have made up their deficiencies by robbing units that are not deploying, often National Guard outfits. But that stock has about run out, and some of the stripped units are now facing deployment themselves, minus their gear.

A military tied down in a strategically meaningless backwater, Iraq, to the point where it can't do much else. A perceptive reader of these columns recently wrote to me that "China has the luxury of the U.S. inflicting grievous wounds, economic and military, on itself from our commitment to spread 'democracy.'...Although the Iraqi insurgents may have the limited purpose of ending an occupation, other global actors can sit back and watch us bleed ourselves slowly to, at least, a weakened state. From that point of view, the last thing these other actors wish to see is either a victory or a quick defeat. Instead, events are proceeding nicely as they are." Exactly correct, and those other actors include al-Qaeda.

Commitments to hundreds of billions of dollars' worth of future weapons programs that are militarily as useful as Zeppelins but less fun to watch. [...]

A world wary of U.S. intentions and skeptical of any American claims about anything. In business, good will is considered a tangible asset. In true "wreck it and run" fashion, Rumsfeld & Co. have reduced the value of that asset to near zero. A recent survey of the German public found Russia was considered a better friend than the United States.

Finally,...a lost war. We will be lucky if we can get out of Iraq with anything less than a total loss. [My emphasis]

Some people think Rumsfeld and the other neocons are letting Iraq go all to hell to precipitate a civil war, so they can fulfill the dream of Israeli hawks by splitting Iraq into three weak statelets. Hard to believe Rumsfeld would want to destroy the US military in the process, though. Much more likely: the guy's just a colossally arrogant fool. Hubris and incompetence, a lethal combination. And surely Bush/Cheney get to share the blame.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

June 01, 2005

Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Bush Lied

Iraq

Another major newspaper has cited the Downing Street memo in an editorial condemning Bush's lies. Seattle Post-Intelligencer, today:

President Bush was among the 260,000 graves at Arlington National Cemetery when he said it. But it was clear Monday that the president was referring to the more than 1,650 Americans killed to date in Iraq when he said, "We must honor them by completing the mission for which they gave their lives; by defeating the terrorists."

Bush insists on clinging to the thoroughly discredited notion that there was any connection between the old Iraqi regime — no matter how lawless and brutal — and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

U.S. military action against an Afghan regime that harbored al-Qaida was a legitimate response to the 9/11 attacks. The invasion of Iraq was not.

As of Memorial Day 2003, Bush had declared major combat operations at an end, predicted that weapons of mass destruction would be found and that U.S. forces were in the process of stabilizing Iraq. One hundred sixty U.S. troops had died.

The U.S. death toll has grown more than tenfold. No weapons of mass destruction were found. More than 700 Iraqis have been killed since Iraq's new government was formed April 28.

Bush said of the insurgents at a news conference yesterday, "I believe the Iraqi government is plenty capable of dealing with them."

Of course, this is the same president that assured the world that military intervention in Iraq was a last resort and that the United States would make every effort to avoid war through diplomacy. Giving lie to that as well is the so-called Downing Street War Memo, which shows that as early as July 2002, "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the Intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

Perhaps all presidents' remarks in military graveyards are by nature self-serving. But few have been so callow as the president's using the deaths of U.S. troops in his unjustified war as justification for its continuance. [My emphasis]

The L-word is gaining currency. Now let's hear the I-word: impeachment.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 31, 2005

Cheney: Iraq War Will End By 2009

Iraq

In a Memorial Day appearance on Larry King, Cheney says the Iraq insurgency will end by 2009. 2009! CNN:

The insurgency in Iraq is "in the last throes," Vice President Dick Cheney says, and he predicts that the fighting will end before the Bush administration leaves office.

In a wide-ranging interview Monday on CNN's "Larry King Live," Cheney...said he expected the war would end during President Bush's second term, which ends in 2009.

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended." — George Bush, May 1, 2003

Posted by Jonathan at 09:55 AM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

May 30, 2005

Star-Tribune's Memorial Day Editorial: Bush Lied

Iraq

In a post yesterday, I asked:

What's it going to take for the mainstream US media finally to report the obvious: everything the administration told us to foment war was a lie and a subversion of democracy. I.e., a series of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Well, here's a start. Today's Memorial Day editorial in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune (via BuzzFlash) frankly accuses the Bush administration of lying the country into war. It's a noble and forthright piece. Here it is in full:

Nothing young Americans can do in life is more honorable than offering themselves for the defense of their nation. It requires great selflessness and sacrifice, and quite possibly the forfeiture of life itself. On Memorial Day 2005, we gather to remember all those who gave us that ultimate gift. Because they are so fresh in our minds, those who have died in Iraq make a special claim on our thoughts and our prayers.

In exchange for our uniformed young people's willingness to offer the gift of their lives, civilian Americans owe them something important: It is our duty to ensure that they never are called to make that sacrifice unless it is truly necessary for the security of the country. In the case of Iraq, the American public has failed them; we did not prevent the Bush administration from spending their blood in an unnecessary war based on contrived concerns about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. President Bush and those around him lied, and the rest of us let them. Harsh? Yes. True? Also yes. Perhaps it happened because Americans, understandably, don't expect untruths from those in power. But that works better as an explanation than as an excuse.

The "smoking gun," as some call it, surfaced on May 1 in the London Times. It is a highly classified document containing the minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting at 10 Downing Street in which Sir Richard Dearlove, head of Britain's Secret Intelligence Service, reported to Prime Minister Tony Blair on talks he'd just held in Washington. His mission was to determine the Bush administration's intentions toward Iraq.

At a time when the White House was saying it had "no plans" for an invasion, the British document says Dearlove reported that there had been "a perceptible shift in attitude" in Washington. "Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The (National Security Council) had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

It turns out that former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke and former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill were right. Both have been pilloried for writing that by summer 2002 Bush had already decided to invade.

Walter Pincus, writing in the Washington Post on May 22, provides further evidence that the administration did, indeed, fix the intelligence on Iraq to fit a policy it had already embraced: invasion and regime change. Just four days before Bush's State of the Union address in January 2003, Pincus writes, the National Security Council staff "put out a call for new intelligence to bolster claims" about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. The call went out because the NSC staff believed the case was weak. Moreover, Pincus says, "as the war approached, many U.S. intelligence analysts were internally questioning almost every major piece of prewar intelligence about Hussein's alleged weapons programs." But no one at high ranks in the administration would listen to them.

On the day before Bush's speech, the CIA's Berlin station chief warned that the source for some of what Bush would say was untrustworthy. Bush said it anyway. He based part of his most important annual speech to the American people on a single, dubious, unnamed source. The source was later found to have fabricated his information.

Also comes word, from the May 19 New York Times, that senior U.S. military leaders are not encouraged about prospects in Iraq. Yes, they think the United States can prevail, but as one said, it may take "many years."

As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths — the most since January — comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious. [My emphasis]

All that's missing is an admission of the media's role in selling the war, and a suggestion of the obvious next step: impeachment.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:57 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 29, 2005

US/UK Bombing Sought To Goad Iraq Into War

Iraq

The Sunday Times reports today that the US and UK carried out large-scale bombing of Iraq a good six months in advance of the UN resolution that supposedly provided the legal justification for war. Excerpt:

The RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

The attacks were intensified from May, six months before the United Nations resolution that Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, argued gave the coalition the legal basis for war. By the end of August the raids had become a full air offensive. [...]

The new information, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, shows that the allies dropped twice as many bombs on Iraq in the second half of 2002 as they did during the whole of 2001, and that the RAF increased their attacks even more quickly than the Americans did. [...]

Tommy Franks, the allied commander, has since admitted this operation was designed to "degrade" Iraqi air defences in the same way as the air attacks that began the 1991 Gulf war.

It was not until November 8 that the UN security council passed resolution 1441, which threatened Iraq with "serious consequences" for failing to co-operate with the weapons inspectors. [My emphasis]

What's it going to take for the mainstream US media finally to report the obvious: everything the administration told us to foment war was a lie and a subversion of democracy. I.e., a series of high crimes and misdemeanors.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:05 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 26, 2005

Thank You, Helen Thomas

Iraq

In yesterday's White House press briefing, the unstoppable Helen Thomas tied Scott McClellan in knots:

Q: The other day — in fact, this week, you said that we, the United States, is in Afghanistan and Iraq by invitation. Would you like to correct that incredible distortion of American history —

MR. McCLELLAN: No, we are — that's where we currently —

Q: — in view of your credibility is already mired? How can you say that?

MR. McCLELLAN: Helen, I think everyone in this room knows that you're taking that comment out of context. There are two democratically-elected governments in Iraq and —

Q: Were we invited into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: There are two democratically-elected governments now in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments, and we are there today —

Q: You mean if they had asked us out, that we would have left?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, Helen, I'm talking about today. We are there at their invitation. They are sovereign governments —

Q: I'm talking about today, too.

MR. McCLELLAN: — and we are doing all we can to train and equip their security forces so that they can provide for their own security as they move forward on a free and democratic future.

Q: Did we invade those countries?

MR. McCLELLAN: Go ahead, Steve.

"Orwellian" just isn't a strong enough word to describe McClellan's argument that we are in Afghanistan and Iraq "by invitation" because, after we invaded their countries, toppled their governments, and installed puppet regimes, those puppet regimes now say they want us there. It's an argument worthy of Adolf Hitler.

It's nice to know that there's still at least one member of the White House press corps with some guts. Thank you, Helen Thomas.

[Via Crooks and Liars]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:19 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 25, 2005

Resolution 1441

Iraq

The legal fig leaf for the US attack on Iraq is supposedly Resolution 1441 of the UN Security Council. In an article published yesterday on Aljazeera [link via ICH], Scott Ritter refutes that claim as clearly and succinctly as I've seen anywhere:

The Bush administration continues to mock international law by claiming that UN Security Council resolution 1441, passed in November 2002, legitimised its decision to invade.

But there are two problems with this line of thought. First, resolution 1441 did not authorise military action; every nation except the United States believed a second resolution was required before military action could be undertaken (even Great Britain took this stance, before Bush's loyal poodle, Tony Blair, had his Attorney General draft a new legal finding on the eve of war).

Second, and most important, Iraq did not violate resolution 1441. The record is clear — Iraq permitted unfettered access to all sites required by the UN weapons inspectors, and the declaration submitted by Iraq in December 2002 (which was dismissed by Colin Powell and Condi Rice as consisting of nothing but lies) was in fact the truth.

To date not a single fact of substance contained in the Iraqi declaration has been shown false, unlike the totality of the presentation made by Colin Powell before the Security Council on 5 February 2003.

There were no weapons of mass destruction (WMD) left in Iraq, something the CIA reluctantly admits today.

In fact, there had been no WMD in Iraq since the summer of 1991, something the Iraqis had said all along. [My emphasis]

Case closed. Court adjourned.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:14 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 23, 2005

Officer Corps Exodus On The Horizon

Iraq

As the US sinks deeper into the quicksand in Iraq, the Pentagon finds itself increasingly unable to attract new recruits — for our side, anyway. They may soon have a problem hanging onto career officers as well.

The LA Times reports that the open-ended "war on terror" is about to cause many young lieutenants and captains, the backbone of command in the field, to walk away from their military careers and look for another line of work. If junior officers quit in droves, the military will be in deep trouble. Excerpt:

KILLEEN, Texas — Army Capts. Dave Fulton and Geoff Heiple spent 12 months dodging roadside bombs and rounding up insurgents along Baghdad's "highway of death" — the six miles of pavement linking downtown Baghdad to the capital city's airport. Two weeks after returning stateside to Ft. Hood, they ventured to a spartan conference room at the local Howard Johnson to find out about changing careers.

Lured by a headhunting firm that places young military officers in private-sector jobs, the pair, both 26, expected anonymity in the crowded room.

Instead, as Fulton and Heiple sipped Budweisers pulled from Styrofoam coolers next to the door, they spotted nearly a dozen familiar faces from their cavalry battalion, which had just ended a yearlong combat tour in Iraq.

The shocks of recognition came as they exchanged quick, awkward glances with others from their unit, each man clearly surprised to see someone else considering a life outside the military.

"This is a real eye-opener," said Fulton, a West Point graduate who saw a handful of cadets from his class. "It seems like everyone in the room is either from my squad or from my class."

More than three years after the Sept. 11 attacks spawned an era of unprecedented strain on the all-volunteer military, it is scenes like this that keep the Army's senior generals awake at night. With thousands of soldiers currently on their second combat deployment in Iraq or Afghanistan and some preparing for their third this fall, evidence is mounting that an exodus of young Army officers may be looming on the horizon.

It is especially troubling for Pentagon officials that the Army's pool of young captains, which forms the backbone of infantry and armored units deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, could be the hardest hit. [...]

Young captains in the Army are looking ahead to repeated combat tours, years away from their families and a global war that their commanders tell them could last for decades. Like other college grads in their mid-20s, they are making decisions about what to do with their lives.

And many officers, who until recently had planned to pursue careers in the military, are deciding that it's a future they can't sign up for. [My emphasis]

How does Rumsfeld keep his job? What's the plan, to let him complete the destruction of the US military and then replace him?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 21, 2005

Smoking Gun on WMD

Iraq  Politics

How many times have we heard that the Bush administration really believed Iraq had WMD? The White House was, the story goes, the victim of faulty intelligence. They made an honest mistake.

Such claims have always been ridiculous on their face. Surely, US electronic surveillance, spy satellites, and continual military overflights would have made it impossible for Iraq to conceal a meaningful WMD program. And, as Scott Ritter explained in great detail to anyone who would listen, UN/US weapons inspectors conducted intrusive on-site inspections throughout much of the 1990s, painstakingly accounting for something like 95% of the known stocks of Iraqi WMDs and installing a variety of highly sophisticated monitoring equipment that would have detected a renewal of WMD manufacture.

But now we have the smoking gun. As Digby points out, the 2002 Downing Street memo that proves that Bush and Blair decided to invade Iraq long before all the WMD kabuki, contains this passage:

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss [the timing of the war] with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. [My emphasis]

QED

WMDs were never the issue. It was all a lie. They knew they were lying at the time. Period.

Posted by Jonathan at 09:33 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

May 20, 2005

"Even If It Takes Years, Many Years"

Iraq

Various right-wing commentators suggest that the US is winning in Iraq and the real problem is the lack of coverage of the good things that are happening there. Maybe they should talk to the commanders on the ground. NYT:

American military commanders in Baghdad and Washington gave a sobering new assessment on Wednesday of the war in Iraq, adding to the mood of anxiety that prompted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to come to Baghdad last weekend to consult with the new government.

In interviews and briefings this week, some of the generals pulled back from recent suggestions, some by the same officers, that positive trends in Iraq could allow a major drawdown in the 138,000 American troops late this year or early in 2006. One officer suggested Wednesday that American military involvement could last "many years."

Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American officer in the Middle East, said in a briefing in Washington that one problem was the disappointing progress in developing Iraqi police units cohesive enough to mount an effective challenge to insurgents and allow American forces to begin stepping back from the fighting. [...]

In Baghdad, a senior officer said Wednesday in a background briefing that the 21 car bombings in Baghdad so far this month almost matched the total of 25 in all of last year. [...]

"I think that this could still fail," the officer said at the briefing, referring to the American enterprise in Iraq. "It's much more likely to succeed, but it could still fail."

The officer said much depended on the new government's success in bolstering public confidence among Iraqis. He said recent polls conducted by Baghdad University had shown confidence flagging sharply, to 45 percent, down from an 85 percent rating immediately after the election. "For the insurgency to be successful, people have to believe the government can't survive," he said. "When you're in the middle of a conflict, you're trying to find pillars of strength to lean on." Another problem cited by the senior officer in Baghdad was the new government's ban on raids on mosques, announced on Monday, which the American officer said he expected to be revised after high-level discussions on Wednesday between American commanders and Iraqi officials. [...]

To raise the level of public confidence, the officer said, the new government would need success in cutting insurgent attacks and meeting popular impatience for improvements in public services like electricity that are worse, for many Iraqis, than they were last year. But he emphasized the need for caution - and the time it may take to complete the American mission here - notes that recur often in the private conversations of American officers in Iraq.

"I think it's going to succeed in the long run, even if it takes years, many years," he said. [...]

The generals said the buildup of Iraqi forces has been more disappointing than previously acknowledged, contributing to the absence of any Iraqi forces when a 1,000-member Marine battle group mounted an offensive last week against insurgent strongholds in the northwestern desert, along the border with Syria. [...]

One of starkest revelations by the commanders involved the surge in car bombings, the principal insurgent weapon in attacks over the past three weeks that have killed nearly 500 people across central and northern Iraq, about half of them Iraqi soldiers, police officers and recruits. [...]

The senior officer who met with reporters in Baghdad said there had been 21 car bombings in the capital in May, and 126 in the past 80 days. All last year, he said, there were only about 25 car bombings in Baghdad. [My emphasis]

If this is what they're saying to reporters, imagine what they must be saying in private.

The real problem is not a lack of coverage of good news from Iraq. It's lack of coverage of the proof that exists that the White House knowingly swindled the nation into an illegal, unjustified, and disastrous war. If people really grasped the magnitude of the lying and of the calamity that has ensued — not to mention the many billions of dollars that have been outright stolen in the process — they'd march on the White House with pitchforks and torches.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 19, 2005

So, How's It Going In Iraq?

Iraq

Patrick Cockburn, writing from Iraq for The Independent [link via The Yorkshire Ranter], provides an illuminating take on the military/security situation there. Excerpts:

Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, the leader of one of the Kurdish parties, confidently told a meeting in Brasilia last week that there is war in only three or four out of 18 Iraqi provinces. Back in Baghdad Mr Talabani, an experienced guerrilla leader, has deployed no fewer than 3,000 Kurdish soldiers or peshmerga around his residence in case of attack. One visitor was amused to hear the newly elected President interrupt his own relentlessly upbeat account of government achievements to snap orders to his aides on the correct positioning of troops and heavy weapons around his house.

There is no doubt that the US has failed to win the war. Much of Iraq is a bloody no man's land. The army has not been able to secure the short highway to the airport, though it is the most important road in the country, linking the US civil headquarters in the Green Zone with its military HQ at Camp Victory.

Ironically, the extent of US failure to control Iraq is masked by the fact that it is too dangerous for the foreign media to venture out of central Baghdad. Some have retreated to the supposed safety of the Green Zone. Mr Bush can claim that no news is good news, though in fact the precise opposite is true.

Embedded journalism fosters false optimism. It means reporters are only present where American troops are active, though US forces seldom venture into much of Iraq. Embedded correspondents bravely covered the storming of Fallujah by US marines last November and rightly portrayed it as a US military success. But the outside world remained largely unaware, because no reporters were present with US forces, that at the same moment an insurgent offensive had captured most of Mosul, a city five times larger than Fallujah. [...]

Every time I visited a spot where an American soldier had been killed or a US vehicle destroyed there were crowds of young men and children screaming their delight. "I am a poor man but I am going home to cook a chicken to celebrate," said one man as he stood by the spot marked with the blood of an American soldier who had just been shot to death. [...]

From the start, there was something dysfunctional about the American armed forces. They could not adapt themselves to Iraq. Their massive firepower meant they won any set-piece battle, but it also meant that they accidentally killed so many Iraqi civilians that they were the recruiting sergeants of the resistance. The army denied counting Iraqi civilian dead, which might be helpful in dealing with American public opinion. But Iraqis knew how many of their people were dying. [...]

The US army was also too thin on the ground. It has 145,000 men in Iraq, but reportedly only half of these are combat troops. During the heavily publicised assault on Fallujah the US forces drained the rest of Iraq of its soldiers. "We discovered the US troops had suddenly abandoned the main road between Kirkuk and Baghdad without telling anybody," said one indignant observer. "It promptly fell under the control of the insurgents." [...]

The army acts as a sort of fire brigade, briefly effective in dousing the flames, but always moving on before they are fully extinguished. There are only about 6,000 US soldiers in Nineveh province, of which Mosul is the capital and which has a population of three million. [...]

The shortage of US forces has a political explanation. Before the war Donald Rumsfeld, the Secretary of Defence, and his neo-conservative allies derided generals who said an occupation force numbering hundreds of thousands would be necessary to hold Iraq. When they were proved wrong they dealt with failure by denying it had taken place. [...]

The greatest failure of the US in Iraq is not that mistakes were made but that its political system has proved incapable of redressing them. Neither Mr Rumsfeld nor his lieutenants have been sacked. Paul Wolfowitz, under-secretary of defence and architect of the war, has been promoted to the World Bank. [...]

In Iraq, American generals and their political masters of demonstrable incompetence are not fired. The US is turning out to be much less of a military and political superpower than the rest of the world had supposed. [My emphasis]

What a fiasco, and it will only get worse. There is no reasonable scenario under which the situation can stabilize any time soon. The insurgents have the US in an untenable position, and they know it. Meanwhile, the US military can no longer meet its recruiting quotas.

And Cockburn couldn't be more right about the US political system's inability to respond to the appalling failures of America's political leaders. Rumsfeld's ego insisted that an inadequate force be deployed, and Rumsfeld's ego demands that the mistake can never be acknowledged. I was startled to read that only half of the 145,000 US troops in Iraq are combat troops. That would make the US combat force less than twice the size of the NYPD. They're being asked to do the impossible.

If there is a silver lining in any of this, it lies in the point Cockburn makes in his last sentence. The US had everyone believing it was an invincible hyperpower. Now the rest of the world knows better, even if US leaders refuse to face reality. The world needs the US to lose in Iraq, sooner rather than later, and in convincing fashion. The neocons' bid to apply US military superiority, such as it is, to cram American hegemony down the world's throat has to be derailed before it wrecks international institutions altogether. As I wrote a couple of months back:

The US will fail in Iraq, eventually. As [Gwynne] Dyer writes, "In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win." The question is whether failure will come quickly enough to keep the international order from devolving into the old law of the jungle, with a return to world wars among the great powers. In the nuclear age, great-power world wars must certainly end in global catastrophe.

Meanwhile, millions of Iraqis find themselves in a living hell. We have so much to answer for.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:16 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

May 18, 2005

Galloway Video Online

Iraq  Politics

The indispensable Information Clearing House has posted the video of Galloway's testimony online here. I had assumed Galloway read his statement. Not so. He spoke with his eyes locked on Senator Coleman throughout his statement. Talk about a withering stare. Go watch and be inspired. This is what it looks like when someone with guts and brains and heart speaks truth to power.

Also, consider making a donation to ICH here.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:51 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Galloway Spanks Yanks

Iraq  Politics

I didn't get to watch British MP George Galloway's testimony yesterday before Norm Coleman's Senate subcommittee. The committee had accused Galloway, a staunch opponent of the Iraq war, of profiting from the sale of Iraqi oil. Galloway appeared before the committee to counter the assusations and excoriate the "pack of lies" the British and American governments used to justify their attack on Iraq. By all accounts, Coleman got his head handed to him. James Wolcott summarized it this way: "Empty Suit Politician Walks Into Propellor."

I hope C-SPAN will post the video online. In the meantime, the transcript of Galloway's statement makes for extraordinarily stirring reading:

Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader. and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one — and neither has anyone on my behalf.

Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today, but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever. And you call that justice.

Now I want to deal with the pages that relate to me in this dossier and I want to point out areas where there are — let's be charitable and say errors. Then I want to put this in the context where I believe it ought to be. On the very first page of your document about me you assert that I have had "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein. This is false.

I have had two meetings with Saddam Hussein, once in 1994 and once in August of 2002. By no stretch of the English language can that be described as "many meetings" with Saddam Hussein.

As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country — a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his. [...]

I was an opponent of Saddam Hussein when British and Americans governments and businessmen were selling him guns and gas. I used to demonstrate outside the Iraqi embassy when British and American officials were going in and doing commerce.

You will see from the official parliamentary record, Hansard, from the 15th March 1990 onwards, voluminous evidence that I have a rather better record of opposition to Saddam Hussein than you do and than any other member of the British or American governments do.

Now you say in this document, you quote a source, you have the gall to quote a source, without ever having asked me whether the allegation from the source is true, that I am "the owner of a company which has made substantial profits from trading in Iraqi oil".

Senator, I do not own any companies, beyond a small company whose entire purpose, whose sole purpose, is to receive the income from my journalistic earnings from my employer, Associated Newspapers, in London. I do not own a company that's been trading in Iraqi oil. And you have no business to carry a quotation, utterly unsubstantiated and false, implying otherwise.

Now you have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Baghdad. If you had any of the letters against me that you had against Zhirinovsky, and even Pasqua, they would have been up there in your slideshow for the members of your committee today.

You have my name on lists provided to you by the Duelfer inquiry, provided to him by the convicted bank robber, and fraudster and conman Ahmed Chalabi who many people to their credit in your country now realise played a decisive role in leading your country into the disaster in Iraq.

There were 270 names on that list originally. That's somehow been filleted down to the names you chose to deal with in this committee. Some of the names on that committee included the former secretary to his Holiness Pope John Paul II, the former head of the African National Congress Presidential office and many others who had one defining characteristic in common: they all stood against the policy of sanctions and war which you vociferously prosecuted and which has led us to this disaster.

You quote Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Well, you have something on me, I've never met Mr Dahar Yassein Ramadan. Your sub-committee apparently has. But I do know that he's your prisoner, I believe he's in Abu Ghraib prison. I believe he is facing war crimes charges, punishable by death. In these circumstances, knowing what the world knows about how you treat prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison, in Bagram Airbase, in Guantanamo Bay, including I may say, British citizens being held in those places.

I'm not sure how much credibility anyone would put on anything you manage to get from a prisoner in those circumstances. But you quote 13 words from Dahar Yassein Ramadan whom I have never met. If he said what he said, then he is wrong.

And if you had any evidence that I had ever engaged in any actual oil transaction, if you had any evidence that anybody ever gave me any money, it would be before the public and before this committee today because I agreed with your Mr Greenblatt [Mark Greenblatt, legal counsel on the committee].

Your Mr Greenblatt was absolutely correct. What counts is not the names on the paper, what counts is where's the money. Senator? Who paid me hundreds of thousands of dollars of money? The answer to that is nobody. And if you had anybody who ever paid me a penny, you would have produced them today.

Now you refer at length to a company named in these documents as Aredio Petroleum. I say to you under oath here today: I have never heard of this company, I have never met anyone from this company. This company has never paid a penny to me and I'll tell you something else: I can assure you that Aredio Petroleum has never paid a single penny to the Mariam Appeal Campaign. Not a thin dime. I don't know who Aredio Petroleum are, but I daresay if you were to ask them they would confirm that they have never met me or ever paid me a penny.

Whilst I'm on that subject, who is this senior former regime official that you spoke to yesterday? Don't you think I have a right to know? Don't you think the Committee and the public have a right to know who this senior former regime official you were quoting against me interviewed yesterday actually is?

Now, one of the most serious of the mistakes you have made in this set of documents is, to be frank, such a schoolboy howler as to make a fool of the efforts that you have made. You assert on page 19, not once but twice, that the documents that you are referring to cover a different period in time from the documents covered by The Daily Telegraph which were a subject of a libel action won by me in the High Court in England late last year.

You state that The Daily Telegraph article cited documents from 1992 and 1993 whilst you are dealing with documents dating from 2001. Senator, The Daily Telegraph's documents date identically to the documents that you were dealing with in your report here. None of The Daily Telegraph's documents dealt with a period of 1992, 1993. I had never set foot in Iraq until late in 1993 — never in my life. There could possibly be no documents relating to Oil-for-Food matters in 1992, 1993, for the Oil-for-Food scheme did not exist at that time.

And yet you've allocated a full section of this document to claiming that your documents are from a different era to the Daily Telegraph documents when the opposite is true. Your documents and the Daily Telegraph documents deal with exactly the same period.

But perhaps you were confusing the Daily Telegraph action with the Christian Science Monitor. The Christian Science Monitor did indeed publish on its front pages a set of allegations against me very similar to the ones that your committee have made. They did indeed rely on documents which started in 1992, 1993. These documents were unmasked by the Christian Science Monitor themselves as forgeries.

Now, the neo-con websites and newspapers in which you're such a hero, senator, were all absolutely cock-a-hoop at the publication of the Christian Science Monitor documents, they were all absolutely convinced of their authenticity. They were all absolutely convinced that these documents showed me receiving $10 million from the Saddam regime. And they were all lies.

In the same week as the Daily Telegraph published their documents against me, the Christian Science Monitor published theirs which turned out to be forgeries and the British newspaper, Mail on Sunday, purchased a third set of documents which also upon forensic examination turned out to be forgeries. So there's nothing fanciful about this. Nothing at all fanciful about it.

The existence of forged documents implicating me in commercial activities with the Iraqi regime is a proven fact. It's a proven fact that these forged documents existed and were being circulated amongst right-wing newspapers in Baghdad and around the world in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Iraqi regime.

Now, Senator, I gave my heart and soul to oppose the policy that you promoted. I gave my political life's blood to try to stop the mass killing of Iraqis by the sanctions on Iraq which killed one million Iraqis, most of them children, most of them died before they even knew that they were Iraqis, but they died for no other reason other than that they were Iraqis with the misfortune to born at that time. I gave my heart and soul to stop you committing the disaster that you did commit in invading Iraq. And I told the world that your case for the war was a pack of lies.

I told the world that Iraq, contrary to your claims did not have weapons of mass destruction. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to al-Qaeda. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that Iraq had no connection to the atrocity on 9/11 2001. I told the world, contrary to your claims, that the Iraqi people would resist a British and American invasion of their country and that the fall of Baghdad would not be the beginning of the end, but merely the end of the beginning.

Senator, in everything I said about Iraq, I turned out to be right and you turned out to be wrong and 100,000 people paid with their lives; 1600 of them American soldiers sent to their deaths on a pack of lies; 15,000 of them wounded, many of them disabled forever on a pack of lies.

If the world had listened to Kofi Annan, whose dismissal you demanded, if the world had listened to President Chirac who you want to paint as some kind of corrupt traitor, if the world had listened to me and the anti-war movement in Britain, we would not be in the disaster that we are in today. Senator, this is the mother of all smokescreens. You are trying to divert attention from the crimes that you supported, from the theft of billions of dollars of Iraq's wealth.

Have a look at the real Oil-for-Food scandal. Have a look at the 14 months you were in charge of Baghdad, the first 14 months when $8.8 billion of Iraq's wealth went missing on your watch. Have a look at Haliburton and other American corporations that stole not only Iraq's money, but the money of the American taxpayer.

Have a look at the oil that you didn't even meter, that you were shipping out of the country and selling, the proceeds of which went who knows where? Have a look at the $800 million you gave to American military commanders to hand out around the country without even counting it or weighing it.

Have a look at the real scandal breaking in the newspapers today, revealed in the earlier testimony in this committee. That the biggest sanctions busters were not me or Russian politicians or French politicians. The real sanctions busters were your own companies with the connivance of your own Government. [My emphasis]

What a moment. Reminiscent of that immortal moment in the Army-McCarthy hearings when Joseph Welch asked Senator McCarthy, "Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?" Let's hope the effect on Norm Coleman's career will be similar.

C-SPAN: Post the video!

Posted by Jonathan at 02:01 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

May 05, 2005

Blood For Oil

Iraq  Peak Oil  Politics

The Sacramento News & Review reports on an interesting mailer sent by Republican Congressman Dan Lungren.

First, Lundgren defends drilling in ANWR. SNR:

The letter, dated April 4, 2005, starts off by defending the Republican Congress' push of House Resolution 6, energy legislation that allows drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). While critics say the oil in ANWR would last only six months, Lungren argues that it could last 25 years by being used to "supplement rather than replace our need for foreign oil." [My emphasis]

Yes, and it would last forever if we never used it at all. Still doesn't change how much oil is in the ground.

The really interesting bit, though, is this:

While discussing the nation's dependency on foreign oil, Lungren writes, "I feel quite strongly that as long as we have our military in the Middle East fighting so that we can continue to purchase oil from that region, we have an obligation to find alternatives to foreign oil. It is difficult to justify the death of even one soldier when we are not doing everything in our power to explore options for oil within our country." [My emphasis]

And here I thought we were fighting in the Middle East because of 9/11 al Qaeda weapons of mass destruction Saddam Hussein was a bad man freedom on the march. Turns out it was so we can "continue to purchase oil from that region." Who knew?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:25 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Two Years Later...

Iraq

Today in Iraq gives a line-by-line deconstruction of Bush's aircraft carrier "major combat operations have ended" speech, interleaved with news items showing what a complete and utter crock it turned out to be. The piece ends with a list of the names of the US troops killed in Iraq. As Xymphora points out, blogs aren't big enough to list the 100,000+ names of Iraqis who have been killed, even if we knew their names.

Note: if you are using Internet Explorer, Today in Iraq's page won't load completely unless you hit F11 twice.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:59 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 03, 2005

Poll Numbers On Iraq Sinking Fast

Iraq  Politics

Americans' support for the Iraq war is sinking fast. A new national poll by CNN/USA Today/Gallup finds support is down significantly from just two months ago. CNN:

Fifty-seven percent of those polled said they did not believe it was worth going to war, versus 41 percent who said it was, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll of 1,006 adults.

That was a drop in support from February, when 48 percent said it was worth going to war and half said it was not.

Bush is going down in flames. The only question now is whether/when they will engineer a new crisis to rally support.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:43 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 02, 2005

Darkness At The End Of The Tunnel

Iraq

Conventional "wisdom" in official circles and in much of the media after the Iraqi elections in January was that the situation on the ground had finally turned a corner. Subsequent events have demonstrated otherwise. Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News Analyst, writes [link via Diplomatic Times Review]:

The new wave of mass attacks in Iraq has dimmed the euphoria in Washington circles since the Jan. 30 elections.

On Friday alone 17 bombs exploded around the country including 13 in the capital Baghdad, killing at least 23 members of the Iraqi security forces and wounding 31 more.

The attacks were clearly well coordinated, ambitious in their conception and all too lethally successful in their execution. At least six of them were suicide bomb operations showing that the insurgents are not running short of fanatical would-be martyrs.

And they also appear to have been designed to be a deliberate slap in the face to U.S. forces in Baghdad as two of them were in an area a dozen miles southwest of Baghdad that Iraqi forces raided to clean out insurgent guerrillas only two weeks ago. Three U.S. soldiers were killed in the Friday attacks alone. [...]

Most important of all, the latest wave of attacks has demonstrated once again that U.S. forces and their newly trained Iraqi allies still do not have the capability to protect their own members or even high-level officials from assassination.

On the contrary, many intelligence assessments suggest that the insurgents and al-Qaida cells are successfully penetrating the new Iraqi security forces and continue to enjoy excellent intelligence on them. [...]

It is a striking commentary on the current state of affairs that the British Army is withdrawing key intelligence assets from Northern Ireland and redeploying them in Shiite southern Iraq, a move that has already been loudly criticized by leading Protestant Unionist politicians in the province.

British operational intelligence skills are widely recognized to be excellent, albeit with far smaller resources than the U.S. military enjoys. The decision to shift some them from a crucially sensitive area near home all the way out to southern Iraq points to the pressing concern London policymakers feel about the current situation in Iraq. It also suggests that the Blair government believes the U.S. and British militaries will have to be in Iraq in significant numbers for years to come, for building up those kinds of intelligence operations takes time and only makes sense if a troop presence for years ahead is anticipated.

The insurgents are far from being close to victory in Iraq, but they are far from defeat as well. The best the American public can hope for is a long slog ahead, with their hard-pressed troops being given better strategic direction from the Pentagon than they have received so far. [My emphasis]

What are the chances US troops will actually receive "better strategic direction"? From this Pentagon? This White House?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

May 01, 2005

Busted!

Iraq  Politics

The Independent reports on a leaked secret document showing that Tony Blair and George Bush resolved to go to war in Iraq long before the whole charade regarding UN weapons inspectors and WMD "intelligence." The document indicates as well that US intelligence was doctored to support the decision. Obvious, but it's nice to have proof. Excerpt:

Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began, despite a clear warning from the Foreign Office that the conflict could be illegal.

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

At the same time, a document obtained by this newspaper reveals the Foreign Office legal advice given to Mr Blair in March 2002, before he travelled to meet Mr Bush at his Texas ranch. It contains many of the reservations listed nearly a year later by the Attorney General in his confidential advice to the Prime Minister, which the Government was forced to publish last week, including the warning that the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country.

The advice, also put before the July meeting, was drawn up in part by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser, who resigned on the eve of war in protest at what she called a "crime of aggression". [My emphasis]

Watch as this information disappears down the memory hole with scarcely a trace here in the US. And we can ask ourselves for the millionth time why Bill Clinton's fib about marital infidelity warranted impeachment, while Dubya's manifold, bald-faced lies to Congress and everyone else on matters of life and death, war and peace, go unremarked and unpunished.

"The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That's not how it's supposed to work. Not in a democracy.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Chalabi To Control Iraq's Oil Ministry

Iraq

It has long been clear that Washington's primary focus in Iraq is control of the country's oil.

When the US invaded Iraq, US troops took immediate control of the nation's oil fields, and the Oil Ministry was the one government building that was defended from looting.

Now, Ahmed Chalabi, protégé of Washington's neocon coterie, has been named temporary oil minister. Chalabi's nephew has been named finance minister. Washington Post:

Thwarted in his bid to be Iraq's leader, one-time Pentagon favorite Ahmad Chalabi has nevertheless captured a key position in the new government — a deputy prime minister's spot and temporary control of the lucrative oil ministry.

With his nephew also installed as finance minister, Chalabi and his family appear to have a firm grip on the country's purse strings.

Once Saddam Hussein's most visible opponent in exile, Chalabi, 60, is now tasked with overseeing the world's second-largest proven crude reserves until a permanent chief is found. Oil is the country's only major source of export earnings, crucial to rebuilding Iraq's devastated economy.

It was a spectacular comeback for the Shiite Arab lawmaker, who fell out of favor with Washington over accusations he leaked intelligence to Iran and supplied flawed evidence that Saddam was hoarding weapons of mass destruction.

It strikes one as unlikely, to say the least, that Chalabi has truly fallen "out of favor with Washington," as the Post says, and still managed to get control of its oil ministry. Surely, Chalabi is still very much the neocons' boy — their "disfavor" being purely for public consumption — and through him and his nephew the neocons have taken control of the one thing in Iraq that they really care about.

The idea that the Pentagon and the White House ever really believed Chalabi on Iraqi WMD also seems absurd. Given electronic surveillance, spy satellites, constant overflights of Iraq's airspace by US military aircraft, and reports by weapons inspectors on the ground, the US surely knew that Saddam had no WMD worth talking about. Chalabi's "intelligence" and its subsequent public repudiation were just part of the administration's masquerade that they weren't lying to us, they were fooled themselves. By pretending otherwise, the Post is participating in a re-enactment of The Emperor's New Clothes.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:17 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 30, 2005

30 Years

Iraq  War and Peace

Thirty years ago today, Saigon fell, marking the end of the US attack on Southeast Asia. Even now, American political mythology characterizes the US aggression in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia as a "tragic mistake", a "blunder", lofty intentions somehow gone terribly wrong. As always, US motives were noble and pure — some people just refuse to be helped.

Jimmy Carter, the sainted human rights champion, once noted that the US owed Vietnam no reparations or assistance because, as he put it, "the destruction was mutual." As Noam Chomsky responded, "If words have meaning, this must stand among the most astonishing statements in diplomatic history." No kidding. But the state of US political culture is such that statements like Carter's fail to elicit so much as a raised eyebrow.

According to Robert McNamara, who should know, US forces killed 3.4 million people in Southeast Asia. That's 3.4 million more people than the Vietnamese killed here in the course of this supposedly "mutual" destruction. In the mid-80s, Noam Chomsky wrote:

The devastation that the United States left as its legacy has been quickly removed from consciousness here, and indeed, was little appreciated at the time. Its extent is worth recalling. In the south, 9,000 out of 15,000 hamlets were damaged or destroyed along with some 25 million acres of farmland and 12 million acres of forest; 1.5 million cattle were killed; and there are 1 million widows and some 800,000 orphans. In the north, all six industrial cities were damaged (three razed to the ground) along with 28 of 30 provincial towns (twelve completely destroyed), 96 of 116 district towns, and 4,000 of some 5,800 communes; 400,000 cattle were killed and over a million acres of farmland were damaged. Much of the land is a moonscape, where people live on the edge of famine with rice rations lower than Bangladesh. ... Forests have not recovered, fisheries remain reduced in variety and productivity, cropland productivity has not yet regained normal levels, and there is a great increase in toxin-related disease and cancer, with 4 million acres affected by the 19 million gallons of poisons dumped on cropland and forest in the US chemical warfare operations.

So one of the great lessons of Vietnam, a lesson of particular importance to us now, is the astonishing disconnect that exists between America's actions and its self-image. But the other great lesson, equally relevant today, is the hubris bred by wealth and military hardware — and the fact that wealth and military hardware just magnify the horror and damage we can inflict before we relearn the last great lesson of Vietnam: that even a poor and tiny country can defeat the world's wealthiest and militarily most powerful nation in a guerrilla war — or "insurrection" as we now prefer to say. How many more people will have to die so we can learn that lesson all over again?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:26 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 25, 2005

Many Humvees Still Not Armored

Iraq  Politics

How long does it take to outfit Army and Marine Humvees with needed armor? Forever, apparently. Two years into the war, many Humvees still have not been armored, the New York Times reports today. Some Marines serving in Iraq have had enough. NYT:

On May 29, 2004, a station wagon that Iraqi insurgents had packed with C-4 explosives blew up on a highway in Ramadi, killing four American marines who died for lack of a few inches of steel.

The four were returning to camp in an unarmored Humvee that their unit had rigged with scrap metal, but the makeshift shields rose only as high as their shoulders, photographs of the Humvee show, and the shrapnel from the bomb shot over the top.

"The steel was not high enough," said Staff Sgt. Jose S. Valerio, their motor transport chief, who along with the unit's commanding officers said the men would have lived had their vehicle been properly armored. "Most of the shrapnel wounds were to their heads." [...]

They were not the only losses for Company E during its six-month stint last year in Ramadi. In all, more than one-third of the unit's 185 troops were killed or wounded, the highest casualty rate of any company in the war, Marine Corps officials say.

In returning home, the leaders and Marine infantrymen have chosen to break an institutional code of silence and tell their story, one they say was punctuated not only by a lack of armor, but also by a shortage of men and planning that further hampered their efforts in battle, destroyed morale and ruined the careers of some of their fiercest warriors. [My emphasis]

Is there no limit to the Bush administration's incompetence?

Posted by Jonathan at 02:44 PM | Comments (6) | Link to this  

April 24, 2005

Rice Censored Terror Report

Iraq  Politics

The Guardian reports that Condoleezza Rice ordered terror statistics deleted from the 2004 annual report:

A state department report which showed an increase in terrorism incidents around the world in 2004 was altered to strip it of its pessimistic statistics, it emerged [Friday].

The country-by-country report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, has come out every year since 1986, accompanied by statistical tables.

This year's edition showed a big increase, from 172 significant terrorist attacks in 2003 to 655 in 2004.

Much of the increase took place in Iraq, contradicting recent Pentagon claims that the insurgency there is waning.

Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, ordered the report to be withdrawn and a new one issued minus the statistics.

A Democratic congressman, Henry Waxman, has written an angry letter about the change to Cameron Hume, the state department's inspector general, arguing that Ms Rice's decision "denies the public access to important information about the incidence of terrorism".

Mr Waxman said: "There appears to be a pattern in the administration's approach to terrorism data: favourable facts are revealed while unfavourable facts are suppressed."

Ms Rice's spokesman, Richard Boucher, denied the change was politically inspired and said Ms Rice had decided the statistics would be better handled by the national counter-terrorism centre.

However, intelligence officials said there were no immediate plans to publish the figures. [My emphasis]

Not politically inspired. What do they take us for?

Posted by Jonathan at 02:35 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 20, 2005

A Must-See BBC Video On Oil And War

Iraq  Peak Oil

You simply must watch this video from BBC2 (courtesy of ICH).

The desperate worldwide struggle for the oil that remains is only just beginning. Maybe you do not believe it yet, but elite planners clearly do. The scramble is on, and it is likely to accelerate rapidly: when growth is exponential, limits arrive suddenly.

I urge you to watch the video.

Then consider what is going to happen to suburbia-based America when oil production no longer meets demand. Will you be ready?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

April 15, 2005

The Coalition Formerly Known As The Coalition Of The Willing

Iraq

From GlobalSecurity.org [via Billmon], the current status of "The Coalition Formerly Known as the Coalition of the Willing", to steal Billmon's wonderful phrase:

• Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua; Spain; Dominican Republic; Honduras; Philippines; Thailand; New Zealand; Tonga; Hungary; Portugal; Moldova.

• Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland; the Netherlands; Bulgaria; Ukraine; Italy.

• Countries which have reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: Ukraine; Moldova; Norway; Bulgaria; Poland.
  

Last one out, lock the door.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:35 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

April 07, 2005

Hans Blix Confirms The Obvious

Iraq

The Australian Associate Press reports that former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix now acknowledges what most of us have been saying all along:

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix has said that oil was one of the reasons for the US-led invasion of Iraq, a Swedish news agency reports.

"I did not think so at first. But the US is incredibly dependent on oil," news agency TT quoted Blix as saying at a security seminar in Stockholm.

"They wanted to secure oil in case competition on the world market becomes too hard."

Blix, who helped oversee the dismantling of Iraq's weapons programs before the war, said another reason for the invasion was a need to move US troops from Saudi Arabia, TT reported.

Competition over oil is creating tension between the United States and China, Blix said...

Let's see if this story gets any play here in the US. Not holding my breath.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 29, 2005

No Photos — Not Even For Next Of Kin

Iraq

As you probably know, the Pentagon bars the media from photographing military caskets as they arrive at Dover Air Force base from Iraq. The reason they've always given is that they don't want to violate the privacy of families who have lost sons or daughters.

How, then, do they justify keeping the families themselves from photographing their own children's caskets arriving? Cox News Service:

A single red rose in hand, Karen Meredith leans over her son's simple white stone marker at Arlington National Cemetery.

Tears fall before words.

It's her first visit since she buried 1st Lt. Kenneth Michael Ballard, a fourth generation soldier, last fall.

Still fresh, like the soil churned behind her son's grave for another row of dead, is her anger. Anger at the way the Pentagon refused her sole wish when her son was killed by a sniper last May to photograph his casket returning from Iraq.

Meredith wanted to capture the way fellow soldiers respectfully draped the American flag across the casket, tucking the sides just so, and the way an honor guard watched over him as he was unloaded from a cargo plane.

But the Pentagon firmly said "no." It was against regulations and would violate the privacy of family members of other slain soldiers.

"It's dishonorable and disrespectful to the families," said Meredith. "They say it's for privacy, but it's really because they don't want the country to see how many people are coming back in caskets."

The Pentagon's reasons for denying the media access to the caskets returning to Dover Air Force Base are widely reported and legally contested. What isn't so well known is that the Pentagon refuses to allow the families of dead soldiers access to the caskets returning to Dover and other military bases.

"It's bad enough that they won't let the country see the pictures of the caskets, but a grieving mother?" asked Meredith. "It's unforgiveable after what I lost."

The Department of Defense defends its policy, which was created in 1991 by then-secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The policy protects the privacy of families who have lost loved ones in the war and who may not want their son or daughter's casket inadvertently photographed, said Lt. Col. Barry Venable, a Defense Department spokesperson. [...]

Meredith says she was prepared to lose her son in battle. What she wasn't prepared for was the way the military treated her when he died from a sniper's bullet in the head. She doesn't understand how a single photograph of his casket for her own personal album would violate her own privacy. [My emphasis]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:44 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 23, 2005

Poll: Iraq, WMD, al Qaeda

Iraq

A recent ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 56% of Americans still think Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction "shortly before the war." 60% still think that prior to the war Iraq provided "direct support" to al Qaeda.

In this, as in so many things, support for Republican policies depends on large numbers of people believing things that simply aren't so. If you're a Republican, doesn't that bother you?

Posted by Jonathan at 04:22 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 19, 2005

The World Needs The US To Lose In Iraq

Iraq

Back in the mid-80's, Canadian military historian and journalist Gwynne Dyer produced a superb series of films on war, its history and causes, that was broadcast in the US by PBS. It was the best treatment of the subject I've seen in film form; nothing else comes close. If you remember it, you probably recall Dyer's dry humor, his talent for taking the long view, and his wry, wise, and appropriately cynical observations on human nature and the maneuverings of nations.

On this second anniversary of the US attack on Iraq, I'd like to quote at some length from Dyer's latest book, Future: Tense. One often hears, even on the Left, that, having gone into Iraq, the US needs to bring the occupation to a successful conclusion. Dyer begs to differ, and I agree with him:

The United States needs to lose the war in Iraq as soon as possible. Even more urgently, the whole world needs the United States to lose the war in Iraq. It would be nice if Iraq doesn't lose too, but that is a lesser consideration. What is at stake now is the way we run the world for the next generation or more, and really bad things will happen if we get it wrong.

The temptation to take charge of the world was bound to be great when the United States emerged from the Cold War as the only superpower, for it seemed like a goal within easy reach. It was nevertheless resisted, by Republican and Democratic administrations alike, for almost a decade. Then a random event — for 9/11 might easily not have happened — unleashed forces in Washington that were itching to make a takeover bid, and now we live in the middle of a train wreck.

The idea that the United States can remain "the world's sole military superpower until the end of time" is comically overambitious [to put it mildly], but there it is, embedded in a thirty-four-page document submitted to Congress in September 2002 entitled The National Security Strategy of the United States. "The United States will not hesitate to strike preemptively against its enemies, and will never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged." Never again allow its military supremacy to be challenged? The United States has 4 per cent of the world's population and a larger but declining share (currently about 20 per cent) of the world's economy. It had a budget deficit of more than half a trillion dollars in 2004, and a foreign trade deficit of about the same size. How is it going to do that?

Obviously, it can't. As it becomes clear what the project to turn the United States into the world's policeman (or, more precisely, its judge, jury, and executioner) will cost in American lives and in higher taxes, American voters themselves will pull the plug on it sooner or later. Or maybe the world will pull the plug on the project first, by refusing to go on holding dollars as the gradual collapse in the value of the US currency deepens. The risk is that it will all take too long. If an American defeat in Iraq takes another four or five years, huge and maybe irreparable damage will have been done to the international institutions that are our fragile first line of defense against a return to the great-power wars that could destroy us all. We need the United States back as a leading architect of global order, not a hyperactive vigilante, and we need it back now. [My emphasis]

Elsewhere in the same book, Dyer outlines what's at stake:

What is really at risk here is the global project to abolish war and replace the rule of force in the world with the rule of law, the project whose centerpiece is the United Nations. It was mainly an American initiative at the start, almost sixty years ago, and today it still commands the support of almost every government on the planet (although the Bush administration has been an exception). It is a hundred-year project at the least, for it is trying to change international habits that had at least five thousand years to take root. The slowness of change causes immense frustration, especially given the urgency of change in an era of nuclear weapons, and yet the project continues to enjoy majority popular support in almost every country, including the United States. But it is now under serious threat.

The core rule of the UN is that war, except in immediate self-defense or in obedience to Security Council resolutions, is illegal. The new American strategic policy, post-9/11, asserts that the United States has the riht to use military force wherever and whenever it judges necessary. Of course, the United States has used military force against foreigners without Security Council approval before, but this time is different.

The UN is a hundred-year project because it will take at least that long for the great powers to stop yielding to the temptation, from time to time, to impose their will on weaker countries by force. The great powers do understand that a world under the rule of law, where the resort to force has become almost unthinkable by long habit, is also in their own long-term self-interest, because they, too, are vulnerable to destruction if war gets out of hand — but every so often they simply cannot resist "solving" a problem by using their own superior force.

The UN system recognized from the start that the great powers were the problem: they were given vetoes precisely so that the Security Council would never find itself in the hopelessly compromised position of trying to enforce the law against them. All hope of progress therefore lies with the gradual habituation of the great powers to obeying the new international law that forbids a unilateral resort to force... But current American strategic doctrine requires the destruction of the international law embedded in the United Nations Charter.

To believe that this huge shift of doctrine is really driven solely by the "terrorist threat" is about as sensible as believing in fairies. [...]

If the present US strategy of undermining international law and asserting American miltary hegemony around the planet is quickly abandoned under the pressure of events in Iraq, then normal service will soon be restored internationally and we will get our global project back with only a few dents in it. If the US adventure in unilateralism continues for another five years, other great powers will start taking steps to protect their interests and the UN will start to die. No other major power wants to abandon the project to outlaw war and start back down the road to alliances, arms races, and all the other old baggage, but if the world's greatest power becomes a rogue state they won't have much choice.

If that happens, we have lost a lot. [My emphasis]

The short-term view may prompt us to hope that the US can successfully create a stable, peaceful, and democratic Iraq under US protection. The long-term view, however, convinces us that it's far more important that the US project of global hegemony be derailed; success in Iraq will only encourage it. Yes, the US attack on Iraq has exposed the supposed status of US as invincible military hyperpower to be a myth, but one assumes the radicals in the Bush administration will escalate rather than retreat. In that case, the world needs the US to fail — quickly, and in convincing fashion. The stakes couldn't be higher.

The US will fail in Iraq, eventually. As Dyer writes, "In anti-colonial guerrilla wars, the locals always win." The question is whether failure will come quickly enough to keep the international order from devolving into the old law of the jungle, with a return to world wars among the great powers. In the nuclear age, great-power world wars must certainly end in global catastrophe.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:45 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

March 18, 2005

"This Farcical Assembly"

Iraq

Most US media seem to have embraced the notion that democracy's on the march in Iraq. Iraqis, however, are a good deal more skeptical. USA Today:

Iraq's National Assembly adjourned within about 90 minutes of opening to great fanfare Wednesday.

A day later, Iraqi newspapers poked fun at what many of the new publications called a hasty retreat of the country's political leaders after they had heralded a new era of democracy.

Al-Sabah, one of Iraq's leading newspapers, featured a photograph of puffs of smoke rising from the mortar blasts outside the assembly during its opening ceremonies. The tongue-in-cheek headline: "They met, but they did not agree to meet again." [...]

Al-Mutamar, a mouthpiece of the Iraqi National Congress, an exile group, stated sarcastically, "The National Assembly sums up Iraqi people's ambitions in 90 minutes." [...]

In the guarded, dimly lit offices of Al-Sabah, which means "The Morning," Editor in Chief Mohammad al-Shaboot, 56, chuckled at the provocative headline he had written. It highlighted the appearance that newly elected deputies seemed none-too-hurried to return to deliberations in the capital's "Green Zone," site of numerous insurgent attacks. [...]

The National Assembly met Wednesday for the first time since elections Jan. 30. It adjourned so Shiite and Kurdish political leaders, who represent the leading vote-getters, could continue negotiations to form a government.

Al-Shaboot says that in the wake of massive voter turnout in January — about 8 million Iraqis went to the polls — he feels "sorry for those who risked their lives to vote for this farcical assembly."

Some of the public shares his frustration and are viewing their country's new politicians with skepticism.

"The National Assembly creates an illusion of feeling secure and having a government, but in reality, we don't have it," said Andre Albert, an unemployed 20-year old from Iraq's Christian minority. "Deep down, all Iraqis are happy (the assembly met), but they don't expect much. They are always talking with no results on the ground." [My empasis]

The administration has a vested interest in selling us on a falsely optimistic view of the situation in Iraq, but it will ultimately be self-defeating: if we pursue policies that are not grounded in reality, reality will have the last word. It always does.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 17, 2005

Wage Peace

Iraq

American Friends Service Committee has a moving and effective online video, "Wage Peace," here (2 minutes). It reminds us:

We are the majority.
We can end this war.

Go watch the video, then sign their petition.

And remember that Saturday is the second anniversary of the US attack on Iraq.

Two years. How much longer?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Iraqi Oil

Iraq

Greg Palast, reporting for BBC's Newsnight, has obtained documents and on-the-record statements by a number of participants that indicate that the Bush administration started planning for war with Iraq "within weeks" of taking office in 2001. Their plans included leaving Iraq's oil in the hands of the Iraqi state, which in turn would be under US control.

Following September 11th, however, says Palast, the neocons in the Pentagon urged selling off Iraq's oilfields immediately after an invasion. Their target, says Palast, was OPEC. They sought to break OPEC's monopoly control of world oil prices.

Big Oil companies opposed the privatization plan (high oil prices are just fine with them, for obvious reasons), and a plan drafted by people working for Bush insider James Baker won out. The oil would not be privatized.

Palast's Newsnight video report is available here for the next 24 hours. It's worth watching. Palast's report starts at the 15 minute mark of the broadcast and lasts just over 12 minutes.

Here are excerpts from Newsnight's online summary:

The Bush administration made plans for war and for Iraq's oil before the 9/11 attacks, sparking a policy battle between neo-cons and Big Oil, BBC's Newsnight has revealed. [...]

Two years ago today — when President George Bush announced US, British and Allied forces would begin to bomb Baghdad — protesters claimed the US had a secret plan for Iraq's oil once Saddam had been conquered.

In fact there were two conflicting plans, setting off a hidden policy war between neo-conservatives at the Pentagon, on one side, versus a combination of "Big Oil" executives and US State Department "pragmatists".

"Big Oil" appears to have won. The latest plan, obtained by Newsnight from the US State Department was, we learned, drafted with the help of American oil industry consultants.

Insiders told Newsnight that planning began "within weeks" of Bush's first taking office in 2001, long before the September 11th attack on the US.

An Iraqi-born oil industry consultant, Falah Aljibury, says he took part in the secret meetings in California, Washington and the Middle East. He described a State Department plan for a forced coup d'etat.

Mr Aljibury himself told Newsnight that he interviewed potential successors to Saddam Hussein on behalf of the Bush administration.

The industry-favoured plan was pushed aside by a secret plan, drafted just before the invasion in 2003, which called for the sell-off of all of Iraq's oil fields. The new plan was crafted by neo-conservatives intent on using Iraq's oil to destroy the Opec cartel through massive increases in production above Opec quotas.

The sell-off was given the green light in a secret meeting in London headed by Ahmed Chalabi shortly after the US entered Baghdad, according to Robert Ebel.

Mr Ebel, a former Energy and CIA oil analyst, now a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, told Newsnight he flew to the London meeting at the request of the State Department.

Mr Aljibury, once Ronald Reagan's "back-channel" to Saddam, claims that plans to sell off Iraq's oil, pushed by the US-installed Governing Council in 2003, helped instigate the insurgency and attacks on US and British occupying forces.

"Insurgents used this, saying, 'Look, you're losing your country, you're losing your resources to a bunch of wealthy billionaires who want to take you over and make your life miserable,'" said Mr Aljibury from his home near San Francisco.

"We saw an increase in the bombing of oil facilities, pipelines, built on the premise that privatisation is coming."

Philip Carroll, the former CEO of Shell Oil USA who took control of Iraq's oil production for the US Government a month after the invasion, stalled the sell-off scheme.

Mr Carroll told us he made it clear to Paul Bremer, the US occupation chief who arrived in Iraq in May 2003, that: "There was to be no privatisation of Iraqi oil resources or facilities while I was involved."

Ariel Cohen, of the neo-conservative Heritage Foundation, told Newsnight that an opportunity had been missed to privatise Iraq's oil fields.

He advocated the plan as a means to help the US defeat Opec, and said America should have gone ahead with what he called a "no-brainer" decision.

Mr Carroll hit back, telling Newsnight, "I would agree with that statement. To privatize would be a no-brainer. It would only be thought about by someone with no brain."

New plans, obtained from the State Department by Newsnight and Harper's Magazine under the US Freedom of Information Act, called for creation of a state-owned oil company favoured by the US oil industry. It was completed in January 2004 under the guidance of Amy Jaffe of the James Baker Institute in Texas. [My emphasis]

In the video piece, Robert Ebel of CSIS and formerly of CIA, says:

The thought was, why are you going into Iraq. It's about oil, isn't it. And my response was, no, it's about getting rid of Saddam Hussein. [pause] The morning after, it's about oil.

I think we know what they were discussing at Cheney's Energy Task Force meetings.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:28 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

March 10, 2005

Iraqi Cancer And Birth Defects Skyrocket

Iraq

The Iraqi people will suffer the consequences of two US-led wars for years to come. Deutsche Welle [via Suburban Guerrilla]:

After two wars where oil wells were torched, chemical factories bombed and radioactive ammunition fired, the first thing Iraqi women ask when giving birth is not if it is a boy or a girl, but if it is normal or deformed. The number of cancer cases and children born with deformities has skyrocketed after the two Gulf Wars.

"Since 1991 the number of children born with birth deformities has quadrupled," said Dr. Janan Hassan, who runs a children's clinic at a hospital in Basra in southern Iraq. "The same is the case for the number of children under 15 who are diagnosed with cancer. Mostly, it is leukemia. Almost 80 percent of the children die because we neither have medicine nor the possibility to give them chemotherapy."

Doctors have also recorded an extreme rise in cancer cases among adults. "In 2004 we diagnosed 25 percent more cancer cases than the year before and the mortality rate increased eight-fold between 1988 and 1991," said Dr. Jawad al-Ali of the Sadr Hospital in Basra. [...]

The scientists involved in the project met through the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). All have a special interest in the consequences of using depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition, the German project's main focus.

In the two US-led wars on Iraq, missile warheads containing the depleted uranium-238 were used. While it is only lightly radioactive, it is an extremely tough waste-product to contain because the uranium pulverizes and contaminates the whole surrounding area with radioactivity at the moment of the explosion.

"Naturally, the nations leading the war refuse to acknowldege that this type of uranium can be harmful. But as an epidemiologist, I have to say that every bit of radiation can give rise to cancer. It's just a question if what was fired in this case led to an increase in the number of cancer cases," said Professor Eberhard Greiser from the University of Bremen. [...]

...Hassan firmly believes that the radioactive missiles used by the Americans and the British are responsible for the increased incidence of cancer in Iraq since the early 1990s. She hopes a future independent Iraqi government will seek compensation from Washington and London. "We have to demand it. That is the price of the war," she said.

We have so much to answer for.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:09 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 09, 2005

73 And Counting

Iraq  Media  War and Peace

When does Eason Jordan get his job back?

Antonia Zerbisias in the Toronto Star:

You have to wonder what Eason Jordan thinks about last Friday's attack on the car that took Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena from her kidnapping ordeal to her close call at the Baghdad airport.

Jordan is the CNN news chief who in January made controversial remarks about U.S. troops targeting journalists, comments which led to his resigning "to prevent CNN from being unfairly tarnished by the controversy over conflicting accounts of my recent remarks regarding the alarming number of journalists killed in Iraq."

Alarming indeed: at least 73 and counting. [...]

In the rush to hang Jordan, the right — and their willing news twinkies in the media — seem totally unperturbed that the only place reporters feel halfway safe in Iraq is either embedded in the belly of the U.S. military beast or on a Baghdad hotel roof, shielded by satellite dishes.

And who can blame the reporters in Iraq for feeling that way?

Consider that Sgrena's car, reportedly 700 metres from the airport, had already cleared other U.S. military checkpoints. Still, it was drilled by bullets.

Although exactly how many bullets remains a mystery since, at last report, when the Associated Press asked to see the car — in which Italian intelligence officer Nicola Calipari was killed and another official injured — the U.S. military said it didn't know where the thing was.

Which doesn't inspire confidence in the investigation into this murky affair that the U.S. has promised to conduct.

Recall the last couple of so-called investigations into the deaths of journalists by U.S. fire.

After the April 2003 attack on Baghdad's Palestine Hotel, a place where hundreds of journalists were known to be holed up, the U.S. Army refused to release the details of its investigation. Of course, its finding cleared the U.S. of killing two cameramen: Jose Couso of Spain's Telecinco and Ukraine's Taras Protsyuk, who was working for Reuters.

A few months later, Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana — a Palestinian who had survived beatings by West Bank settlers and the Israeli army — filmed his own death by U.S. tank. That happened just moments after he had checked in with the troops, providing his coordinates.

Again, a U.S. military investigation cleared the shooters, saying they had mistaken his video camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

And so it goes. [...]

What I find really disturbing is how few American journalists are protesting what appears to be the Pentagon's callous disregard for getting out the truth, either by making it safer for journalists to do their jobs or by its own full disclosure of the facts of these killings. [My emphasis]

Why would the US target Sgrena? GNN reports:

At the time of her [earlier] abduction, Giuliana [Sgrena] was heading to an area of Baghdad where witnesses from Fallujah are staying to interview Fallujah refugees about the US assault on their city last year. Says [a source close to Sgrena]:

"She had some information about the use of illegal weapons by US forces in Fallujah that was very sensitive. A very hot topic. There were rumors of some use of chemicals and a number of weapons that are not legal — like [napalm] and phosphorus." [My emphasis]

One of the strange realities of modern warfare is that everyone — combatants (ours and theirs) and citizens (ours and theirs) — are all plugged into media 24/7, watching the war, or a highly filtered version of it, in real time. The incentive for US forces to try to control the news by intimidating or killing independent journalists is enormous. It hardly seems likely, considering what's at stake, that the military would shrink from classifying certain journalists as the enemy and acting accordingly.

Maybe Sgrena's ambush was, as one of Zerbisias' readers called it, just another "Baghdad speeding ticket," but the US version of events doesn't add up. In any case, 73 is a very large number. According to Inter Press Service, more journalists were killed in 14 months in Iraq than were killed during the entire Vietnam War, a far bloodier war that lasted more than a decade. Eason Jordan was merely saying aloud what many journalists already believe to be true.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:26 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 08, 2005

Under Cover Of Darkness

Iraq

Mark Benjamin reports for Salon that "flights carrying the wounded arrive in the United States only at night," with those transported to Walter Reed "unloaded into hallways empty of the patients, families and media who typically are present during the day." Excerpt:

In January 2000, then Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Gen. Henry Shelton told an audience at Harvard that before committing troops, politicians should make sure a war can pass what he called the "Dover test," so named for the Air Force base in Delaware where fallen soldiers' coffins return. Shelton said politicians must weigh military actions against whether the public is "prepared for the sight of our most precious resource coming home in flag-draped caskets."

It's widely known that on the eve of the Iraq invasion in 2003, the Bush administration moved to defy the math and enforced a ban on photographs of the caskets arriving at Dover, or at any other military bases. But few realize that it seems to be pursuing the same strategy with the wounded, who are far more numerous. Since 9/11, the Pentagon's Transportation Command has medevaced 24,772 patients from battlefields, mostly from Iraq. But two years after the invasion of Iraq, images of wounded troops arriving in the United States are almost as hard to find as pictures of caskets from Dover. That's because all the transport is done literally in the dark, and in most cases, photos are banned. [...]

A Salon investigation has found that flights carrying the wounded arrive in the United States only at night. And the military is hard-pressed to explain why. In a series of interviews, officials at the Pentagon's Air Mobility Command, which manages all the evacuations, refused to talk on the record to explain the nighttime flights, or to clarify discrepancies in their off-the-record explanations of why the flights arrive when they do. In a written statement, the command said that "operational restrictions" at a runway near the military's main hospital in Germany, where wounded from Iraq are brought first, affect the timing of flights. The command also attempted to explain the flight schedule by saying doctors in Germany need plenty of time to stabilize patients before they fly to the United States. [...]

Paul Rieckhoff, founder and executive director of Operation Truth, an advocacy group for veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan, said the nighttime-only arrivals of wounded, along with the restrictions on coffin photos and other P.R. tactics, are designed to hide from the public the daily flow of wounded and dead. "They do it so nobody sees [the wounded]," Rieckhoff said. "In their mind-set, this is going to demoralize the American people. The overall cost of this war has been...continuously hidden throughout. As the costs get higher, their efforts to conceal those costs also increase." [...]

Nearly 4,000 soldiers hurt in Iraq have been bused from Andrews Air Force Base to Walter Reed, according to the hospital. Because the planes come in late at Andrews, patients arrive at Walter Reed after dark and after the hospital's clinics are closed. The wounded are unloaded into hallways empty of the patients, families and media who typically are present during the day. They are not unloaded into the common entrance closest to the emergency room. [...]

John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense information Web site, has spent a great deal of time trying to tease out the difference between facts and Pentagon spin. He said it is odd that the Pentagon hasn't done a good job of explaining the late-night flights. "It is puzzling because there are perfectly sensible explanations for this, but those are not the explanations being offered," Pike said. "And the explanation being offered makes no sense. It makes no sense." [My emphasis]

There is something seriously wrong when the citizens of a democracy are treated as an enemy population to be manipulated through propaganda. These actions demonstrate a contempt for democracy. What's more, they demonstrate a contempt for the troops themselves, who deserve to be recognized for their sacrifice, not hidden from view and forgotten.

As we know from our own lives, mental and spiritual health suffer when we skulk around, hiding our shameful deeds from the sight of others. The same psychological dynamic applies to the nation as a whole: denial is a temporary expedient that always ends badly. But maybe this is what we get for putting a dry drunk in the White House.

Posted by Jonathan at 07:35 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

Army's Official Historian: No Post-War Plan

Iraq

The US Army's own official historian for the Iraq war has concluded that the US "lost its dominance in Iraq shortly after its invasion in 2003" and has yet to regain it. Why? Because, he says, the US went to war without a plan for a post-Saddam Iraq. World Tribune:

A report by the U.S. Army official historian said the military was hampered by the failure to occupy and stabilize Iraq in 2003. As a result, the military lost its dominance by July 2003 and has yet to regain that position.

"In the two to three months of ambiguous transition, U.S. forces slowly lost the momentum and the initiative gained over an off-balanced enemy," the report said. "The United States, its Army and its coalition of the willing have been playing catch-up ever since."

The report was authored by Maj. Isaiah Wilson, the official historian of the U.S. Army for the Iraq war. Wilson also served as a war planner for the army's 101st Airborne Division until March 2004, Middle East Newsline reported. His report, not yet endorsed as official army history, has been presented to several academic conferences.

In November 2003, the military drafted a formal plan for stability and post-combat operations, Wilson said. Termed Phase-4, the plan was meant to follow such stages as preparation for combat, initial operations and combat. "There was no Phase IV plan," the report said. "While there may have been plans at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these plans operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse. There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations." [...]

Wilson said army planners failed to understand or accept the prospect that Iraqis would resist the U.S. forces after the fall of the Saddam regime. He deemed the military performance in Iraq mediocre and said the army could lose the war.

"U.S. war planners, practitioners and the civilian leadership conceived of the war far too narrowly," the report said. "This overly simplistic conception of the war led to a cascading undercutting of the war effort: too few troops, too little coordination with civilian and governmental/non-governmental agencies and too little allotted time to achieve success." [My emphasis]

Too bad nobody reads Greek tragedy anymore. Otherwise, they'd know how the gods reward hubris. While it's hard to view Rumsfeld as a tragic figure (he lacks the requisite nobility of spirit), he's sure got the hubris. It was his colossal arrogance that sent the military into Iraq with an inadequate force and a "just wing it" plan that was no plan at all. He and the rest of the neocons believed their own hype: US as irresistible hyperpower, purveyor of "shock and awe", the new Roman Empire. Luckily for the world, it's all been shown to be a hollow sham. It takes more than fancy hardware to conquer what Jonathan Schell called "the unconquerable world."

One has to wonder, though, if they've learned their lesson even now. Or, in their arrogance, will they just up the ante and try to turn defeat into victory by attacking Syria and/or Iran. Just watch what the gods do then.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:07 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 06, 2005

Oil And The Soviet Collapse

Energy  Iraq  Peak Oil

Kenneth Deffeyes, in his new book Beyond Oil, offers an intriguing take on what caused the Soviet Union to collapse. He begins with a multiple choice question:

Who gets credit for causing the collapse of the Soviet Union?

a. Ronald Reagan, for promoting Star Wars
b. the pope, for being Polish
c. Mikhail Gorbachev, for allowing dissention
d. the KGB, for abusing the people
e. Saudi Aramco, for lowering oil prices

Stephen Kotkin points out that the Soviet Union, up to 1985, was exporting two million barrels of oil per day. The hard currency from oil allowed the Soviets to import items that were internally in short supply, from electronics to soap. At that time, Soviet oil production was larger than Saudi production by a factor of three, but Saudi Aramco had much lower production costs. Saudi Aramco resorted to a familiar tactic: a price war. They flooded the world with oil and drove the world price of crude oil below the Soviet cost of production and transportation...[S]evere shortages of everything...developed within the Soviet bloc. [...]

After six years without hard currency, the Soviet Union collapsed. Control of the world's dominant energy source carries enormous power.

This account is important for two reasons. First, it reminds us that the history we learn in school is at best incomplete, at worst self-serving propaganda. Of more immediate relevance, though, is the way it illustrates the enormous geopolitical leverage that comes with control of the world's industrial lifeblood.

Some people argue that oil could not have been an important motivation for the US invasion of Iraq. After all, the argument goes, the US could always acquire Iraqi oil simply by buying it on the world market. As the Soviet story illustrates, however, this is an absurdly naive reading of the situation. There is much, much more at stake than just filling our gas tanks. Whoever controls the world's oil — especially in years to come as world oil production falls increasingly short of the world's needs — controls the fate of nations.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

None Of Us Are Free

Activism  Iraq  War and Peace

ICH hosts a moving video set to the great Solomon Burke song, "None of Us Are Free [If One of Us Is Chained"].

Like the song says, "If you don't say it's wrong then that says it's right."

Posted by Jonathan at 01:47 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

March 04, 2005

Feeling A Draft

Iraq

The LA Times reports that the Army, Marines, Army Reserves, and Army National Guard have all failed to meet their recruiting targets in recent months. The Marines, who missed their targets in January and February, previously hadn't missed their target in more than a decade.

Getting drafty in here.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:20 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

March 03, 2005

1500

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq: 1502.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 28, 2005

Reckless Disregard

Environment  Iraq  Politics  War and Peace

How does the US military support the troops? By poisoning them with depleted uranium (DU). Consider this piece by Project Censored award winner Bob Nichols in the San Francisco Bay View [link via ICH]:

Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war.

Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War.

Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, "The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the 'Gulf War Syndrome' has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military."

Bernklau continued, "This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed."

He added, "Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of 'Disabled Vets' means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!" The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam.

"The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000," wrote Bernklau. "He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret's report, (it)...is far too big to hide or to cover up!"

"Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that 'Gulf Era Veterans' now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans," said Berklau.

"The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence," stated Berklau. "Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as 'spectacular...and a matter of concern!'"

When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for "destroying things and killing people," Fulk was more specific: "I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!" [My emphasis]

The military's reckless disregard for the well-being of its own troops (not to mention the inhabitants of the countries, like Iraq, where DU munitions are used) is truly monstrous.

56% of Gulf War veterans on Permanent Medical Disability. And the use of DU munitions is ongoing. This is how they "support the troops"? How is this not a huge, huge scandal?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:05 PM | Comments (3) | Link to this  

February 27, 2005

Welcome To The New Iraq

Iraq

The author of Baghdad Burning, a young Iraqi woman living in Baghdad, writes in the aftermath of the recent Iraq elections. She's talking to a man who operates a vegetable stand in the neighborhood:

I nodded and handed over the bags to be weighed. "Well...they're going to turn us into another Iran. You know list 169 [the Sistani-backed list of candidates] means we might turn into Iran." Abu Ammar pondered this a moment as he put the bags on the old brass scale and adjusted the weights.

"And is Iran so bad?" He finally asked. Well no, Abu Ammar, I wanted to answer, it's not bad for you — you're a man....If anything your right to several temporary marriages, a few permanent ones and the right to subdue females will increase. Why should it be so bad? Instead I was silent. It's not a good thing to criticize Iran these days. I numbly reached for the bags he handed me, trying to rise out of that sinking feeling that overwhelmed me when the results were first made public.

It's not about a Sunni government or a Shia government - it's about the possibility of an Iranian-modeled Iraq. Many Shia are also appalled with the results of the elections. There's talk of Sunnis being marginalized by the elections but that isn't the situation. It's not just Sunnis - it's moderate Shia and secular people in general who have been marginalized.

The list is frightening - Da'awa, SCIRI, Chalabi, Hussein Shahristani and a whole collection of pro-Iran political figures and clerics. They are going to have a primary role in writing the new constitution. There's talk of Shari'a, or Islamic law, having a very primary role in the new constitution. The problem is, whose Shari'a? Shari'a for many Shia differs from that of Sunni Shari'a. And what about all the other religions? What about Christians and Mendiyeen?

Is anyone surprised that the same people who came along with the Americans – the same puppets who all had a go at the presidency last year – are the ones who came out on top in the elections? Jaffari, Talbani, Barazani, Hakim, Allawi, Chalabi... exiles, convicted criminals and war lords. Welcome to the new Iraq. [...]

They try to give impressive interviews to western press but the situation is wholly different on the inside. Women feel it the most. There's an almost constant pressure in Baghdad from these parties for women to cover up what little they have showing. There's a pressure in many colleges for the segregation of males and females. There are the threats, and the printed and verbal warnings, and sometimes we hear of attacks or insults.

You feel it all around you. It begins slowly and almost insidiously. You stop wearing slacks or jeans or skirts that show any leg because you don't want to be stopped in the street and lectured by someone who doesn't approve. You stop wearing short sleeves and start preferring wider shirts with a collar that will cover up some of you neck. You stop letting your hair flow because you don't want to attract attention to it. On the days when you forget to pull it back into a ponytail, you want to kick yourself and you rummage around in your handbag trying to find a hair band… hell, a rubber band to pull back your hair and make sure you attract less attention from them. [...]

It's also not about covering the hair. I have many relatives and friends who wore a hijab before the war. It's the principle. It's having so little freedom that even your wardrobe is dictated. And wardrobe is just the tip of the iceberg. There are clerics and men who believe women shouldn't be able to work or that they shouldn't be allowed to do certain jobs or study in specific fields. Something that disturbed me about the election forms was that it indicated whether the voter was 'male' or 'female' - why should that matter? Could it be because in Shari'a, a women's vote or voice counts for half of that of a man? Will they implement that in the future? [...]

It's interesting to watch American politicians talk about how American troops are the one thing standing between Sunnis and Shia killing each other in the streets. It looks more and more these days like that's not true. Right now, during all these assassinations and abductions, the troops are just standing aside and letting Iraqis get at each other. Not only that, but the new army or the National Guard are just around to protect American troops and squelch any resistance.

There was hope of a secular Iraq, even after the occupation. That hope is fading fast. [My emphasis in bold]

"For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind."

Posted by Jonathan at 04:04 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 18, 2005

If This Is True...

Iraq

Iraqi Dr. Salam Ismael, 28 years old, writes of his experience in Fallujah following the US assault on the city. Excerpt:

It was the smell that first hit me, a smell that is difficult to describe, and one that will never leave me. It was the smell of death. Hundreds of corpses were decomposing in the houses, gardens and streets of Fallujah. Bodies were rotting where they had fallen — bodies of men, women and children, many half-eaten by wild dogs.

A wave of hate had wiped out two-thirds of the town, destroying houses and mosques, schools and clinics. This was the terrible and frightening power of the US military assault.

The accounts I heard over the next few days will live with me forever. You may think you know what happened in Fallujah. But the truth is worse than you could possibly have imagined.

In Saqlawiya, one of the makeshift refugee camps that surround Fallujah, we found a 17 year old woman. "I am Hudda Fawzi Salam Issawi from the Jolan district of Fallujah," she told me. "Five of us, including a 55 year old neighbour, were trapped together in our house in Fallujah when the siege began.

"On 9 November American marines came to our house. My father and the neighbour went to the door to meet them. We were not fighters. We thought we had nothing to fear. I ran into the kitchen to put on my veil, since men were going to enter our house and it would be wrong for them to see me with my hair uncovered. "This saved my life. As my father and neighbour approached the door, the Americans opened fire on them. They died instantly.

"Me and my 13 year old brother hid in the kitchen behind the fridge. The soldiers came into the house and caught my older sister. They beat her. Then they shot her. But they did not see me. Soon they left, but not before they had destroyed our furniture and stolen the money from my father's pocket."

Hudda told me how she comforted her dying sister by reading verses from the Koran. After four hours her sister died. For three days Hudda and her brother stayed with their murdered relatives. But they were thirsty and had only a few dates to eat. They feared the troops would return and decided to try to flee the city. But they were spotted by a US sniper.

Hudda was shot in the leg, her brother ran but was shot in the back and died instantly. "I prepared myself to die," she told me. "But I was found by an American woman soldier, and she took me to hospital." She was eventually reunited with the surviving members of her family.

I also found survivors of another family from the Jolan district. They told me that at the end of the second week of the siege the US troops swept through the Jolan. The Iraqi National Guard used loudspeakers to call on people to get out of the houses carrying white flags, bringing all their belongings with them. They were ordered to gather outside near the Jamah al-Furkan mosque in the centre of town.

On 12 November Eyad Naji Latif and eight members of his family — one of them a six month old child — gathered their belongings and walked in single file, as instructed, to the mosque.

When they reached the main road outside the mosque they heard a shout, but they could not understand what was being shouted. Eyad told me it could have been "now" in English. Then the firing began. US soldiers appeared on the roofs of surrounding houses and opened fire. Eyad's father was shot in the heart and his mother in the chest.

They died instantly. Two of Eyad's brothers were also hit, one in the chest and one in the neck. Two of the women were hit, one in the hand and one in the leg. Then the snipers killed the wife of one of Eyad's brothers. When she fell her five year old son ran to her and stood over her body. They shot him dead too. Survivors made desperate appeals to the troops to stop firing.

But Eyad told me that whenever one of them tried to raise a white flag they were shot. After several hours he tried to raise his arm with the flag. But they shot him in the arm. Finally he tried to raise his hand. So they shot him in the hand... [My emphasis]

Please say it hasn't come to this.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:27 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Blood For Oil

Iraq

Conservative commentators, and the mainstream media generally, have been nearly unanimous in mocking any assertion that the US invaded Iraq to get control of Iraq's oil. Or maybe "mocking" isn't the right word — they mostly just omit oil motives from the discussion altogether.

Perhaps they should have sent someone to cover a little-reported event at the National Press Club three days before the Iraq elections. Antonia Juhasz of Foreign Policy in Focus wrote about it for Alternet:

On Dec. 22, 2004, Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi told a handful of reporters and industry insiders at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. that Iraq wants to issue a new oil law that would open Iraq's national oil company to private foreign investment. As Mahdi explained: "So I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies."

In other words, Mahdi is proposing to privatize Iraq's oil and put it into American corporate hands.

According to the finance minister, foreigners would gain access both to "downstream" and "maybe even upstream" oil investment. This means foreigners can sell Iraqi oil and own it under the ground — the very thing for which many argue the U.S. went to war in the first place.

As Vice President Dick Cheney's Defense Policy Guidance report explained back in 1992, "Our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the [Middle East] region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region's oil."

While few in the American media other than Emad Mckay of Inter Press Service reported on — or even attended — Mahdi’s press conference, the announcement was made with U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at Mahdi's side. [My emphasis]

While the media sleep, the deal is struck.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:09 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 12, 2005

Zbig On Iraq And The Draft

Iraq

This item is about five weeks old, but I didn't see it at the time. Speaking before the New America Foundation in January, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security adviser, had some alarming things to say about Iraq. WaPo:

"I do not think we can stay in Iraq in the fashion we're in now," Brzezinski said. "If it cannot be changed drastically, it should be terminated." He said it would take 500,000 troops, $500 billion and resumption of the military draft to ensure adequate security in Iraq.

The most optimistic outcome to expect, Brzezinski said, is that Iraq will become a Shiite-dominated theocracy, "not what we would normally call a democracy." [My emphasis]

"Not what we would normally call a democracy." Guess not.

So if we reinstitute the draft, deploy a half million troops, and spend another half a trillion dollars, best case, we end up with an Iranian-style Shiite theocracy.

Nice going, Dubya.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:36 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 06, 2005

Lies, Lies, Lies

Iraq

Eliot Weinberger's article What I Heard About Iraq is an astonishing document.

Among other things, it's a compendium of official lies about Iraq. That means it's long — there have been so many lies — but it's well worth the read. Even if you've followed the news about Iraq, I think you'll discover many things you'd never heard before or else had forgotten.

Many Americans still believe that George Bush and the people around him are good and honest folks who never lied about Iraq — they were simply fooled by "faulty intelligence". I wish they would read Weinberger's article.

And there's much more in the article than just the official lies. Just a few of the many items:

I heard a man in the Baghdad market say: "Saddam Hussein's greatest crime is that he brought the American army to Iraq." [...]

I heard the president say: "The credibility of this country is based upon our strong desire to make the world more peaceful, and the world is now more peaceful." [...]

I heard that the US military had purchased 1,500,000,000 bullets for use in the coming year. That is 58 bullets for every Iraqi adult and child.

Go read the rest.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:20 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 02, 2005

105, 1438

Iraq

US troops killed in action in Iraq in January: 105, making January the third deadliest month of the war so far.

Total for the war so far: 1438.

In addition, 20 non-US coalition troops were killed in January.

Update: [Feb 3, 1:56 PM] Revised figures: 107, 1440.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

February 01, 2005

Déjà Vu All Over Again

Iraq

Peter Grose, in a page 2 New York Times article titled, "U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote," September 4, 1967 [via Truthout, Kos]:

United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting.

According to reports from Saigon, 83 percent of the 5.85 million registered voters cast their ballots yesterday. Many of them risked reprisals threatened by the Vietcong. [...]

A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam.

Food for thought.

[Thanks, Kent]

Posted by Jonathan at 01:57 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 31, 2005

Iraq's Elections In Perspective

Iraq

If the election turnout in Iraq was anything like what is being reported, it is an inspiring testament to Iraqis' desire for control of their own destiny — which includes ridding their country of US occupation forces. Before we buy into the spin of another "Mission Accomplished," however, we may want to consider this perspective offered by British journalist Robert Fisk, writing from Iraq:

"Transition of power," says the hourly logo on CNN's live coverage of the election, though the poll is for a parliament to write a constitution [i.e., not a governing parliament] and the men who will form a majority within it will have no power.

They have no control over their oil, no authority over the streets of Baghdad, let alone the rest of the country, no workable army or loyal police force. Their only power is that of the American military and its 150,000 soldiers whom we could see at the main Baghdad intersections yesterday.

The big television networks have been given a list of five polling stations where they will be "allowed" to film. Close inspection of the list shows that four of the five are in Shia Muslim areas - where the polling will probably be high - and one in an upmarket Sunni area where it will be moderate. Every working-class Sunni polling station will be out of bounds to the press. […]

The "real" story is outside Baghdad, in the tens of thousands of square miles outside the government's control and outside the sight of independent journalists, especially in the four Sunni Muslim provinces which are the heart of Iraq's insurrection.

Right up to election hour, US jets were continuing to bomb "terrorist targets", the latest in the city of Ramadi — which, though Messrs Bush and Blair do not say so — is now in the hands of the insurgents as surely as Fallujah was before the Americans destroyed it.

Every month since Mr Allawi, the former CIA agent, was appointed premier by the US government, American air strikes on Iraq have been increasing exponentially. There are no "embedded" reporters on the giant American air base at Qatar or aboard the US carriers in the Gulf from which these ever-increasing and ever more lethal sorties are being flown. They go unrecorded, unreported, part of the "fantasy" war which is all too real to the victims but hidden from us journalists as we cower in Baghdad.

The reality is that much of Iraq has become a free-fire zone — for reference, see under "Vietnam" — and the Americans are conducting this secret war as efficiently and as ruthlessly as they conducted their earlier bombing campaign against Iraq between 1991 and 2003, an air raid a day, or two raids, or three. Then they were attacking Saddam's "military targets" in Iraq. Now they are attacking "foreign terrorist targets" or "anti-Iraqi forces". I especially like this one since the foreigners involved in this violence happen in reality to be Americans who are mostly attacking Iraqis.

And not only in Sunni areas. Just this month, for example, US aircraft fired missiles at a students' dormitory at the University of Erbil in the Kurdish north of the country. Among the wounded Kurds was a survivor of Saddam's gassing of Halabja — one of the reasons Mr Bush and Mr Blair supposedly invaded this wretched place. No explanations from the Americans. [My emphasis]

Not exactly the story we're getting from US media.

Iraqi voters showed extraordinary courage in voting. It seems likely that a significant motivating factor was their belief that elections were a first step toward getting the US out of their country. One has to think they are going to be cruelly disappointed, however. Nothing indicates the Bush administration has the slightest intention of relinquishing control of Iraq and its oil.

Update: [31 Jan 2005, 11:39 AM] Following the election, Fisk told Democracy Now:

What this election has done is not actually a demonstration of people who demand democracy, but they want freedom of a different kind, freedom to vote, but also freedom from foreign occupation. And if they are betrayed in this, then we are going to look back and regret the broken promises. [My emphasis]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:16 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 30, 2005

What If The US Had Not Invaded Iraq

Iraq

Are today's elections in Iraq the turning point they are said to be? It seems, to put it mildly, unlikely, but time will tell. In the meantime, it may be well to ponder these words by Richard Reeves:

I have thought for a long time that communism would have collapsed in the 1970s rather than at the end of the 1980s if the United States had not chosen to go to war in Vietnam. We squandered years of moral, political, financial and military capital in jungles and rice paddies we could not name, much less "conquer" or "liberate."

Because of that, a couple of sentences in the [October] issue of The Atlantic Monthly seem etched in stone more than slapped on paper. James Fallows, the magazine's national editor, in an article titled "Bush's Lost Year," writes of spending the past two years with military, intelligence and diplomatic personnel at the "working level of America's anti-terrorism efforts." Most are Republicans, he says; many supported the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003. Next he writes:

"I have sat through arguments among soldiers and scholars about whether the invasion of Iraq should be considered the worst strategic error in American history — or only the worst since Vietnam. Many say things in Iraq will eventually look much better than they do now. But about the conduct and effect of the war in Iraq one view prevails: It has increased the threats America faces, and has reduced the military, financial and diplomatic tools with which we can respond." [My emphasis]

Among the many people quoted in the Atlantic is Jeffrey Record, a professor of strategy at the Army War College, who summed up a good deal of the thinking in Washington now: "Are we better off in basic security than before we invaded Iraq? The answer is no. An unnecessary war has consumed American Army and other ground resources, to the point where we have nothing left in the cupboard for another contingency — for instance, should the North Koreans decide that with the Americans completely absorbed in Iraq, now is the time to do something." [My emphasis]

So, what would be different or what would life be like if we had not made the choice to invade Iraq? Here are some answers:

The life of Iraqis would be what it was before we came. The tyranny of Saddam Hussein would continue, but it would be contained without threat to us. Evil, yes. But there is evil everywhere, beginning these days in western Sudan.

We would be safer. There is danger everywhere in this age of terror, but our resources are bogged down in one place — and could be there for many years. An example: Those surveillance satellites that once were pointed at the Soviet Union and then at Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida have been pointed at Iraq for almost three years.

Afghanistan would be in better shape. And Osama and al-Qaida might be gone or rendered less effective. We cut and ran to Iraq, without accomplishing that vital mission, leaving the country that sheltered Osama to be fought over, again, by warlords of the drug trade and the crazily puritanical Taliban.

The United States would still be admired in most places and a feared superpower everywhere — perhaps even liked a bit. Iraq, like Vietnam, has revealed the limits of our power, allowing enemies everywhere to mock us.

We would be engaged in trying to contain the greater dangers in our adversaries North Korea and Iran — and the dangers in the lands of our allies, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. But, again, we choose to look away from the reality and threat in those places.

We would be buying the weapons of mass destruction of the old Soviet Union. But now there is no money for that — or for the problems of education and health care at home. There is only money for war and security. [...]

One factor that qualifies Iraq as a worse strategic blunder than Vietnam is that Iraq planners had Vietnam as an example and failed to learn any of its lessons. If the first (Vietnam) was tragedy, the second (Iraq) is farce — albeit a bloody, brutal, and tragic farce. Why farce? There's the devil-may-care insouciance of Donald Rumsfeld, who has never been anywhere near a war, but nevertheless overruled the military professionals on the force requirements for the war. There's the idiotic reliance of the babes-in-the-woods neocons on "world-class hustler" (James Carville's phrase) Ahmed Chalabi. There's the grandiose delusion that a few days of "Shock and Awe" and all our problems would be over, that Iraqis would strew rose petals in the path of American troops and democracy would blossom across the Middle East. There's the daft aircraft-carrier landing of the flight-suited National Guard deserter George Bush to announce "Mission Accomplished". One could go on. The Three Stooges in business suits.

I suppose in a perverse sort of way one good that has come of Iraq is that the idea of the US as a "hyper-power" capable of imposing its will wherever it wishes has been exposed for the hollow myth it is. As someone pointed out (I forget who), the $400 billion a year (or whatever the true figure is) US military has shown itself incapable of subduing even one medium-sized and almost completely disarmed Arab country. The neocons thought the US was the new Roman Empire. Instead, they have demonstrated to the world just how limited US power really is. It takes more than whiz-bang military gadgetry to conquer the human beings that make up what Jonathan Schell called The Unconquerable World. Thank goodness.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:45 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 26, 2005

36, 1417

Iraq

36 US troops were killed in Iraq today, bringing to the total to date to 1417. This makes today the deadliest day of the war so far for the US, with elections just a week away. Not good.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:25 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Gonzales: "Cruel, Inhuman Or Degrading" OK

Ethics  Iraq  Politics

According to Attorney-General designate Alberto Gonzales, US laws and treaties do not prohibit "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment of foreign prisoners. Knight-Ridder [via Kos]:

Alberto Gonzales has asserted to the Senate committee weighing his nomination to be attorney general that there's a legal rationale for harsh treatment of foreign prisoners by U.S. forces.

In more than 200 pages of written responses to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, who plan to vote Wednesday on his nomination, Gonzales told senators that laws and treaties prohibit torture by any U.S. agent without exception.

But he said the Convention Against Torture treaty, as ratified by the Senate, doesn't prohibit the use of "cruel, inhuman or degrading" tactics on non-U.S. citizens who are captured abroad, in Iraq or elsewhere. [My emphasis]

"Inhuman" tactics.

Inhuman.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:37 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 25, 2005

Torture Allegations Just Keep Piling Up

Ethics  Iraq  Politics

By US media standards, torture of Iraqi prisoners is old news. Unfortunately, the Abu Ghraib revelations appear only to have scratched the surface. The LA Times today:

Pentagon documents released Monday disclosed that Iraqi prisoners had lodged dozens of abuse complaints against U.S. and Iraqi personnel who guarded them at a little-known palace in Baghdad converted to a U.S. prison. Among the allegations was that guards had sodomized a disabled man and killed his brother, whose dying body was tossed into a cell, atop his sister.

The documents, obtained in a lawsuit against the federal government by the American Civil Liberties Union, suggest for the first time that numerous detainees were abused at Adhamiya Palace, one of Saddam Hussein's villas in eastern Baghdad that was used by his son Uday. Previous cases of abuse of Iraqi prisoners have focused mainly on Abu Ghraib prison.

A government contractor who was interviewed by U.S. investigators said that as many as 90 incidents of possible abuse took place at the palace, but only a few were detailed in the hundreds of pages of documents released Monday.

The documents also touch on alleged abuses in other U.S.-run lockups in Iraq. The papers include investigative reports linking some abuses to ultrasecret Pentagon counter-terrorism units.

The latest allegations add to a pattern that human rights activists said suggested systematic abuse of prisoners at U.S. military detention facilities across the globe. ACLU officials, who have obtained and released thousands of documents in recent months, on Monday accused the Pentagon of a "woefully inadequate" response to hundreds of incidents of alleged abuse. [My emphasis]

Yes, US media have an abbreviated attention span and give short shrift to stories that do not come with pictures, but still...

If we let our sense of moral outrage be eroded away to a point where torture no longer seems worthy of comment or protest, then we have crossed into dangerous territory indeed. One of society's sturdiest bulwarks against a descent into brutality is a shared sense of public morality and simple common decency. Torture is worthy of protest for many reasons, but among them is the damage that not protesting inflicts on our collective morality and our sense of ourselves. Arguments about whether torture is pragmatically justified in the midst of a war completely miss the point. If we torture, we lose our national soul. It's that simple. It makes us capable of ever greater evils, which in turn brutalize us further. Where will it end?

Posted by Jonathan at 06:39 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 23, 2005

Holes In History

Afghanistan  Iraq  Politics

The Bush administration lies about so many things, it's hard for them to shock one anymore. We have, for example, their recent announcement that they're calling off the search for WMD after having found exactly zero weapons, despite the fact that Bush himself said, before the war:

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. [My emphasis]

But reading Peter Singer's The President of Good and Evil, I came across a couple of real whoppers: two important episodes that have been deleted from history, with the result that our ideas of the events leading up to the US attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq are significantly distorted.

First, Afghanistan. On September 20, 2001, Bush used the occasion of his post-9/11 speech to a joint session of the Congress to issue an ultimatum to the Taliban. He ordered them to hand over Bin Laden and al Qaeda. He said that if they didn't, "We'll attack them with missiles, bombers and boots on the ground."

If you're like me, you have the general impression that the Taliban stubbornly — and foolishly — refused. Not so, says Singer:

The reader of [Bob Woodward's] Bush at War might assume that the Taliban never responded at all. But in reality Mullah Omar, the Taliban leader, asked the US government to provide evidence of Osama bin Laden's involvement in the events of 9/11, and indicated that if this was done, he would be willing to hand bin Laden over to an Islamic court in another Muslim country. (This proposal was later softened to a requirement that the court have at least one Muslim judge.) There was also a suggestion that the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of more than fifty Muslim countries, should be consulted. Finally, there was an offer to meet with US officials. The request for evidence of bin Laden's involvement...was surely a reasonable one, in accord with normal requests for extradition. The US would itself insist on evidence before handing someone within its borders over to another nation wishing to put him on trial for a capital offense. Yet the request, and the proposal for a meeting, appear to have been totally ignored...[which] indicates that the intention behind the ultimatum was...to provide an excuse for going to war.

Before he even gave his ultimatum speech, Bush told Tony Blair that he intended to attack Afghanistan with the "full force of the US military" with "bombers coming from all directions." The ultimatum was merely a fig leaf.

The second, similar episode concerns Iraq. Prior to the US invasion, Bush once again issued an ultimatum, this time to Saddam Hussein. Bush demanded that Saddam disarm and destroy his reputed WMD and prove to the world that he had done so. "History" shows that Saddam stubbornly refused and the US attacked.

Again, however, says Singer, a significant episode has been deleted from the historical record. Singer:

After the war was over, it became known that as the American buildup for war was reaching its peak, the Bush administration was informed by a Lebanese-American businessman that Saddam was willing to give the Americans much of what they wanted. The businessman had been told by the Iraqi chief of intelligence that Saddam had no weapons of mass destruction, and was willing to allow American troops to conduct a search. The Iraqis were also reportedly offering to hand over to the Americans a man wanted as a suspect in the 1993 attempt to blow up the World Trade Center. Most remarkable of all, they were pledging to hold elections. As a result of these overtures, Richard Perle, an adviser to the Department of Defense, flew to London to meet with the businessman. The businessman pressed for a direct meeting between Iraqi officials and Perle or another representative of the United States. Perle conveyed this message to officials in the Bush administration, but they rebuffed the Iraqi overture. According to Perle, "The message was, 'Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad.'"

What is disturbing and exasperating — putting it mildly — is not just Bush's duplicity, it's the fact that no one in the major media sees fit to set the record straight. To this day, administration voices are able to claim, with no fear of contradiction, that Saddam refused to cooperate with inspections and violated UN resolutions, leaving the US with no choice but to act, when the reality is that in both cases, Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush was determined to go to war and wouldn't take yes for an answer. It was naked aggression, pure and simple.

Everything else is just fog.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:00 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

January 20, 2005

Doonesbury On CIA Torture Training

Ethics  Humor & Fun  Iraq

In today's Doonesbury, an instructor leads a class on interrogation techniques for a group of CIA trainees.

Instructor — Okay, so here are the key interrogation protocols we'll be covering...

Instructor: Stress positions, sleep and sensory deprivation, temperature control, dog handling, cigarette burns, hooding and beating.

Instructor: But remember, there is one thing that leadership — from the President on down — will NEVER again tolerate at our detention centers...

This sounds hopeful. What could it be?

Instructor: ...digital cameras.

Student: What about cell phone cams?

Welcome to four more years of moral squalor.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:42 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

The Daily Show On Finding No WMD

Humor & Fun  Iraq  Politics

Go here, and click on the image/link above "Mess O' Potamia: Hunt for WMDs". Funny, but maddening as well. As always, it takes The Daily Show to fully expose the nakedness of our newly-inaugurated Emperor.

My favorite part is the final 30 seconds, which shows White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan spinning the announcement that the administration had abandoned the search for WMD. What you see, in quick succession, are the many times in that one press briefing where McClellan invoked 9/11 in explaining why the Iraq invasion was still justified and necessary despite the complete absence of the WMD that had been presented as the rationale for war. 9/11, which, of course, had absolutely nothing to do with Iraq.

And just to be clear: this press briefing was just eight days ago. I.e., they are still cranking out whatever fog they can to link Iraq and 9/11 in people's minds.

Most politicians bend the truth at least some of the time, some do it almost all of the time. This White House, however, are the worst bunch of liars I can remember. The resulting debasement of political discourse may be irreparable — at least, until long after these thugs have passed from the scene.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:42 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

January 18, 2005

An Accountability Moment

Iraq  Politics

Sunday's Washington Post reported on an interview with President Bush. Excerpt:

President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.

"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me.

With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. [My emphasis]

As if a "moment" of accountability suffices when you've taken your nation to war. The insufferable arrogance of the man.

Americans, however, appear to disagree with Bush's assessment that the election settled the question in his favor. ABC reported yesterday that a new poll shows only 40% of the public approves of Bush's handling of Iraq. Moreover:

It's notable — and perhaps a concern for the administration — how closely linked Iraq is to the president's bottom line. Among people who think the war was worth fighting, 92 percent also approve of Bush's work in office overall. Among those who think the war was not worth it, 79 percent disapprove of Bush's performance more broadly.

Who are these people who believe the war was "worth fighting"?

Posted by Jonathan at 07:57 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 14, 2005

Sir, No Sir!

Iraq

Since the war began, the Pentagon has blocked the photographing of flag-draped coffins and military burials of US personnel killed in Iraq. The intent, of course, is to reduce, to whatever extent they can, public awareness of the cost of the war in US lives. At the same time, though, it demonstrates an attitude toward US troops that's of a piece with Bush's refusal to attend a single funeral, Rumsfeld's "signing" condolence letters with an autopen, the Army's sending troops out on patrol for nearly two years now in inadequately armored vehicles. "Support the troops" is a nice slogan, but actions speak so much louder than words.

Sweeping the dead — most of them just kids, after all — under the rug without any measure of public honor or grief is the final insult. Yesterday, however, Editor and Publisher reported that resistance to the policy has come from an unexpected quarter:

A Louisiana National Guard unit defied a Pentagon request to prevent television news crews from filming six flag-draped soldiers’ coffins arriving in the state following the men’s deaths in Iraq last week, according to a report by CBS News.

The Louisiana National Guard allowed a CBS crew to film the arrival of six soldiers’ coffins at the Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base in Belle Chasse, La., near New Orleans. Lt. Col. Pete Schneider, a spokesman for the Louisiana National Guard, told CBS: "What we thought was, we’re going to do what the family asked us to do." [My emphasis]

Good for them.

It's a measure of just how squalid things have become that even this simple act of common decency strikes one as both remarkable and moving.

Posted by Jonathan at 08:08 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 12, 2005

WMD Statements Then And Now

Iraq

This is sickening. Is there no accountability?

Posted by Jonathan at 11:08 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

US Gives Up Search For Iraq WMD

Iraq

US forces have given up the unsuccessful search for WMD in Iraq. None were found. Reuters:

The U.S. force that scoured Iraq for weapons of mass destruction — cited by President Bush as justification for war — has abandoned its long and fruitless hunt to assist in counter-insurgency efforts, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

The 1,700-strong Iraq Survey Group, responsible for the hunt, last month wrapped up physical searches for weapons of mass destruction, and its mission has been refocused on gathering information to help U.S. forces in Iraq win a bloody guerrilla war, officials said.

Bush and other U.S. officials cited the grave threat posed by Iraq's chemical and biological weapons and Baghdad's efforts to acquire a nuclear arms capability as a central justification for the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. No such weapons have been found.

"You can only search so many places for WMD," said a defense official...

Charles Duelfer, the CIA special adviser who led the ISG's weapons search, has returned home and is expected next month to issue a final addendum to his September report concluding that prewar Iraq had no WMD stockpiles, officials said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said he was not holding out the possibility these weapons would turn up in Iraq. But he added that "based on what we know today, the president would have taken the same action" — war with Iraq — in order to "confront a threat posed by Saddam Hussein.

"And now what is important is that we need to go back and look at what was wrong with much of the intelligence that we had accumulated over a 12-year period and that our allies had accumulated over that same period of time and correct any flaws," McClellan said. [My emphasis]

Bush should be boiled in oil over this, but it's not going to happen.

There must be a special place reserved in Hell for Scott McClellan. What was this threat posed by a disarmed Saddam Hussein that justifies the ongoing slaughter? The insinuation that it was all an honest mistake based on faulty intelligence is also a load of crap. They knew there were no WMD of any significance. They were probably hoping to find at least something they could point to after the fact, but WMD were never the issue. It's all a lie, and now we get to sit back and watch as they compound the lie and get away with it one more time.

Pardon me while I scream myself hoarse.

Update: [4:31 PM] Atrios: "Team has been reassigned to find WMD hiding in the Social Security Trust Fund."

Posted by Jonathan at 04:22 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

January 11, 2005

City Of Ghosts

Iraq

Today's Guardian carries an on-the-scene report from Fallujah. It's an inexpressibly shameful picture:

Ali Fadhil, an Iraqi journalist working with the Guardian's film unit and one of the few reporters to travel independently to Falluja, describes [it as] a "city of ghosts" where dogs feed on uncollected corpses. [...]

"It is completely devastated," Fadhil writes in the Guardian today. "Falluja used to be a modern city; now there is nothing. We spend that first day going through the rubble that had been the centre of the city; I don't see a single building that is functioning." [...]

US commanders claimed to have killed more than 1,200 insurgents in the November battle, dealing a serious blow to the insurgency. Before the assault, Falluja was a no-go area for the US and Iraqi military.

But in a graveyard, known as the "martyrs cemetery", Fadhil counts only 76 graves. In houses he finds other bodies he suspects were civilians.

"I saw other rotting bodies that showed no sign of being fighters. In one house in the market there were four bodies inside the guestroom," he writes. "In this house there were no bullets in the walls, just four dead men lying curled up beside each other, with bullet holes in the mosquito nets that covered the windows."

The allegations were put to US forces in Baghdad five days ago. There has been no reply.

Despite the intense fight in Falluja, the insurgency has gathered pace across Iraq, particularly in the northern city of Mosul, once a model of peace and calm, and in Baghdad, where the deputy police chief was assassinated yesterday.

US commanders thought the rebels had been surrounded in Falluja. Yet one fighter tells Fadhil his men left 10 days into the battle: "We did not pull out because we did not want to fight. We needed to regroup; it was a tactical move." [My emphasis]

Fallujah used to be about the same size as Madison, Wisconsin, where I live. I cannot imagine the despair, sorrow, and rage I would feel if some outside force came in and leveled much of this fine and beautiful city, killing and maiming many of my neighbors, my friends, possibly even members of my family.

One way or another, we need to try to imagine the reality of what's being done in our name: the sounds, the sights, the smells, the anguish, the horror, the grief. These things are being done to real people in a real place, and it's continuing, right now, as you are reading this. It is all so unspeakably wrong. We're better than this. Aren't we? Aren't we?

Posted by Jonathan at 08:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Leviathan

Iraq  Peak Oil  War and Peace

If you ask me, Peak Oil is the Rosetta Stone of Bush Administration foreign policy. They believe Peak Oil's coming, and they mean to control the world's oil-producing regions before oil shortages get underway in earnest. Examine it from a Peak Oil perspective, and suddenly everything they're doing looks like part of a coherent (if misguided) overall game plan.

From Alternate Press Review comes an article that points to the same conclusion. Excerpt:

Pentagon transformation is well underway. The U.S. military is increasingly being converted into a global oil protection service. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld has a "strategy guy" whose job is to teach this new way of warfare to high-level military officers from all branches of services and to top level CIA operatives. Thomas Barnett is a professor at the Navy War College in Rhode Island. He is author of the controversial book The Pentagon's New Map that identifies a "non-integrating gap" in the world that is resisting corporate globalization. Barnett defines the gap as parts of Latin America, Africa, Middle East and Central Asia all of which are key oil-producing regions of the world.

In what Barnett calls a "Grand March of History" he claims that the U.S. military must be transformed in order to preemptively take control of the gap, so the U.S. can "manage" the global distribution of resources, people, energy, and money. [...]

Barnett predicts that U.S. unilateralism will lead to the "inevitability of war." Referring to Hitler in a recent presentation, Barnett reminded his military audience that the Nazi leader never asked for permission before invading other countries. Thus, the end to multi-lateralism. Barnett argues that the days of arms talks and international treaties are over. "There is no secret where we are going," he says as he calls for a "new ordering principle" at the Department of Defense (DoD). Barnett maintains that as jobs move out of the U.S. the primary export product of the nation will be "security." Global energy demand will necessitate U.S. control of the oil producing regions. "We will be fighting in Central Africa in 20 years," Barnett predicts.

In order to implement this new military vision," Barnett maintains that the U.S. military must move away from its often-competing mix of Air Force-Navy-Army-Marines toward two basic military services. One he names Leviathan, which he defines as the kick ass, wage war, special ops, and not under the purview of the international criminal court. Give us your angry, video game-playing 18-19 year olds, for the Leviathan force, Barnett says. Once a country is conquered by Leviathan, Barnett says the U.S. will have to have a second military force that he calls Systems Administration. This force he describes as the "proconsul" of the empire, boots on the ground, the police force to control the local populations. This group, Barnett says, "will never come home." [...]

According to Michael Klare, professor of Peace Studies at Hampshire College, "American troops are now risking their lives on a daily basis to protect the flow of petroleum. In Colombia, Saudi Arabia, and the Republic of Georgia, U.S. personnel are spending their days and nights protecting pipelines and refineries, or supervising the local forces assigned to this mission."

Klare continues, "The DoD has stepped up its arms deliveries to military forces in Angola and Nigeria, and is helping to train their officers and enlisted personnel; meanwhile, Pentagon officials have begun to look for permanent bases in the area, focusing on Senegal, Ghana, Mali, Uganda and Kenya." The Wall Street Journal has reported that "a key mission for U.S. forces (in Africa) would be to ensure that Nigeria's oil fields, which in the future could account for as much as 25% of all U.S. oil imports, are secure." [My emphasis]

The more important the subject, the less likely it is that core motivations will be openly debated in US political culture. And so, the public discourse on Bush's foreign policy is all about the "war on terror", democratization, WMD, and so on, while the real motivations lie elsewhere and remain undiscussed.

If fossil fuel shortages start as soon and accelerate as rapidly as Peak Oil experts predict, industrial civilization may be headed for a crisis unprecedented in human history. Like starving people fighting over the last remaining crusts of bread, industrial nations will engage in a desperate struggle for the energy that remains. That's what a lot of national security planners are thinking about, though few will talk about it, which is why the article quoted above is as important as it is rare.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:10 AM | Comments (4) | Link to this  

January 10, 2005

Republican Congressman: US Should Consider Withdrawal

Iraq

A Republican Congressman from North Carolina says the US should consider pulling out of Iraq. The News & Record of Greensboro [via Kos]:

U.S. Rep. Howard Coble, dean of the state's congressional delegation and an avowedly strong supporter of President Bush, says it's time for the United States to consider withdrawing from war-ravaged Iraq.

Coble, a Republican from Greensboro, is one of the first members of Congress — Republican or Democrat — to say publicly that the United States should consider a pullout.

The 10-term congressman, head of the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security, said he is "fed up with picking up the newspaper and reading that we've lost another five or 10 of our young men and women in Iraq." [...]

Coble said he arrived at his position only after many months of searching in vain for evidence that the Bush administration had a post-invasion strategy to deal with the transition to Iraqi self-government. [...]

Coble voted to grant Bush the sweeping war-making powers believing that the administration had a "post-invasion strategy." Apparently, there was none, he said.

"If there was, I wish someone would tell me what it is or show it to me," he said. "I'd like to see it."

Coble said that if he had known there was no post-invasion strategy at the time of the vote on the war-powers resolution he would have "insisted that we keep our powder dry while we do some probing and planning."

Coble said he simply assumed that the administration had a post-invasion plan.

Once again, we re-learn the age-old lesson that it's better to ask than to assume. Why didn't Congress ask questions about post-invasion planning back when it would have done some good?

Posted by Jonathan at 10:35 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 04, 2005

Insurgency Now Outnumbers US Forces In Iraq

Iraq

According to Iraq's new intelligence director, the insurgency now substantially outnumbers US forces in Iraq. The Times of London:

Iraq's rapidly swelling insurgency numbers 200,000 fighters and active supporters and outnumbers the United States-led coalition forces, the head of the country’s intelligence service said yesterday.

The number is far higher than the US military has so far admitted and paints a much grimmer picture of the challenge facing the Iraqi authorities and their British and American backers as elections loom in four weeks.

"I think the resistance is bigger than the US military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people," General Muhammad Abdullah Shahwani, director of Iraq’s new intelligence services, said. [My emphasis]

If he's right, things are spinning very badly out of control. How long before the administration calls for lots of additional troops? How long after that before they reinstate a military draft?

And why, oh why, are we ruled by these idiots?

Posted by Jonathan at 08:10 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

January 02, 2005

1333

Iraq

US troops killed in Iraq to date: 1333.

The 1000 mark was passed in September. Now it's 1333. That means that one-fourth of all the soldiers killed in the war were killed in just the past four months.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:18 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

War Crimes As Standard Operating Procedure

Iraq

Trying to win a guerrilla war with firepower alone is both stupid — because it doesn't work — and evil — because it means you have made a conscious decision to kill large numbers of innocent civilians, the very civilians you are supposedly fighting to liberate and protect.

The US military has lots of Vietnam vets in leadership positions, and they, of all people, should know better, but, as The Economist (via James Wolcott) reports, US tactics in Iraq have devolved into a Vietnam-style "when in doubt, kill" approach. Excerpt:

There is only one traffic law in Ramadi these days: when Americans approach, Iraqis scatter. Horns blaring, brakes screaming, the midday traffic skids to the side of the road as a line of Humvee jeeps ferrying American marines rolls the wrong way up the main street. Every vehicle, that is, except one beat-up old taxi. Its elderly driver, flapping his outstretched hands, seems, amazingly, to be trying to turn the convoy back. Gun turrets swivel and lock on to him, as a hefty marine sargeant leaps into the road, levels an assault rifle at his turbanned head, and screams: "Back this bitch up, motherfucker!"

The old man should have read the bilingual notices that American soldiers tack to their rear bumpers in Iraq: "Keep 50m or deadly force will be applied." In Ramadi, the capital of central Anbar province, where 17 suicide-bombs struck American forces during the month-long Muslim fast of Ramadan in the autumn, the marines are jumpy. Sometimes, they say, they fire on vehicles encroaching with 30 metres, sometimes they fire at 20 metres: "If anyone gets too close to us we fucking waste them," says a bullish lieutenant. "It's kind of a shame, because it means we've killed a lot of innocent people."

And not all of them were in cars. Since discovering that roadside bombs, known as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), can be triggered by mobile telephones, marines say they shoot at any Iraqi they see handling a phone near a bomb-blast. Bystanders to an insurgent ambush are also liable to be killed. Sometimes, the marines say they hide near the body of a dead insurgent and kill whoever comes to collect it. According to the marine lieutenant: "It gets to a point where you can't wait to see guys with guns, so you start shooting everybody...It gets to a point where you don't mind the bad stuff you do." [My emphasis]

The US approach to war-fighting is unspeakably lazy, corrupt, and immature. It's a lot like American culture generally. We can't be bothered to learn the culture and language of the country we're occupying, we can't be bothered to build relationships, to learn in detail what's actually going on. Instead, we play it like a video game and just blow shit up. It's stupid and it's criminal. And millions of our fellow citizens see nothing wrong with it. If we're killing people, it must be that they had it coming. Better there than here. Disgusting.

Imagine if police forces in US cities acted similarly, rolling into neighborhoods, shooting them up, killing civilians who happen to be in the vicinity. How long would it take before people turned on the police as their eternal blood enemies? Why are we so coarse and stupid that we don't expect other people to react as we would?

The soldiers and Marines are mostly just kids. (Go here, for example, and scan the list). Their leaders, however, have no excuse. Especially since we've seen it all before, in Southeast Asia.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 30, 2004

Fallujah: Not Home Anymore

Iraq

The LA Times reports that residents of Fallujah want to go home, but there's no home to go home to:

Yasser Abbas Atiya swore he'd sooner sleep on the streets of his beloved hometown of Fallouja than spend another night in the squalid Baghdad shelter where his family had been squatting.

Thirty minutes after he returned home this week, however, Atiya had seen enough. He left in disgust and had no plans to go back.

"I couldn't stand it," the grocer said. "I was born in that town. I know every inch of it. But when I got there, I didn't recognize it."

Lakes of sewage in the streets. The smell of corpses inside charred buildings. No water or electricity. Long waits and thorough searches by U.S. troops at checkpoints. Warnings to watch out for land mines and booby traps. Occasional gunfire between troops and insurgents.

"I thought, 'This is not my town,'" Atiya said Tuesday after going back to the abandoned Baghdad clinic his family shares with nearly 100 other displaced Falloujans. "How can I take my family to live there?"

The initial clamor by an estimated 200,000 refugees to return to the homes they had fled last month is being replaced by a bitter resignation that the city remains largely uninhabitable and unsafe. Hopes of quickly restoring normality to the restive Sunni Muslim city are fading, raising questions about whether Fallouja will be ready to participate in the Jan. 30 national election.

"We have no intention of going back," said Yasser Mowfauk Abbas, 20, a university student who was among the first residents allowed in to inspect their homes. "No one is staying." [My emphasis]

Liberation.

Posted by Jonathan at 04:08 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 29, 2004

Iraq's Tsunamis

Iraq

The tsunami death toll continues to climb. CNN now puts it at 80,000. I don't have TV, but I gather there's been a steady stream of horrific images of the tsunami's aftermath. Death and destruction on a staggering scale.

As you view those images, if you do, consider this. According to a study by public health researchers at Johns Hopkins (published in The Lancet, one of the most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world), a conservative estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq caused directly or indirectly by the US invasion and occupation: 100,000, the majority of them women and children.

Moreover, US-led sanctions in the 1990's killed many times that number. According to the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, and the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund, the sanctions imposed on Iraq by the US and UK killed at least a half million Iraqi children. Hundreds of thousands of adults died as well.

I certainly don't mean to minimize or discount in any way the suffering of the tsunami victims. I hope that's clear. My point, rather, is this: we have never seen images that convey the horrific scale of the suffering and devastation caused by US actions in Iraq. We don't know what it looks like. The tsunami images, though, may give us a hint of what we've wrought. It's an unbearable truth, nearly impossible to really take in, but it is our moral duty to try.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:42 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 27, 2004

Iraq, Vietnam, and Testosterone

Iraq

On Christmas Eve, CNN's Aaron Brown aired an interview with Time's Iraq correspondent Michael Ware that was remarkable for its frankness. Ware, an Australian, has spent most of the past two years in Iraq, much of it in combat situations, alongside both US troops and insurgents. Here are excerpts of the transcript, from CNN:

BROWN: Just one final big-picture question. You've been in and out of [Iraq] for two years. You'll be back in there probably sooner than you want. Do you have a sense that, on the military side, progress is being made?

WARE: To put it simply, no. No, I don't. I mean, I don't have any sense of victory or a sense that the coalition, that the West is winning right now.

I mean, it seems to me we're losing ground, figuratively and literally. Just from my own example, six — nine months ago, I could travel the breadth of Iraq. Sure, it was dangerous, it was risky, but it was calculated. Then that ceased. And I was restricted to Baghdad itself. And the only way I could leave Baghdad was if the insurgents took me and guaranteed my safety.

Now I can't leave my compound. Kidnap teams circle my house. And even in my compound, they mortar, drop bombs on our house. And in parts of Baghdad itself, the U.S. military has lost control. The terrorists of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi control entire quarters of suburbs. One of them, Haifa Street, the most famous, is within mortar range of the U.S. Embassy itself. And every day, we're creating more recruits for the insurgents, and every day more young men from outside Iraq, from the Muslim world agree, the disenfranchised, they're rising up and coming to join the fight, to blood themselves.

Right now, we are the midwives of the next generation of jihad, of the next al Qaeda. So the very thing that the administration says it went there to prevent, it is creating. And despite the honor and the bravery and the uncommon valor that I see among the American boys there in uniform who are fighting this grinding war day to day, when I see them dying in front of me, I can't help but think that perhaps they're dying in vain, because we're making the nightmare that we're trying to prevent. [My emphasis]

People argue over whether Iraq is like Vietnam, but certain parallels seem undeniable. As in Vietnam, US policy-makers refuse to abandon an obviously self-destructive strategy because they refuse to "lose" — both for reasons of testosterone-fueled ego and because "losing," they think, would be a blow to US "credibility" in the world (as if the spectacle of the world's superpower taking a daily beating from rag-tag insurgents is not).

Don't underestimate the testosterone/ego factor. Robert Dallek, in his biography of Lyndon Johnson, tells a starkly revealing anecdote. As described by The Boston Globe:

Johnson, according to his confidant and United Nations ambassador Arthur Goldberg, did something that no other president was ever recorded as doing. Asked by aggressive reporters in late 1967 why he was so committed to the war in Vietnam, Johnson "unzipped his fly, drew out his substantial organ, and declared, 'This is why!'"

As crude as Johnson was, his answer was far more truthful than all the rationalizations dreamed up after the fact. Having seen what this kind of savage, testosterone-fueled obstinacy can do (3.4 million Vietnamese killed, according to Robert McNamara, before the inevitable withdrawal), you'd think we could act more rationally this time around. Testosterone, unfortunately, is not a friend to rational thought.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:52 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Top Sunni Party Withdraws From Iraq Election

Iraq

As Washington insists the Iraq election will proceed on schedule, the top Sunni party announces its withdrawal. Reuters:

"The Iraqi Islamic Party is withdrawing from the elections because we do not think the situation will improve in the next few weeks to give conditions for credible elections," party Secretary-General Tareq al-Hashimi said.

Persistent violence in Sunni Arab cities, most of which are under curfew, has raised fears that voters there will be too intimidated to cast their ballots, skewing the poll in favor of Iraq's 60-percent Shi'ite Muslim majority.

The Islamic Party's list of 275 candidates would still appear on ballot papers which were already being printed, a spokesman for Iraq's Electoral Commission told Reuters.

Farid Ayar said the Commission had received no formal request for withdrawal, but if it does, any votes cast for the Iraqi Islamic Party would be considered "invalid."

The leading mainstream Sunni religious party, along with at least 16 other Sunni and secular parties, had threatened to boycott the poll unless it was postponed by up to six months to ensure that voters across the country could take part. [...]

Iraq's long-oppressed Shi'ites are keen that the poll, expected to cement their political power after the ouster of Saddam Hussein, take place.

It's the initial invasion all over again: an arbitrary date inflexibly adhered to, no plan in place for the aftermath.

It's hard to understand what Washington is thinking in all this. By deposing Saddam, de-Baathifying the government and disbanding the Iraqi Army, the Bush administration has made Shiite control of Iraq all but inevitable. Hard to believe that's really the desired outcome, but everything they've done seems designed to produce exactly that result.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:27 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 17, 2004

DoD Marching Orders Came From Rumsfeld

Iraq  Politics

From Joe Conason, discussion of an FBI memo that says that military orders to use "abusive" interrogation methods (i.e., torture) — methods that were strenuously objected to by the CIA, the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency as "useless and destructive" — came from Rumsfeld himself:

[A]n internal FBI memo indicates that the directive to discard traditional restraints came from the very highest civilian official in the Pentagon: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

That revealing memo is dated May 10, 2004, a time when the Abu Ghraib revelations were humiliating the United States before the entire world. An e-mail, it is addressed to FBI counterterrorism officer Thomas J. Harrington from an agent whose name is redacted (along with much else), and its subject is captioned "Instructions to GTMO [Guantánamo] Interrogators." The memo's obvious purpose is to set down, for the record, the FBI's opposition to the Pentagon's use of coercive and abusive methods when questioning the Guantánamo detainees. It describes the FBI's fundamental disagreement over interrogation tactics with Gen. Geoffrey Miller and Gen. Michael Dunlavey, then the military commanders at Guantánamo Bay.

"I will have to do some digging into old files," the unnamed author begins. "We did advise each supervisor that went to GTMO to stay in line with Bureau policy and not deviate from that ... I went to GTMO ... We had also met with Generals Dunlevy & Miller explaining our position (Law Enforcement Techniques) vs. DoD [Department of Defense]. Both agreed the Bureau has their way of doing business and DoD has their marching orders from the SecDef [Secretary of Defense]. Although the two techniques [of interrogation] differed drastically, both Generals believed they had a job to accomplish." [My emphasis]

First the Humvee armor furor, now this. Is Rumsfeld toast?

Posted by Jonathan at 07:46 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

1300

Iraq

US troop deaths in Iraq passed 1300 today. Current total: 1304.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:14 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 13, 2004

Iraqi Voter Registration Less Than 1%

Iraq

The Bush administration seems hell-bent on going ahead with Iraqi elections at the end of January, but so far, at least, Iraqis aren't exactly jumping at the chance to register to vote. Today's Washington Times:

Six weeks before the historic vote, a U.S. official said, fewer than 1 percent of eligible Iraqis have responded to a voter-registration drive, forcing authorities to look for other ways to build up voter lists.

This is feeling an awful lot like the initial invasion: an arbitrary date stubbornly adhered to, with no plans in place for the aftermath.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:17 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 10, 2004

A Matter Of Physics, Huh?

Iraq

USA Today reports that another supplier of armor to the military (in addition to the one noted yesterday) has been running at 50% capacity. Excerpt:

Former Republican congressman Matt Salmon of Arizona, a spokesman for ArmorWorks in Tempe, Ariz., said his company will finish a $30 million contract with the Pentagon this month to make 1,500 armor kits for Humvees. "We are at 50% capacity, and we could do a lot more," he said. "They are aware of it." [...]

[T]he House Armed Services Committee reported that only about 1,100 medium and heavy U.S. military trucks out of some 9,000 in the Iraq and Afghanistan regions have proper protection for their cabs. "You only have to go up the road to Walter Reed Army Hospital and speak to the men and women who have been wounded by homemade bombs to understand just how important vehicle armor is in the kind of combat we are facing," said Rep. Gene Taylor, D-Miss. [My emphasis]

Things that piss me off: 1) We've known for almost two years that lack of armor is a critical problem. It's been reported over and over, but now Rumsfeld and others pretend it's news to them and the media let them get away with it. 2) Soldiers dying wasn't enough to get anyone to take action, but a moment of embarrassment to Rumsfeld and everybody's scrambling. 3) Bush campaign ads repeatedly accused John Kerry of voting against armor for the troops when it was the Bush administration that failed to provide the needed armor. No one in the media called them on it then, and no one mentions it now.

Argh.

Posted by Jonathan at 11:56 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Iraq Casualties Compared

Iraq

The LA Times:

[A]t least as many U.S. troops have been wounded in combat in the Iraq war as in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812 or the first five years of Vietnam.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:38 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 09, 2004

Rummy's A Bozo, A Liar, Or Both

Iraq

Yesterday, in his much-publicized run-in with troops in Kuwait, Rumsfeld said that the Army is working flat-out to produce armored vehicles as quickly as physically possible. An enterprising journalist at Bloomberg called the supplier to check. Excerpt [via Atrios]:

Armor Holdings Inc., the sole supplier of protective plates for the Humvee military vehicles used in Iraq, said it could increase output by as much as 22 percent per month with no investment and is awaiting an order from the Army.

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said yesterday the Army was working as fast as it can and supply is dictated by "a matter of physics, not a matter of money."

Jacksonville, Florida-based Armor Holdings last month told the Army it could add armor to as many as 550 of the trucks a month, up from 450 vehicles now, Robert Mecredy, president of the company's aerospace and defense group said in a telephone interview today.

"We’re prepared to build 50 to 100 vehicles more per month," Mecredy said in the interview. "I’ve told the customer that and I stand ready to do that." [My emphasis]

Physics ain't what it used to be. And Rummy's the guy who gets to keep his job.

It has been incomprehensible from the outset why the administration insists on screwing US troops every chance they get, from shorting them on protective armor to cutting their health care and benefits. Relative to the overall military budget, it's all nickel-and-dime stuff, so why do it? Why screw the very people you're depending on to make lemonade from the gigantic lemon of administration policy in Iraq? It doesn't make sense, but they do it anyway. Is it just that their colossal arrogance makes them blind?

Posted by Jonathan at 01:57 PM | Comments (2) | Link to this  

December 08, 2004

Rummy Gets Grilled

Iraq

Today Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld gave a pep talk of sorts to US troops in Kuwait awaiting deployment to Iraq. Some of the troops took the opportunity to quiz Rumsfeld about the lack of armor that's still a fact of life in Iraq. AP:

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, for example, of the 278th Regimental Combat Team that is comprised mainly of citizen soldiers of the Tennessee Army National Guard, asked Rumsfeld in a question-and-answer session why vehicle armor is still in short supply, nearly three years after the war in Iraq. [sic]

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.

Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.

"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.

Rumsfeld replied that, "You go to war with the Army you have," not the one you might want, and that any rate the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.

And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.

"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

Asked later about Wilson's complaint, the deputy commanding general of U.S. forces in Kuwait, Maj. Gen. Gary Speer, said in an interview that as far as he knows, every vehicle that is deploying to Iraq from Camp Buehring in Kuwait has at least "Level 3" armor. That means it at least has locally fabricated armor for its side panels, but not necessarily bulletproof windows or protection against explosions that penetrate the floorboard.

Speer said he was not aware that soldiers were searching landfills for scrap mental and used bulletproof glass. [My emphasis]

Unbelievably lame. The illogic of Rumsfeld's point is breath-taking. Sometimes armor isn't sufficient, so therefore it's not necessary?? He has the chutzpah to say this to a group of people who will soon test that proposition with their lives.

And Speer doesn't know soldiers are cobbling together "armor" from whatever they can find? Maybe he needs to subscribe to the New York Times.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Shooting The Messengers

Iraq

When US forces first laid seige to Falluja back in April, they were forced to withdraw when reports of hundreds of civilian casualties sparked uprisings across Iraq.

Now, from the indispensable Naomi Klein comes evidence that what US forces took from that experience was a new tactical policy: target Iraqi doctors, Arab TV journalists, and Iraqi clerics to prevent reports of civilian casualties from getting out. A long excerpt, but a must-read:

In April, US forces laid siege to Falluja in retaliation for the gruesome killings of four Blackwater employees. The operation was a failure, with US troops eventually handing the city back to resistance forces. The reason for the withdrawal was that the siege had sparked uprisings across the country, triggered by reports that hundreds of civilians had been killed. This information came from three main sources: 1) Doctors. USA Today reported on April 11 that "Statistics and names of the dead were gathered from four main clinics around the city and from Falluja general hospital". 2) Arab TV journalists. While doctors reported the numbers of dead, it was al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya that put a human face on those statistics. With unembedded camera crews in Falluja, both networks beamed footage of mutilated women and children throughout Iraq and the Arab-speaking world. 3) Clerics. The reports of high civilian casualties coming from journalists and doctors were seized upon by prominent clerics in Iraq. Many delivered fiery sermons condemning the attack, turning their congregants against US forces and igniting the uprising that forced US troops to withdraw. [...]

Last month, US troops once again laid siege to Falluja — but this time the attack included a new tactic: eliminating the doctors, journalists and clerics who focused public attention on civilian casualties last time around.

The first major operation by US marines and Iraqi soldiers was to storm Falluja general hospital, arresting doctors and placing the facility under military control. The New York Times reported that "the hospital was selected as an early target because the American military believed that it was the source of rumours about heavy casualties", noting that "this time around, the American military intends to fight its own information war, countering or squelching what has been one of the insurgents' most potent weapons". The Los Angeles Times quoted a doctor as saying that the soldiers "stole the mobile phones" at the hospital — preventing doctors from communicating with the outside world.

But this was not the worst of the attacks on health workers. Two days earlier, a crucial emergency health clinic was bombed to rubble, as well as a medical supplies dispensary next door. Dr Sami al-Jumaili, who was working in the clinic, says the bombs took the lives of 15 medics, four nurses and 35 patients. The Los Angeles Times reported that the manager of Falluja general hospital "had told a US general the location of the downtown makeshift medical centre" before it was hit. [...]

When fighting moved to Mosul, a similar tactic was used: on entering the city, US and Iraqi forces immediately seized control of the al-Zaharawi hospital.

The images from last month's siege on Falluja came almost exclusively from reporters embedded with US troops. This is because Arab journalists who had covered April's siege from the civilian perspective had effectively been eliminated. Al-Jazeera had no cameras on the ground because it has been banned from reporting in Iraq indefinitely. Al-Arabiya did have an unembedded reporter, Abdel Kader Al-Saadi, in Falluja, but on November 11 US forces arrested him and held him for the length of the siege. [...]

Just as doctors and journalists have been targeted, so too have many of the clerics who have spoken out forcefully against the killings in Falluja. On November 11, Sheik Mahdi al-Sumaidaei, the head of the Supreme Association for Guidance and Daawa, was arrested. According to Associated Press, "Al-Sumaidaei has called on the country's Sunni minority to launch a civil disobedience campaign if the Iraqi government does not halt the attack on Falluja". On November 19, AP reported that US and Iraqi forces stormed a prominent Sunni mosque, the Abu Hanifa, in Aadhamiya, killing three people and arresting 40, including the chief cleric — another opponent of the Falluja siege. On the same day, Fox News reported that "US troops also raided a Sunni mosque in Qaim, near the Syrian border". The report described the arrests as "retaliation for opposing the Falluja offensive". Two Shia clerics associated with Moqtada al-Sadr have also been arrested in recent weeks; according to AP, "both had spoken out against the Falluja attack". [My emphasis]

Civilian casualties engender outrage among the people we are supposed to be liberating. The US response could be to limit such casualties. Instead, the response is to compound them by targeting civilians who would shine a light on what the US is doing.

In Vietnam, the standard tactics adopted by US forces — free-fire zones, harrassment and interdiction fire, defoliation — were war crimes institutionalized as policy. The same kind of dynamic is now underway in Iraq, with the US sinking deeper and deeper into war crimes as standard operating procedure. Under what conceivable scenario can this turn out well in the end?

[Thanks, Mom]

Posted by Jonathan at 12:11 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 06, 2004

Rummy's Hope

Iraq

Times change. There was a time Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al confidently predicted US troops would be greeted as liberators and their tenure in Iraq would be short-lived.

Today, reporters asked Rumsfeld whether US forces would be out of Iraq by the end of Bush's second term four years from now. Rummy replied that he would "hope that to be the case."

Here's hoping.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:18 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 05, 2004

Graph Of US Fatalities In Iraq

Iraq

Here.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:16 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 03, 2004

Re-Americanizing The War

Iraq

As noted yesterday, the number of US troops in Iraq is being increased to a record high level. The Bush administration portrays this move as a temporary expedient designed to provide security for the scheduled elections in January. Some military experts, however, see it differently. WaPo:

[Some] military experts...[say] the escalation reflects the more intense nature of the war after the U.S.-led assault on the rebellious Sunni city of Fallujah, west of Baghdad.

"The ferocity with which the war is being waged by both sides is escalating," said Jeffrey White, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who is now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "It is not just that the number of incidents are increasing. The war looks to be changing in character."

Retired Army Col. Ralph Hallenbeck, who worked in Iraq with the U.S. occupation authority last year, said he is worried that the move represents a setback for the basic U.S. strategy of placing a greater burden on Iraqi security forces to control the country and deal with the insurgency. "I fear that it signals a re-Americanization...of our strategy in Iraq," he said.

Adding troops at this point is the opposite of what senior Pentagon officials expected when the war began in March 2003.

Before the invasion, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz dismissed an estimate by Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to occupy Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein's government. "I am reasonably certain that they will greet us as liberators," Wolfowitz told a congressional committee, "and that will help us to keep requirements down."

The original war plan, which was based on that assumption, called for a series of quick reductions in troop levels in 2003, to perhaps 50,000 by the end of that year.

A revision of that plan, devised 12 months ago, called for steady reductions this year.

Instead, occupation forces hit their lowest level last winter, bottoming out at about 110,000 in February. Then, in late March, the insurgency intensified and broadened, with heavy fighting in Shiite areas of south-central Iraq for the first time.

Since then, U.S. troop numbers have risen in response to the unexpected strength and growing sophistication of the enemy.

"Plan A -- what the U.S. actually did -- failed, and Plan B -- the adaptations since the end of 'major combat' -- hasn't worked either, so far," said retired Army Col. Raoul Alcala, who has served as an adviser to the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, referring to President Bush's May 1, 2003, announcement that major combat operations had ended in Iraq.

Some observers said the latest announcement indicates that the Pentagon is recognizing just how long the effort in Iraq may take. "This announcement makes it clear that commanders in Iraq need more troops and that this will be a long and very expensive process for the United States," said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), a member of the Armed Services Committee who recently returned from a visit to Iraq.

Reed, who served in the Army with the 82nd Airborne, also said in an interview that it is becoming increasingly clear that Iraqi forces will not be capable of taking over from U.S. forces for five to 10 years.

Yesterday's extensions mark the third time that the military has ordered troops to serve in Iraq longer than they expected. [My emphasis]

People say that if you put a frog in a pan of water and heat it gradually, the frog fails to notice he's slowly being cooked. This must be what that's like.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:40 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 02, 2004

Bloody November

Iraq

November was the deadliest month to date for US troops in Iraq. As of now, the total KIA for the month: 137. Fallujah accounts for part of the increase, but not as much as you might think. According to USA Today, 55 of those killed were killed in the attack on Fallujah. Setting aside the Fallujah fatalities, then, November still would have tied for the second worst month of the war.

Several military experts quoted by USA Today say we can expect more of the same. Excerpt:

Dan Goure, a national security analyst at the Lexington Institute in Arlington, Va., said that in the months ahead, the American public may see a death toll similar to the one in November.

"It's one thing to avoid the major terrorist nests and another to go door to door in Sunni cities. There is no question that we will be taking additional casualties. There is no evidence that we have broken the back of the insurgency," he said.

The intensity of the insurgency, which is strongest in the Sunni heartland of central Iraq, came as a surprise to many military planners who expected less resistance after Baghdad fell.

Goure said the insurgency could not gain momentum in central Iraq without some popular support, and he faults the Pentagon for not anticipating that.

"Our cultural intelligence on Iraq before the war was abysmal," he said.

Violence has spread in recent weeks from central Iraq to Mosul in the north, where Iraqi police and security forces have been targeted in major attacks.

Tom White, a former secretary of the Army who left the Pentagon in 2003, says the public may have to get used to the current level of American casualties for some time.

"That's the price we're going to have to pay if want to win this," White said.

And today it was announced the Pentagon is sending more troops. CNN:

The United States is dispatching an additional 1,500 troops to Iraq and extending the stays of more than 10,000 others to bolster security ahead of January's scheduled elections, the Pentagon said Wednesday.

The moves will bring the number of U.S. troops in Iraq from nearly 140,000 to an all-time high of about 150,000, the Pentagon said.

Total US KIA since President Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on May 1, 2003: 1,119.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:26 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

December 01, 2004

No Way Out

Iraq

An earlier post quoted reports that the 15-mile ride from Baghdad Airport to the Green Zone is so dangerous it'll cost you more than $5000. Now, the British embassy has decided the road's too dangerous to use at any price, and it has stopped using commercial flights out of Baghdad as well. The Independent:

Disintegrating security in Baghdad was underlined in a sombre warning yesterday from the British embassy against using the airport road or taking a plane out of Iraq.

The embassy says a bomb was discovered on a flight inside Iraq on 22 November. It shows that insurgents have been able to penetrate the stringent security at Baghdad airport. The embassy says its own staff have been advised against taking commercial planes.

The warning is in sharp contrast to more optimistic statements from US military commanders after the capture of Fallujah in which they have spoken of "breaking the back of the insurgency".

The embassy says that the road between Baghdad and the international airport, perhaps the most important highway in the country, is now too dangerous to use. The advice says starkly: "With effect from 28 November, the British embassy ceased all movements on the Baghdad International airport road." [My emphasis]

The road to the airport's the worst way out of Baghdad — except for all the others. AP:

Despite the increasing dangers, the airport road has taken on greater importance for foreign diplomats, journalists and Iraqis because the dreadful security situation elsewhere precludes using other routes into and out of the country.

The main highways west to Jordan and Syria are even more dangerous — especially for foreigners — because of armed insurgents around Ramadi and Fallujah who have kidnapped and beheaded both Iraqi and foreign hostages.

The road south toward Karbala and Najaf passes through a string of insurgent-controlled towns and cities dubbed "the triangle of death" because of the large number of foreigners and Iraqi Shiite Muslims waylaid over the last year.

Another road to the southwest through Kut and on to Basra is considered safer — but only relatively. As the route approaches Amarah it passes through an area notorious for carjackings.

The highway north toward Mosul, known to the U.S. military as Highway One, passes through such insurgency-plagued cities as Samarra, Tikrit and Beiji. And the U.S. military describes the situation in Mosul as "tenuous."

That leaves the airport as the "safest" way out of Baghdad. [My emphasis]

What a nightmare.

[Via Atrios]

Posted by Jonathan at 04:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 30, 2004

For At Least A Decade

Iraq

You may recall that during the debates Bush touted the burgeoning Iraqi security forces, claiming that 100,000 had already been trained, 125,000 would be trained by the end of this year, 200,000 by the end of next year. It's just a matter of time before Iraqi forces will be able to take over for US forces.

How much time? Today's NYT gives an indication:

Iraqi police and national guard forces, whose performance is crucial to securing January elections, are foundering in the face of coordinated efforts to kill and intimidate them and their families, say American officials in the provinces facing the most violent insurgency.

For months, Iraqi recruits for both forces have been the victims of assassinations and car bombs...

While Bush administration officials say that the training is progressing and that there have been instances in which the Iraqis have proved tactically useful and fought bravely, local American commanders and security officials say both Iraqi forces are riddled with problems.

In the most violent provinces, they say, the Iraqis are so intimidated that many are reluctant to show up and do not tell their families where they work; they have yet to receive adequate training or weapons, present a danger to American troops they fight alongside, and are unreliable because of corruption, desertion or infiltration.

Given the weak performance of Iraqi forces, any major withdrawal of American troops for at least a decade would invite chaos, a senior Interior Ministry official, whose name could not be used, said in an interview last week. [My emphasis]

At least a decade. What have these people gotten us into?

Posted by Jonathan at 11:52 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

US Group Files War Crimes Case In Germany

Iraq

Reuters:

Lawyers acting for a U.S. advocacy group will Tuesday file war crimes charges in Germany against senior U.S. administration officials for their alleged role in torture at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

"German law in this area is leading the world," Peter Weiss, vice president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), a human rights group, was quoted as saying in Frankfurter Rundschau newspaper's Tuesday edition.

According to the group, German law allows war criminals to be investigated wherever they may be living.

Charged are Donald Rumsfeld, George Tenet, and eight others. Further details will become available when CCR holds news conferences today.

[Thanks, Mom]

Posted by Jonathan at 10:37 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

1250

Iraq

US soldiers killed in action in Iraq: 1250. Killed so far in November: 129.

It's only been 12 weeks since the 1000 mark was passed. That means one out of every five deaths since the war began occurred in just the last 12 weeks.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:34 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 23, 2004

Election's Over — Now Come Calls For More Troops

Iraq

With the election behind us, now come the calls for additional US troops in Iraq.

Monday, WaPo reported: "Senior U.S. military commanders in Iraq say it is increasingly likely they will need a further increase in combat forces to put down remaining areas of resistance in the country."

In an editorial yesterday, the NYT calls for "a rapid reinforcement of American ground troops in Iraq. About 20,000 to 40,000 more soldiers are needed right away."

On Sunday, reports AFP: "Arizona senator John McCain told NBC television that as many as 50,000 more US soldiers will have to be sent to Iraq."

The insanity of this is that no one questions whether war is the way to create peace: Not enough peace? Then we need a bigger war!

What's the plan? Kill and kill until there's no one left to continue the insurgency? This is how we liberate Iraq? Doesn't anyone read history books anymore? And where are these troops going to come from? How long before they start talking about a military draft?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:53 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

We Regret To Inform You...

Iraq

Families of US soldiers killed in action in Iraq tell Col. David Hackworth that the sympathy letters they received from Rumsfeld and Bush were signed by machine rather than by hand. Excerpt:

Dr. Ted Smith, whose son Eric was among the first 100 killed in Iraq, notes that the letter he received "from the commander in chief was signed with a thick, green marking pen. I thought it was stamped then and do even now. He had time for golf and the ranch but not enough to sign a decent signature with a pen for his beloved hero soldiers. I was going to send the letter back but did not. I am sorry I didn't."

Sue Niederer, whose son Seth was also killed in Iraq, sums it up: "My son wasn't a person to these people, he was just an entity to play their war game. But where are their children? Not one of them knows how any of us feel, and they obviously aren't interested in finding out. None of them cares. And Rumsfeld depersonalizing his signature — it's a slap in the face, don’t you think?"

Disgraceful.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:12 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 22, 2004

Child Malnutrition In Iraq: Worse Than Haiti

Iraq

Child malnutrition in Iraq is severe and getting worse. WaPo:

Acute malnutrition among young children in Iraq has nearly doubled since the United States led an invasion of the country 20 months ago, according to surveys by the United Nations, aid agencies and the interim Iraqi government.

After the rate of acute malnutrition among children younger than 5 steadily declined to 4 percent two years ago, it shot up to 7.7 percent this year, according to a study conducted by Iraq's Health Ministry in cooperation with Norway's Institute for Applied International Studies and the U.N. Development Program. The new figure translates to roughly 400,000 Iraqi children suffering from "wasting," a condition characterized by chronic diarrhea and dangerous deficiencies of protein.

"These figures clearly indicate the downward trend," said Alexander Malyavin, a child health specialist with the UNICEF mission to Iraq. [...]

Iraq's child malnutrition rate now roughly equals that of Burundi, a central African nation torn by more than a decade of war. It is far higher than rates in Uganda and Haiti. [...]

[A]nalysts attributed the increase in malnutrition to dirty water and to unreliable supplies of the electricity needed to make it safe by boiling. In poorer areas, where people rely on kerosene to fuel their stoves, high prices and an economy crippled by unemployment aggravate poor health.

"Things have been worse for me since the war," said Kasim Said, a day laborer who was at Baghdad's main children's hospital to visit his ailing year-old son, Abdullah. The child, lying on a pillow with a Winnie the Pooh washcloth to keep the flies off his head, weighs just 11 pounds. [...]

Iraqi health officials like to surprise visitors by pointing out that the nutrition issue facing young Iraqis a generation ago was obesity. Malnutrition, they say, appeared in the early 1990s with U.N. trade sanctions championed by Washington to punish the government led by President Saddam Hussein for invading Kuwait in 1990. [...]

"Believe me, we thought a magic thing would happen" with the fall of Hussein and the start of the U.S.-led occupation, said an administrator at Baghdad's Central Teaching Hospital for Pediatrics. "So we're surprised that nothing has been done. And people talk now about how the days of Saddam were very nice," the official said. [My emphasis]

This is monstrous. It is evil, it is indefensible, and it is being done in our name. We must act to stop it. If we don't, everlasting shame on us.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:24 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 20, 2004

You Want To Go Where?

Iraq

How f**cked up is the situation in Iraq? I think this tells you all you need to know: the 15-mile drive from downtown Baghdad to the airport is so dangerous that a taxi ride costs you about $340 per mile.

BBC News [via Atrios]:

Baghdad's airport route has become a regular target for insurgents A 15-mile stretch between Baghdad airport and the city centre is said to be the world's most expensive taxi ride.

Small convoys of armoured cars and Western gunmen charge about £2,750 ($5,108) for the perilous journey.

The route, known as the Qadisiyah Expressway, has become the scene of regular attacks and kidnappings by insurgents. [...]

The high-speed drive costs four times more than the £670 Royal Jordanian charges for a one-way flight from London to Baghdad via Amman.

If US forces cannot secure 15 miles of road between the airport and the capital, well, I think you get the picture...

Posted by Jonathan at 03:33 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

100

Iraq

100 US soldiers (and many times that number of Iraqis) have been killed already this month, and we're only 20 days in. Total US killed to date: 1221.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:15 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 18, 2004

Iraqi Election Boycott

Iraq

Juan Cole reports that a significant Sunni boycott of the scheduled January elections is in the works:

Forty-seven Iraqi political parties, including many with a religious base, have announced that they will boycott the planned January elections. They met at the Umm al-Qura mosque in Baghdad under the auspices of the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars and its allies among Sunni fundamentalists, but they were joined by 8 Shiite parties and one Christian one.

Cole believes the Shiite participation so far is not significant, but a united Sunni boycott itself will be enough to "ruin the elections."

Posted by Jonathan at 08:48 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 17, 2004

Bloody November Continues

Iraq

Only 17 days into the month, and already more US troops have been killed this month in Iraq than in any other month except April, 2004.

So far, 90 US troops have been killed in November, averaging more than five a day. Total killed since the war began: 1211.

Posted by Jonathan at 03:44 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 15, 2004

Bloody November

Iraq

November is on track to be the deadliest month for US forces in Iraq since the initial invasion. In the first 15 days of November, 77 coalition troops have been killed, for an average of 5.13 deaths per day.

Total US troops killed-in-action to date: 1194.

Posted by Jonathan at 10:29 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 09, 2004

The Generals Speak

Iraq

Wow. Read this article. Seven top retired military leaders evaluate the situation in Iraq. Some quotes:

The people in control in the Pentagon and the White House live in a fantasy world. — Gen. Tony McPeek, former Chief Of Staff, Air Force

Iraq is a failure of monumental proportions. — Adm. Stansfield Turner, former Director, CIA

It's a huge strategic disaster, and it will only get worse. The sooner we leave, the less the damage. — Lt. Gen. William Odom, former Director, NSA

When I was commander of CENTCOM, we had a plan for an invasion of Iraq, and it had specific numbers in it. We wanted to go in there with 350,000 to 380,000 troops. You didn't need that many people to defeat the Republican Guard, but you needed them for the aftermath. ... Did we have to do this? I saw the intelligence right up to the day of the war, and I did not see any imminent threat there. If anything, Saddam was coming apart. The sanctions were working. The containment was working. — Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Commander, CENTCOM

Rumsfeld was profoundly in the dark. I think he really didn't understand what he was doing. — Lt. Gen. Claudia Kennedy, former deputy chief of staff, Army

Have you seen an American strategic blunder this large? The answer is: not in fifty years. I can't imagine when the last one was. — Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander for Europe

We screwed up. we were intent on a quick victory with smaller forces, and we felt if we had a military victory everything else would fall in place. We would be viewed not as occupiers but as victors. We would draw down to 30,000 people within the first sixty days. All of this was sheer nonsense. — Adm. William Crowe, former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff

Colossal incompetence, founded on colossal arrogance.

[Thanks, Kevin]

Posted by Jonathan at 11:55 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

November 02, 2004

Civilian Toll In Iraq: 100,000+

Iraq

A study by researchers at Johns Hopkins has produced a conservative estimate of more than 100,000 civilian deaths in Iraq resulting from the US invasion:

More than 100,000 civilians have probably died as direct or indirect consequences of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, according to a study by a research team at Johns Hopkins University's Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore.

The report was published on the Internet by The Lancet, the British medical journal. The figure is far higher than previous mortality estimates. [...]

"We were shocked at the magnitude but we're quite sure that the estimate of 100,000 is a conservative estimate," said Dr. Gilbert Burnham of the Johns Hopkins study team. He said the team had excluded deaths in Falluja in making their estimate, since that city was the site of unusually intense violence. [...]

They attributed many of those deaths to attacks by coalition forces — mostly airstrikes — and most of the reported deaths were of women and children.

The risk of violent death was 58 times higher than before the war, the researchers found.

"The fact that more than half of the deaths caused by the occupation forces were women and children is a cause for concern," the authors wrote. [My emphasis]

As someone else pointed out (I can't remember who), airstrikes are a way of transferring risk from soldiers to civilian bystanders. Deaths of innocent civilians are an inevitable consequence. Airstrikes are the US' way of saying that it is better for many innocent Iraqi civilians to die than for a much smaller number of US soldiers (their supposed liberators) to die.

Now imagine if police forces in the US acted similarly, killing thousands of civilians, the majority of them women and children, rather than risk their own lives in pursuing criminals. How long would it take before people turned on the police as their eternal blood enemies?

Posted by Jonathan at 09:44 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 29, 2004

Looted Weapons, Insufficent Troops, And Chalabi

Iraq  Politics

The following Knight-Ridder story [via Digby] is flabbergasting on a number of levels:

The more than 320 tons of missing Iraqi high explosives at center stage in the U.S. presidential election are only a fraction of the weapons-related material that's disappeared in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion last year.

Huge amounts of arms and ammunition were stolen from military sites, and there's "ample evidence" that Iraqi insurgents are firing looted weapons at U.S. troops and using some of them in car bombs and improvised explosive devices, said a senior U.S. intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

U.N. officials also are concerned about the disappearance of sensitive equipment and controlled materials that could be used to develop nuclear, biological or chemical weapons. [...]

In a new disclosure, the senior U.S. military officer and another U.S. official, who also spoke on condition he not be identified because of the sensitivity of the matter, said that an Iraqi working for U.S. intelligence alerted U.S. troops stationed near the al Qaqaa weapons facility that the installation was being looted shortly after the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003.

But, they said, the troops took no apparent action to halt the pillaging.

"That was one of numerous times when Iraqis warned us that ammo dumps and other places were being looted and we weren't able to respond because we didn't have anyone to send," said a senior U.S. military officer who served in Iraq. [...]

Many U.S. officials and other experts blame the massive disappearance of Iraqi weapons-related materials on the Pentagon's failure to anticipate the waves of looting and lawlessness that convulsed Iraq after Saddam's ouster in April 2003.

They also cited decisions by Rumsfeld and former Gen. Tommy Franks, the overall commander of the invasion, to deploy far fewer U.S. troops to stabilize the country than U.S. ground commanders had sought.

Al Qaqaa was on a classified list of Iraqi weapons facilities that the CIA provided to Pentagon and military officials before the invasion, said the U.S. intelligence official.

But when the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command produced their own list of sites that a limited number of U.S. "exploitation teams" should search, priority was given to those identified by exiled Iraqi opposition groups, he said. Al Qaqaa wasn't one of them.

"The top of the list was dominated by nuclear facilities and places where we expected to find chemical and biological weapons," he said. "Iraqi exiles had a very heavy hand in determining which places got looked at first." [My emphasis]

Three points:

First, US troops are being killed with weapons and explosives that insurgents were permitted to acquire via looting. Al Qaqaa is the tip of the iceberg.

Second, the fundamental cause was the administration's insistence that the military go into Iraq with an inadequate force. I've heard people defend Bush by saying it's the military that has screwed up; that the military, not the administration, are to blame for US failures in Iraq. Not so. Ground commanders told the administration they needed more troops. They were overruled. Everything else flows from that.

Third, the administration allowed Iraqi exiles (read: Ahmad Chalabi) to make tactical decisions about which sites to secure first. This is absurd beyond all measure. Instead of listening to its own CIA, or the IAEA, or any other body with actual on-the-ground knowledge of conditions in Iraq, the administration relied on a bunch of hustlers and con-men who had been living abroad for many years. Once again, Chalabi led them down the garden path. It's dumb-founding.

That the country is even considering keeping these fools in charge for another four years is enough to make your head explode.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:13 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Game, Set, And Match

Iraq

Former top US weapons inspector David Kay on CNN Newsnight with Aaron Brown yesterday, completely refutes the administration's claims that the missing explosives had been moved before US troops arrived at al Qa Qaa:

AARON BROWN: I don't know how better to do this than to show you some pictures, have you explain to me what they are or are not, OK? First, I'll just call it the seal and tell me if this is an IAEA seal on that bunker at that munitions dump.

DAVID KAY: Aaron, as about as certain as I can be looking at a picture, not physically holding it, which obviously I would have preferred to have been there, that's an IAEA seal. I've never seen anything else in Iraq in about 15 years of being in Iraq and around Iraq that was other than an IAEA seal of that shape.

BROWN: And was there anything else at the facility that would have been under IAEA seal?

KAY: Absolutely nothing. It was the HMX, RDX, the two high explosives.

BROWN: OK. Now, I want to take a look at the barrels here for a second and you can tell me what they tell you. They obviously to us just show us a bunch of barrels. You'll see it somewhat differently.

KAY: Well, it's interesting. There were three foreign suppliers to Iraq of this explosive in the 1980s. One of them used barrels like this and inside the barrel is a bag. HMX is in powdered form because you actually use it to shape a spherical lens that is used to create the triggering device for nuclear weapons.

And, particularly on the videotape, which is actually better than the still photos, as the soldier dips into it that's either HMX or RDX. I don't know of anything else in al Qa Qaa that was in that form.

BROWN: Let me ask you then, David, the question I asked Jamie. In regard to the dispute about whether that stuff was there when the Americans arrived, is it game, set, match? Is that part of the argument now over?

KAY: Well, at least with regard to this one bunker and the film shows one seal, one bunker, one group of soldiers going through and there were others there that were sealed, with this one, I think it is game, set and match.

There was HMX, RDX in there. The seal was broken and quite frankly to me the most frightening thing is not only is the seal broken and the lock broken but the soldiers left after opening it up. I mean to rephrase the so-called Pottery Barn rule if you open an arms bunker, you own it. You have to provide security.

BROWN: That raises a number of questions. Let me throw out one. It suggests that maybe they just didn't know what they had.

KAY: I think quite likely they didn't know they had HMX, which speaks to the lack of intelligence given troops moving through that area but they certainly knew they had explosives.

And to put this in context, I think it's important this loss of 360 tons but Iraq is awash with tens of thousands of tons of explosives right now in the hands of insurgents because we did not provide the security when we took over the country.

BROWN: Could you — I'm trying to stay out of the realm of politics.

KAY: So am I.

BROWN: I'm not sure you can necessarily. I know. It's a little tricky here but is there any reason not to have anticipated the fact that there would be bunkers like this, explosives like this and a need to secure them?

KAY: Absolutely not. For example, al Qa Qaa was a site of (UNINTELLIGIBLE) super gun project. It was a team of mine that discovered the HMX originally in 1991. That was one of the most well documented explosive sites in all of Iraq. The other 80 or so major ammunition storage points were also well documented.

Iraq had, and it's a frightening number, two-thirds of the total conventional explosives that the U.S. has in its entire inventory. The country was an armed camp.

BROWN: David, as quickly as you can because this just came up in the last hour, as dangerous as this stuff is, this would not be described as a WMD, correct?

KAY: Oh, absolutely not.

BROWN: Thank you.

KAY: And, in fact, the loss of it is not a proliferation issue.

BROWN: OK. It's just dangerous and it's out there and by your thinking it should have been secured.

KAY: Well, look, it was used to bring the Pan Am flight down. It's a very dangerous explosive, particularly in the hands of terrorists. [My emphasis]

The administration will continue to try to confuse the issue, but this pretty much seals it.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:38 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 27, 2004

Al Qaeda: Give Us Bush, Part 2

Iraq

In the previous post (below), I asserted, without proof, the following:

Al Qaeda wants Bush because they think they can sucker him into over-extending US military and economic power until they defeat him like they defeated the Soviets in Afghanistan. They want Bush because Bush is a fool.

As it happens, an Op-Ed in today's NYT provides evidence for that exact assertion. Excerpts:

A central part of our strategy must be to pre-empt terrorists, attacking them before they attack us. But not all offensive strategies are equal, and Mr. Bush errs by arguing that the one being employed is doing the job. One need only listen to the terrorists and observe their recent actions to understand that we face grave problems. After all, their analysis of the battle is a key determinant of the level of terrorism in the future.

To get a sense of the jihadist movement's state of mind, we must listen to its communications, and not just the operational "chatter" collected by the intelligence community. Today, the central forum for the terrorists' discourse is not covert phone communications but the Internet, where Islamist Web sites and chat rooms are filled with evaluations of current events, discussions of strategy and elaborations of jihadist ideology. [...]

There has been a drastic shift in mood in the last two years. Radicals who were downcast and perplexed in 2002 about the rapid defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan now feel exuberant about the global situation and, above all, the events in Iraq.

For example, an article in the most recent issue of Al Qaeda's Voice of Jihad — an online magazine that comes out every two weeks — makes the case that the United States has a greater strategic mess on its hands in Afghanistan and Iraq than the Soviet Union did in Afghanistan in the 1980's. As translated by the SITE Institute, a nonprofit group that monitors terrorists, the author describes how the United States has stumbled badly by getting itself mired in two guerrilla wars at once, and that United States forces are now "merely trying to 'prove their presence' — for all practical purposes, they have left the war."

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian terrorist now wreaking havoc in Iraq, sees things in a similar way. "There is no doubt that the Americans' losses are very heavy because they are deployed across a wide area and among the people and because it is easy to procure weapons," he wrote in a recent communiqué to his followers that was posted on several radical Web sites. "All of which makes them easy and mouthwatering targets for the believers."

Clearly, the president's oft-repeated claim that American efforts are paying off because "more than three-quarters of Al Qaeda's key members and associates have been killed, captured or detained" — a questionable claim in itself — means little to jihadists. What matters to them that the invasion of Iraq paved the way for the emergence of a movement of radical Sunni Iraqis who share much of the Qaeda ideology.

Among the recurrent motifs on the Web are that America has blundered in Iraq the same way the Soviet Union did in the 1980's in Afghanistan, and that it will soon be leaving in defeat. "We believe these infidels have lost their minds," was the analysis on a site called Jamaat ud-Daawa, which is run out of Pakistan. "They do not know what they are doing. They keep on repeating the same mistake."

For the radicals, the fighting has become a large part of a broader religious revival and political revolution. Their discussions celebrate America's occupation of Iraq as an opportunity to expose the superpower's "real nature" as an enemy of Islam that seeks to steal the Arab oil patrimony. "If there was no jihad, Paul Bremer would have left with $20 trillion instead of $20 billion," one Web site declared.

Moreover, the radicals see themselves as gaining ground in their effort to convince other Muslims around the world that jihad is a religiously required military obligation. And the American presence in the region is making the case for fulfilling this obligation all the more powerful. [My emphasis]

In Pakistan, for example, the largest militant organization has turned its attention away from Kashmir to send fighters to join the insurrection in Iraq.

It appears that Bush was right about one thing. Iraq is "fly-paper" in the "war on terror." Sadly, it's American kids who are the flies.

So, to summarize: the effect of Bush's Iraq policy is exactly the opposite of what he intended and now claims to be true. In a more rational society, one that actually evaluated leaders on results, these facts would be well known.

Posted by Jonathan at 02:50 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 26, 2004

380 Missing Tons? This Is Much Worse

Iraq

The missing 380 tons of explosives is pretty appalling, but it pales in comparison to this recent Reuters story [via The Talent Show]:

The removal of Iraq's mothballed nuclear facilities took about a year and was carried out by experts with heavy machinery and demolition equipment, diplomats close to the United Nations have said.

The UN nuclear watchdog, which monitored Saddam Hussein's nuclear sites before the US-led invasion last year, told the UN Security Council this week that equipment and materials that could be used to make atomic weapons had been vanishing from Iraq but neither Baghdad nor Washington had noticed.

"This process carried on at least through 2003 ... and probably into 2004, at least in early 2004," a Western diplomat close to the International Atomic Energy Agency said.

US, British and Iraqi officials have downplayed the disappearance of the equipment, saying it was part of widespread looting after the March 2003 invasion, which the US, Britain and Australia said was to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.

However, several diplomats close to the nuclear agency said on Thursday that this was not the result of haphazard looting.

They said the removal of this dual-use equipment — which until the war was tagged and closely monitored by the agency to ensure that it was not being used in a weapons program — was planned and executed by people who knew what they were doing.

"We're talking about dozens of sites being dismantled," one diplomat said. "Large numbers of buildings [were] taken down, warehouses were emptied and removed. This would require heavy machinery, demolition equipment. This is not something that you'd do overnight."

Diplomats in Vienna say the agency fears these facilities, part of a pre-1991 covert nuclear weapons program, could have been sold to a country or militants seeking nuclear weapons.

Among the sites stripped were a precision manufacturing plant at Umm Al Marik, a site connected with nuclear weapons activities at Al Qa Qaa, and an engineering facility at Badr. [My emphasis]

Read that again:

"We're talking about dozens of sites being dismantled," one diplomat said. "Large numbers of buildings [were] taken down, warehouses were emptied and removed. This would require heavy machinery, demolition equipment. This is not something that you'd do overnight."

While this was going on, Iraq was undoubtedly the target of intensive round-the-clock scrutiny by spy satellites and surveillance aircraft — it was a freakin' war zone, after all, and the US had complete air supremacy. What the f**k? Are these people simply the most incompetent gang of knuckleheads in world history, or are they more sinister than most of us ever imagined? Or both?

Posted by Jonathan at 05:56 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 25, 2004

Greatest Explosives Bonanza In History

Iraq

Just when you think you've heard the worst on the Bush administration's incompetence in Iraq, something like this comes along. NYT:

The Iraqi interim government has warned the United States and international nuclear inspectors that nearly 380 tons of powerful conventional explosives — used to demolish buildings, make missile warheads and detonate nuclear weapons — are missing from one of Iraq's most sensitive former military installations.

The huge facility, called Al Qaqaa, was supposed to be under American military control but is now a no man's land, still picked over by looters as recently as Sunday. United Nations weapons inspectors had monitored the explosives for many years, but White House and Pentagon officials acknowledge that the explosives vanished sometime after the American-led invasion last year.

The White House said President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was informed within the past month that the explosives were missing. It is unclear whether President Bush was informed. American officials have never publicly announced the disappearance, but beginning last week they answered questions about it posed by The New York Times and the CBS News program "60 Minutes." [...]

American weapons experts say their immediate concern is that the explosives could be used in major bombing attacks against American or Iraqi forces: the explosives, mainly HMX and RDX, could produce bombs strong enough to shatter airplanes or tear apart buildings.

The bomb that brought down Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland, in 1988 used less than a pound of the same type of material, and larger amounts were apparently used in the bombing of a housing complex in November 2003 in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, and the blasts in a Moscow apartment complex in September 1999 that killed nearly 300 people. [...]

The International Atomic Energy Agency publicly warned about the danger of these explosives before the war, and after the invasion it specifically told United States officials about the need to keep the explosives secured, European diplomats said in interviews last week. Administration officials say they cannot explain why the explosives were not safeguarded, beyond the fact that the occupation force was overwhelmed by the amount of munitions they found throughout the country. [...]

The Qaqaa facility, about 30 miles south of Baghdad, was well known to American intelligence officials...

After the invasion, when widespread looting began in Iraq, the international weapons experts grew concerned that the Qaqaa stockpile could fall into unfriendly hands. In May, an internal IAEA memorandum warned that terrorists might be helping "themselves to the greatest explosives bonanza in history."

Less than a pound of the stuff was sufficient to bring down PanAm 103 over Lockerbie, and 380 tons are missing. Enough is missing, therefore, to bring down more than three-quarters of a million PanAm 103s.

These idiots are going to get a lot more people killed as it is. Four more years is not an option.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:41 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 22, 2004

100 Damning Facts

9/11, "War On Terror"  Afghanistan  Iraq  Politics  Rights, Law

As a kind of follow-up to the previous post (below), here's a list of 100 damning facts about the Bush administration, as compiled by The Nation.

This is what's been happening down here in the real world.

[Thanks, Mom]

Posted by Jonathan at 03:34 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

An Alternate Reality

Iraq  Politics

This is truly stunning.

PIPA, the Program on International Policy Attitudes, conducted a series of polls that examine differences between Kerry and Bush supporters' perceptions of foreign policy reality.

Respondents were given a series of statements and asked if they believed them to be true. Examples:

Experts mostly agree that just before the war Iraq had WMD.
Bush supporters: 56%. Kerry supporters: 18%.

The Duelfer Report concluded that just before the war Iraq had WMD or a major WMD program.
Bush supporters: 57%. Kerry supporters: 23%.

Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 or gave al-Qaeda substantial support.
Bush supporters: 75%. Kerry supporters: 30%.

The 9/11 Commission concluded that Iraq was directly involved in 9/11 or gave al-Qaeda substantial support.
Bush supporters: 56%. Kerry supporters: 27%.

Around the world, the majority of people oppose the US war in Iraq.
Bush supporters: 31%. Kerry supporters: 74%.

Around the world, the majority of people favor Bush.
Bush supporters: 57%. Kerry supporters: 1%.

These are astonishing results, since the questions were not about opinions, but facts. As the PIPA report puts it:

It is normal during elections for supporters of presidential candidates to have fundamental disagreements about values (such as the proper role of the government) or strategies (such as how best to defend US interests). As we have seen, the current election is unique in that Bush supporters and Kerry supporters have profoundly different perceptions of reality. [...]

Why do Bush supporters show such a resistance to accepting dissonant information? While it is normal for people to show some resistance, the magnitude of the denial goes beyond the ordinary. Bush supporters have succeeded in suppressing awareness of the findings of a whole series of high-profile reports about prewar Iraq that have been blazoned across the headlines of newspapers and prompted extensive, high-profile and agonzing reflection. The fact that a large portion of Americans say they are unaware that the original reasons that the US took military action — and for which Amercians continue to die on a daily basis — are not turning out to be valid, are probably not due to a simple failure to pay attention to the news.

It is both shocking and disturbing to be reminded how powerful is the human capacity to conform reality to one's beliefs, instead of the other way around. When people join hands and step into an alternate reality, there's no getting through to them. What's worse, when people take the psychological position that their denial must be defended at all costs — even if that means ignoring reality itself — then demagogues can lead them anywhere. Once you cut the anchor cable, the current can sweep you away.

Remember also what Orwell said.

[Thanks, Kevin]

Posted by Jonathan at 01:02 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Googling The Battlefield

Iraq

If you've never seen the movie "Three Kings," set in Iraq in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, I recommend it highly. Wild black humor on the insanity of war, and a bitter, satirical take on the elder George Bush's abandonment of the Iraqis who took up arms against Saddam at Bush's urging. "Catch-22" meets "Fight Club."

The reason I bring it up now, though, is that I remember what a paradigm-shifting jolt I got when characters on the battlefield made cell-phone calls back home in the midst of the chaos. Zzzzzzzap! In an instant, it hit me how a threshold had been crossed, the whole world networked up and connected in real-time.

Now, from Iraq, a true-life story that takes the next step. From the Toronto Star:

Iraqi militants who kidnapped an Australian reporter in Baghdad and threatened to kill him Googled his name on the Internet to investigate his work before deciding to release him unharmed, the journalist's executive producer said yesterday.

John Martinkus, the first Australian confirmed as having been abducted in Iraq, was seized in Baghdad early Saturday and held for about 24 hours before being freed. [My emphasis]

The insurgents log in and Google the guy's name. It's like something out of William Gibson's Pattern Recognition.

Welcome to the future, which is already in progress. Zzzzzzzap!

Posted by Jonathan at 01:06 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 19, 2004

How Bad Is It? A Spook's View

Iraq

John Perry Barlow, erstwhile Grateful Dead lyricist, Wyoming cattle rancher, and co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has written a startling account of a conversation he had recently with the CEO of one of the companies providing civilian "security" personnel in Iraq. This CEO, a former Vietnam Green Beret and CIA covert-ops officer, told Barlow his opinion of the state of affairs in Iraq. Excerpts, emphasis added:

"I'll tell you," he said, "before we get out of Iraq, it's going to make Viet Nam look like a good idea." And this from someone who thought that our clandestine overthrow of the Sandinistas, in which he had taken part, was a good idea. But now he's mostly in it for the money. Besides, armed conflict is what he knows. [...]

[H]e pointed out that history provides a gloomy prognosis. "I can't think of a single case where a popular local guerrilla movement failed to defeat a conventional foreign occupying force," he said. "From the American Revolution through Viet Nam, the guerrillas always win. Usually, it takes them a long time and they suffer most of the casualties, but they win." [...]

Given all that, what did he suggest? "Well," he sighed, "no one's going to take this idea seriously, but here's what I would do. I would free Saddam and tell him to go form a new government."

That got my attention. "You'd do what?" Everything he'd said up to that point had seemed sensible, if grim.

"Look," he said, "Saddam's been the only bastard mean enough to govern Iraq for any length of time. I'd hold him to a few conditions — no WMD's, no rewards to the families of suicide bombers, right of first refusal on Iraqi oil — then I'd tell him to go back to doing what he knows how to do. I mean, if you want a stable Iraq, he's a lot more likely to produce one than we are."

"So, after killing more than a 1000 of our kids and Allah knows how many Iraqis, after spending a couple of hundred billion dollars, you'd have us go back to Square One?"

He shrugged. "For most Iraqis, and certainly for the United States, things were better under Saddam than they are now. And they were a hell of a lot better than they're going to be in six months. But then, I wouldn't have gone in there in the first place." This is not how I expect dark-ops spooks to talk.

"You got a better idea?" he asked.

Whoa.

[Link via Ken Layne]

Posted by Jonathan at 05:01 PM | Comments (1) | Link to this  

October 16, 2004

1,100

Iraq

After a brief lull, there has been a marked increase in US casualties in Iraq in recent days.

As of today, US soldiers killed-in-action in Iraq: 1,100.

Support the troops. Bring them home. Alive.

Posted by Jonathan at 06:49 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 14, 2004

Troop Reductions

Iraq

In a speech at Fort Campbell last month, Rumsfeld said the number of troops in Iraq has been reduced from 150,000 to 137,000. He touted this as a sign of progress.

Xymphora has another take, however: the 13,000 reduction probably equates to the number of soldiers lost to wounds, illness, and death. The Pentagon doesn't release figures on the total number of soldiers lost, but as of today 1087 soldiers have been killed in action and 7532 wounded in action. Add to that the number lost to non-combat illnesses, injuries, and deaths, and a number like 13,000 is entirely plausible. Xymphora:

The numbers of American troops are dropping because the Pentagon hasn't got the troops to replace the fallen. Rumsfeld has the audacity to boast about his reduced level of troops, not pointing out why they are reduced. I have never before heard the civilian leader of an army boast about his huge number of casualties.

I.e., troop reductions are a measure not of progress, but of the extreme extent to which US forces are over-extended.

Posted by Jonathan at 01:23 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 12, 2004

Body Counts

Iraq

Seymour Hersh:

I got a call last week from a soldier... He's an American officer and he was in a unit halfway between Baghdad and the Syrian border. It's a place where we claim we've done great work at cleaning out the insurgency. He was a platoon commander. First lieutenant, ROTC guy...

It was an area that the insurgency had some control, but it was very quiet, it was not Fallujah... [T]he guys that owned the granary [there], had hired...not more than three dozen, thirty or so guards... So Iraqis were guarding the granary. [The American lieutenant's] troops were bivouaced, they were stationed there, they got to know everybody...

They were a couple weeks together, they knew each other. So orders came down from the generals in Baghdad, we want to clear the village, like in Samarra. And as he told the story, another platoon from his company came and executed all the guards, as his people were screaming, stop. And he said they just shot them one by one. He went nuts, and his soldiers went nuts. And he's hysterical. He's totally hysterical. And he went to the captain. He was a lieutenant, he went to the company captain. And the company captain said, "No, you don't understand. That's a kill. We got thirty-six insurgents."

You read those stories where the Americans, we take a city, we had a combat, a hundred and fifteen insurgents are killed. You read those stories. It's shades of Vietnam again, folks, body counts... And that's where we are with this war. [My emphasis]

This is evil, pure and simple.

Posted by Jonathan at 05:47 PM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

Baghdad Life

Iraq

From the Star-Ledger, a first-hand account of life today in Baghdad by Borzou Daragahi. Excerpts:

Not far from the bus, a smiling Mahdi Army fighter is giving orders. He gives his name as Ali "Abu Hossein" and says he is 24. He has perfect teeth and an infectious laugh.

He will lead a group of animated young men on an evening of what passes for fun here — resetting remote-control bombs that failed to detonate during the previous night's battles with American soldiers.
"Inshallah," or God willing, he says, "there will be more fighting tonight."

His group, the ragged followers of rebel Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has fought with and killed troops from the United States, including battles in Najaf in August and all around the country's south in April. Some of his soldiers are little more than 12 years old. Had the boys grown up in the United States, they would be learning about the Civil War in school and confronting the vagaries of how things as different as video games and girls really work.

As they plant their bombs into streets, a group of Iraqi police stands not 20 feet away.

"The police are with us," Ali says.

"Or, they are afraid," adds another young man.

Fear is ravaging Baghdad. Its partners are the hatred, crime and violence that intrude into daily life. Eighteen months after the fall of Baghdad, this city of 5 million has become more unpredictable and violent. [...]

And the car bombs, which happen daily now, are so common that some people don't even halt sentences for the explosions, much as a New Yorker might ignore a car alarm. [...]

"I would prefer that the new leader will be Saddam Hussein because I would rather vote for Saddam Hussein than anyone else," said Wafa Hamid, a 41-year-old engineer at the Ministry of Trade and a mother of two. "He was one of the most hated people in the history of Iraq. And I was against him more than anyone else. But if he runs for election, I'm going to vote for him." [My emphasis]

Events in Iraq have taken on a momentum and life of their own. Violence breeds violence, chaos begets chaos.

Nobody with any sense thinks any good can come of of it, yet nobody with any authority is willing or able to pull the plug. As in Vietnam, it's all come down to a combination of ego — politicians who are unwilling to "lose" — and unspeakably cynical notions of the need to preserve America's so-called "credibility." We think we cannot leave, so we'll stay on for years, kill thousands more people, and then finally, in the end, we will leave.

Despicable, pointless, irrational savagery. As Bill Hicks used to ask: how does it feel to find out we are the Evil Empire?

Posted by Jonathan at 12:48 AM | Comments (0) | Link to this  

October 10, 2004

Me And My Cousin Against A Stranger

Iraq

Knight-Ridder reports that Iraqi sympathy for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is growing:

Once reviled as the man who brought beheadings to Iraq, Jordanian militant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is gaining support among Iraqis who are outraged over the trail of razed neighborhoods and dead civilians left by the U.S. military's anti-insurgent offensives this month. [...]

Many Iraqis explained the fledgling support for al-Zarqawi by citing a popular Arabic proverb: "Me and my brother against my cousin; me and my cousin against a stranger."

Hearts and minds, people. Hearts and minds.

Posted by Jonathan at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)