Monday, August 27, 2007

Who's paying the 'insurgents'? The US government

Whose funding the 'insurgents' in Iraq? It's early, so don't spook the Bully Boy with the news but in Anbar Province the funding comes from the US government. Hannah Allam's "Iraqi insurgents taking cut of U.S. rebuilding money" (McClatchy Newspapers) reports Iraqi contractors in Anbar Province state that they've been using US funds to pay off 'insurgents' and one contractor tells her, "I put it right in my contracts as a line item for 'logistics and security'."
Hoshyar Zebari, Iraq's Foreign Minister, admits to being "aware" of what he calls an "insurgent tax" and explains, "It's part of a taxation they put on trucks through all these territories, but it's very difficult to establish if it's going directly to insurgents." So why does he call it an "insurgent tax"?

More upfront is Barham Saleh, the Deputy Prime Minister of Iraq, who admits the payments take place and allows 'insurgents' to purchase "more weapons and vehicles" and explains, "I'm a realist." From the article:
One Iraqi contractor who is working on an American-funded rebuilding project in the provincial capital of Ramadi said he faced two choices when he wanted to bring in a crane, heavy machinery and workers from Baghdad: either hire a private security company to escort the supplies for up to $6,000 a truck, or pay off locals with insurgent connections.
He chose the latter, and got $120,000 for a U.S. contract he estimates to be worth no more than $20,000. The contractor asked that specific details of the project not be disclosed for fear he'll be identified and lose the job.

So now we know who has been funding the 'insurgents': the US. When someone breaks the news to the Bully Boy, no doubt he will put the US on a "terrorist watch list".

Lloyd and Martha both highlight Megan Greenwell's "Iraqi Leaders Reach Accord On Prisoners, Ex-Baathists" (Washington Post) and we'll go with Llyod's highlight for this entry and save Martha's for the next. A 'meeting' took place yesterday (see next entry) and in it Iraqi 'leaders' decided that they would "release an estimated 1,700 prisoners who are being detained without specific charges." Whether they will release them or not remains to be seen but the talking points the puppet wants in the press today are the oil law (next entry) and the release of prisoner's held without charges. The Iraqi Accordance Front is maintains that this "was just one of 11 demands" and that they "left the government and we are not going back unless they meet all of the demands."

And Brendan notes Workers World's "The Pentagon's problem:"

The failed and failing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are bringing the U.S. military's basic problem to a boiling point. Such a boiling over can affect the Pentagon's role for decades, despite its overwhelming advantage in strategic warfare and air power.
Warfare still requires humans. This is the root of the Pentagon's problem.
The resistance movements in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to attract people who are willing to fight and ready to die to liberate their countries from the U.S. occupation. Most of the U.S. soldiers and marines, on the other hand, only grudgingly and wearily follow their orders to fight a war they see more and more for the crime it is, a crime against the Iraqi and Afghan people, and a crime against themselves.
A sign of the growing despair among U.S. forces is that troop suicides reached a high point for the last 26 years in 2006, and that the rate was growing for those troops now stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The combination of longer tours in Iraq--now at 15 months--and the knowledge that the war had lost the support of the U.S. population drove the U.S. troops not just to despair but to unprecedented expressions of dissent. An opinion piece in the Sunday New York Times written by seven enlisted soldiers in the 82nd Airborne Division offered its own analysis of the war that differed entirely with the chain of command, up to the president, and called on the U.S. to get out of Iraq.
Those committed to ending the occupations of those countries can only applaud the recent decision of the Iraq Veterans Against the War to actively support war resisters. The IVAW's choice of a 2003 anti-war hero--resister Staff Sgt. Camilo Mejia--as chair of the IVAW board underlines that step toward promoting active-duty resistance.
Add to this the Pentagon's difficulty in attracting new cannon fodder. The African-American community's near 100-percent rejection of the war has driven the enlistment of new Black recruits to a low point. In Puerto Rico, a popular movement has been preventing U.S. military recruiters from luring high-school students.
As a result, the U.S. areas providing most new "volunteers" are poor rural towns and small cities, where even recruitment bonuses of $20,000 and a $3.2 billion recruitment campaign were barely keeping the numbers on target.
Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute--Bush's "war czar"-- raised one solution for the recruiting problem in a recent radio interview. Lute spoke of reinstating military conscription of U.S. youth: the draft. Even the Bush administration, which has arrogantly stonewalled the growing mass opposition to the war in Iraq, fears a draft and has denied it will happen--up to now. It fears a draft might turn 40 million U.S. youth from passive avoiders of imperialist war to impassioned political activists against it.
The troops have moved from compliance to demoralization to despair to dissent. They are moving toward military resistance. Those troops who resist deserve the unstinting support of the anti-war movement. The Pentagon's problem is an opportunity for humanity.
Articles copyright 1995-2007 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.
Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Support independent news

The e-mail address for this site is