Saturday, August 25, 2007

Enaalso

Mohammed Al Dulaimy (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad car bombing that claimed 6 lives (thirty wounded) and 10 corpses discovered the capital and drops back to yesterday to note an Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Kirkuk and Joseph Abed Ibrahemm was also shot dead in Kirkuk which was also the setting for the kidnapping of an Iraqi soldier. Reuters updates the number killed in the Baghdad car bombing to 7 (the number wounded remains the same) and notes a ban in the capital on motorcyles, carts and bicycles, while dropping back to yesterday to note an Iraqi soldier was shot dead in Baghdad yesterday and a civilian was shot dead in Najaf.
On the ban, CNN reports: "The Interior Ministry said that as of 6 p.m. (10 a.m. ET) and until further notice, Iraq's capital will be under the ban. The faithful are headed to Karbala to commemorate Sha'abaniya, the birthday of the Mehdi, the 12th imam revered by Shiites." They also note a 'foreign fighter' (not from the 'coalition') has been arrested in Iraq and, yet again, it's not an Iranian (he's Egyptian).

Carlos notes "Patience has limits" (Inside Iraq, McClatchy Newspapers' blog where Iraqi journalists blog)

Those people who were able to say no to Saddam they will be able too to say no to new tyrants.
Yes, the government must understand that Iraqi people can't be patient forever. The day will come when Iraqi people will say no again.
They can't watch daily tragedy in all of Iraq, or the sectarian fight in which governmental parties are involved and foreign influence from Saudi Arabia, Iran and Washington.
The day will come when the Iraqis will create their reality by themselves.

McClatchy Newspapers has another blog from Iraq, this one by Leila Fadel, and Lynda highlights from it writing that if Bully Boy's so concerned about vocab, he should learn the word "Enaalso." From Fadel's "The Changing Language of War" (Baghdad Observer):

Two days ago an entire Sunni family was killed. The next day the Mahdi Army came back to kill a Shiite witness, he said. His family was spared, they live outside Iraq.
"Enaalso," he said in Iraqi slang. It's a new Iraqi word, a phrase used to explain being turned in by an informant to a militia and then being killed. Literally it means he was "chewed up."
It's what Iraqis now repeatedly say to explain the killings of families by militias that control their neighborhoods with fear and weapons; a word to explain the corpses that show up in the streets.


From Tina Susman's "GIs' morale dips as Iraq war drags on" (Los Angeles Times), we'll note:

In the dining hall of a U.S. Army post south of Baghdad, President Bush was on the wide-screen TV, giving a speech about the war in Iraq.
The soldiers didn't look up from their chicken and mashed potatoes.
As military and political leaders prepare to deliver a progress report on the conflict to Congress next month, many soldiers are increasingly disdainful of the happy talk that they say commanders on the ground and White House officials are using in their discussions about the war.

Steven R. Hurst (AP) reports:

Baghdad, however, still accounts for slightly more than half of all war-related killings -- the same percentage as a year ago, according to figures compiled by The Associated Press.
The tallies and trends offer a sobering snapshot after an additional 30,000 U.S. troops began campaigns in February to regain control of the Baghdad area. It also highlights one of the major themes expected in next month's Iraq progress report to Congress: some military headway, but extremist factions are far from broken.
In street-level terms, it means life for average Iraqis appears to be even more perilous and unpredictable.
The AP tracking includes Iraqi civilians, government officials, police and security forces killed in attacks such as gunfights and bombings, which are frequently blamed on Sunni suicide strikes. It also includes execution-style killings -- largely the work of Shiite death squads. The figures are considered a minimum based on AP reporting. The actual numbers are likely higher, as many killings go unreported or uncounted. Insurgent deaths are not a part of the Iraqi count.

And ". . . Brig. Gen. Richard Sherlock, deputy director for operational planning for the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff, said violence in Iraq "has continued to decline and is at the lowest level since June 2006." He offered no statistics to back his claim . . ."

Jeremy Pelofsky (Reuters) reports Bully Boy used his radio address today as a forum from which he "pleaded with Americans" to allow his illegal war to continue. Reuters also notes that Iraq's "1920 Revolution Brigade" will no longer be called "insurgents" but instead "concerned local nationals" according to US Col. David Sutherland. It's a rebranding! (For the record, 'insurgents' is only used in quotes here because the term is applied based on the US military's press releases and statements and not independently verified. For example, some reported 'insurgents' taking part in car bombings were unaware that their car had a bomb.) The New York Times? Not worth the paper it's printed on this morning. Whispers! Whispers! And more whispers! How about we all wait for the report to be delivered before we get excited about what may or may not be in it? A6 also contains the headline (on Afghanistan) "U.S. Bomb Dropped; 3 British Soldiers Die". From? The bomb the US dropped. But that's just too much information for the headline, apparently. "3 British Soldiers Die From U.S. Bomb Dropped" is reality.

Mia notes Alexander Cockburn's "Don't Carpool with Nouri al-Maliki" (CounterPunch) and, before we get to the excerpt, reminds we noted a defense of Cockburn's stand (it should also be said, I had no problem with it personally so that the defender -- whose name I'm blanking on, sorry -- isn't standing alone) from Dissident Voices a few week back. It was a reply to Phyllis Bennis' response to Cockburn. We don't link to the site Bennis was posted at but Cockburn includes her comments in the second half of the piece if you haven't read them (I haven't, I'll do so after I've finished this entry). The first section is addressing the potential realities awaiting al-Maliki:

The final grim news for al-Maliki came on Wednesday when President Bush affirmed confidence in the prime minister, declaring him to be a fine fellow.
Levin, Clinton and Bush all simultaneously declared that they believe the briefings of the United States military commanders in Iraq. They exult that the "surge", advocated and presided over by General David Petraeus last winter, is now working. Baghdad is more secure. Casualties are down. The sectarian groupings in Iraq have been checked. Nation-building can proceed.
None of these chirpy bulletins has anything to do with the actual situation on the ground in Iraq, where the extremely hot summer months have seen a regular annual drop in activities by Iraq's resistance groups. Even so, car bombings in Baghdad car bombings in Baghdad in July were 5 per cent higher than before the "surge" began and there has been a corresponding rise in civilian casualties from explosions. Meanwhile there are graphic reports of the extreme exhaustion of US troops, forced into multiple tours and extended time on active duty because of the overall shortage in manpower and equipment.
Nor can any silver lining be detected in the larger political military picture, in terms of erosion the Shi'a majority coalition, seriously reducing the power of Moqtada al-Sadr, or denting the Sunni resistance.
But here on the home front, Levin, Clinton and other leading Democrats are determined not to be wrong-footed by White House attacks accusing them of stabbing America's fighting men and women in the back by questioning the surge's supposed success. On an hourly basis, the right-wing radio demagogues are accusing them of just such treachery. Flag-wagging and drum-thumping are traditional at Veterans of Foreign Wars' conventions.
In a rhetorical counter-move, the Democrats emphasize the failure of Bush's man, al-Maliki, to resolve Iraq's political divisions at equal speed. Amid their rather hollow assertions of confidence in al-Maliki, Bush and the Republicans recognize that al-Maliki is expendable and can be forced out, just as his predecessor was ditched.

Mia also notes Norman Solomon's latest and we'll lead with that Sunday night. It was going to be noted Thursday night but we had to other things that had to be noted (PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio and Robert Parry's "Bush's Bogus Vietnam History Kills") and it got put on hold. The hope was to note it in yesterday's snapshot but we noted Grace Paley due to the fact that a lot of left outlets were either on vacation or playing dumb. On Paley, Stacey's working on a paper and asked about the page numbers, Paley's essay ran on pages 537-540 of Sisterhood Is Forever and the excerpt from "Why Peace Is (More Than Ever) a Feminist Issue" ran on page 539. In fact, let's quote her one more time:

Today's wars are about oil. But alternate energies exist now -- solar, wind -- for every important energy-using activity in our lives. The only human work that cannot be done without oil is war.
So men lead us to war for enough oil to continue to go to war for oil.
I'm now sure that these men can't stop themselves anymore -- even those who say they want to. There are too many interesting weapons. Besides, theirs is a habit of centuries, eons. They will not break that habit themselves.
For ourselves, for our girl and boy children, women will have to organize as we have done before -- and also as we have never done before -- to break that habit for them, once and for all.

Rachel notes these upcoming programs on WBAI:

Sunday, August 26, 11am-noon EST
THE NEXT HOUR
A panel of satirists discuss humorous impulses from inception to delivery. With Paul Krassner, Will Durst and David Dozer. Moderated by Janet Coleman.

Monday, August 27, 2-3pm EST
CAT RADIO CAFE
Actor/playwright/Fulbright scholar Dan Hoyle on "Tings Dey Happen," a one-man show on his investigations into oil politics in Nigeria; composer and jazz trombonist Craig S. Harris on the debut of "TriHarLenium: A Sound Portrait of Harlem 1976-2006" at Lincoln Center Out of Doors; and Catherine Cappelero and Andrew Rhone on their new musical "Walmart-opia," a futuristic look at a certain corporation running the world. Hosted by Janet Coleman and David Dozer.



The following community sites have updated since yesterday morning:

Rebecca's Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude;
Cedric's Cedric's Big Mix;
Kat's Kat's Korner;
Betty's Thomas Friedman is a Great Man;
Mike's Mikey Likes It!;
Elaine's Like Maria Said Paz;
Wally's The Daily Jot;
and Trina's Trina's Kitchen

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.

















Posted by at

Yes, the military tries to hunt down those who go AWOL and desert

Cleland, who was defeated for the Senate in 2002 by Republican Saxby Chambliss, said Bush has a "credibility gap'' just as political leaders during the Vietnam era did, and is ``trying to sell the American people a bill of goods on the Iraq war.''
"I've seen this movie before. I know how it ends,'' Cleland, who lost both legs and his right arm in a grenade explosion in 1968, said. "I know all the PR in the world didn't change the truth on the ground in Vietnam and won't change the truth on the ground today in Iraq.''

The above is from Molly Peterson's "Former Senator Cleland Disputes Bush's Vietnam Analogy on Iraq" (Bloomberg News). Since Max Cleland was giving the Democratic radio address, look for a number of the silent to suddenly come forward next week with "I've been thinking about Bully Boy's revisionist history and . . ." pieces. But when it mattered (and before permission was granted from a Party), they were nowhere to be found.

The list of those who addressed it in real time is a small one: Matthew Rothschild, Rosa Brooks, Robert Parry, Democracy Now!, CounterPunch, OpEdNews . . .

We've noted here (many times) that when this illegal war ends, it's important not to forget what happened and it's important not to allow the right-wing to rewrite it. We've noted that a large number of the left and 'left' allowed the right-wing to do just that with Vietnam. If you're too young to remember (or have lived through) that time, you saw an echo of it this week as so many 'brave voices' avoided even commenting on the lies Bully Boy spouted about Vietnam.

You saw a conservative hack appear on Hardball saying he was Generation X (he's kind of old for Gen X -- way too old to have been in a mosh pit in the early 90s, but whatever) and they were so tired of hearing about Vietnam (the same week, FYI, that Common Dreams decided to run one of his pieces -- apparently they're not familiar with the body of his work or his attacks on Democrats in Congress as he rushed to defend -- repeatedly -- Alberto Gonzales' actions).

I'll be kind and not name the most cowardly of all (most cowardly of all in my opinion) which, in their new print edition, has an essay by Noam Chomsky which they could have posted online but didn't. Chomsky was addressing Iraq and Vietnam. The issue's been out for several weeks and if they were all too cowardly to weigh in on the lies Bully Boy repeated this week, they could have addressed the topic just by posting Chomsky's essay. They didn't.

Brenda and Marshall caught cowardice as well. They noted websites that usually promote PBS' NOW with David Brancaccio each week but took a pass this week. Their e-mails were so strong that I suggested they write something together on it. They have done that and it will run in El Spirito Sunday so check your inboxes. NOW with David Brancaccio notified about the show to the usual suspects on Wednesday. I didn't see the e-mail that came in here Wednesday and would have missed it if a friend at PBS hadn't called to curse me out. (Seriously.) Thursday night, he wanted to know why, when NOW with David Brancaccio, was addressing a topic that we say matters, I hadn't even noted it. The answer is that I've tried to work the public account by myself largely and let everyone else work the members account (due to you know who and his threats). So I was (and am) way behind in the public account. I hadn't seen the e-mail. But I said we'd note it Thursday night and in every entry that went up Friday. If you missed it, NOW with David Brancaccio should be up online now (and if it hasn't aired yet on your local PBS station, make a point to check it out).

It's really not that surprising because in Sunday's 'debate' on ABC, Democratic candidates who are media favorites backed away from the illegal war and a lot of 'independent' outlets aren't really independent, they take their cues from the Democratic Party.

So despite the fact that the illegal war is so unpopular with Americans, the 'indepenents' found something else to talk about . . . repeatedly.

The same way they've written their (rare) articles about AWOL and desertions and repeated the lies that the US military isn't interested in those who check out, that the US military has better things to do. LIE. They have investigative units paid to troll the net for info. They make calls. They do everything but the job itself. Maybe they fear they'd be shouted down or grasp that the US military really can't be seen picking up people and hauling them off. (Police actions by the US military in the US are still off limits. Though they apparently believe Canada's a free zone for them.) So they do their hunting and then call the police and, for example, this summer say, "Search these parents' home in Colorado" (Lance Hering's parents).

Thursday, Democracy Now! addressed the realities with Camilo Mejia:

JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of the growth of that resistance movement over the last couple of years -- obviously since you were one of the first -- how do you see that developing?

CAMILO MEJIA: I think we’ve come a long way from the time when I resisted the war. Like Amy said, I was the first public combat veteran to refuse to redeploy to Iraq. Back then, when I went public with my refusal to go back to the war, we had approximately twenty-two cases of desertion in the military. And then, by the time I got out of jail, that number was 5,500. Today, it’s over 10,000 people within the military who are refusing to go to the war in Iraq since the war started. And just to put it in perspective, that’s almost like saying like the 101st Airborne Division was wiped out by desertion or AWOL, basically people not wanting to fight the war.

AMY GOODMAN: How many?

CAMILO MEJIA: Over 10,000 people. So that's the equivalent to an Army division.

AMY GOODMAN: The Pentagon is not talking about this.

CAMILO MEJIA: No, they're not talking about it, but USA Today reported last year, I believe, early last year, 8,000 people, and it's probably a lot more, when you talk to organizations like the GI Rights Hotline, who, you know, get a number of calls from people trying to find out information about discharges and about what happens once they go AWOL, what happens once they resist to go back to the war. And their numbers are, you know, an indication that the actual number is much higher.
Also, we have some new developments in the war. We had -- a long time ago, we all heard about the company of truck drivers who refused to go out on what they considered to be a suicide mission. We also have the case of a soldier called Eli Israel, who refused to go out on combat missions while being in Iraq and was threatened by the military with court-martial. He finally got a summarized court-martial, and he’s back in the States. But this level of resistance not just, you know, coming from people who have served in Iraq and have come back and refused to go back, but now we have people on the ground in Iraq who are refusing to go out on combat missions, which I think is pretty significant.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And one of the things, it seems to me, that has happened, talking to quite a few veterans who have returned maybe or on leave, that those who go AWOL, it’s not as if the military publicizes it or actively goes after them, unless they become public, like in your case, right?

CAMILO MEJIA: Exactly, although that also has changed. We have cases of people who have not yet gone public and yet had been seized in their home. For instance, we have the case of Suzanne Swift, who was, you know, apprehended by police without even a search warrant at her mother's house, and she had not gone public at that time. And she had refused to go back to the war, because she had been subject to military sexual assault and command rape from her leadership and being forced to go back to the war with the same unit and with the same people who had attacked her.

Today, Mark Boshnack' "Man, 22, arrested as AWOL" (The Daily Star) reports Ronald R. Roach Jr. was arrested Friday morning in New York and cites BCI Inv. Kevin More:

State police were looking for Roach for two days after receiving a request from the Army to locate him, More said.
[. . . ]
More said he received assistance from troopers and Otsego deputies in searching the house, finding Roach hiding on a shelf near the ceiling. Roach's wife was home at the time, but she has not been charged, More said.
Army spokeswoman Gini Sinclair said that Roach was with the 2nd Battalion, 8th Calvary, out of Fort Hood, Texas. He went AWOL on July 25, she said.

Names are not just entered into a database that later allows routine traffic stops to ferret out those who go AWOL and desert. That is a lie, it's a known lie and has been for some time.

Bonnie was the first to note Margaret Kimberley's "White Man’s Love" (Black Agenda Report):

Politicians and pundits are outdoing themselves displaying creepy, cult-like admiration for the white Republican men running for president. The old narrative recently brought out of the closet says that only big, manly white men should run America. Former Senator turned actor Fred Thompson has not officially declared himself a candidate for the Republican nomination, but the man-crushes have been flying in his direction at a fast and furious pace.
"We need a president of the United States after the 2008 election who will rise above the partisan challenges ... That person is 6 foot 6. He has a commanding voice. He has a commanding presence. He makes people feel secure. He makes us feel confident."
So says Republican Congressman Zack Wamp. He thinks we need a big white man in charge.
When President Bush landed a plane on the deck of the USS Lincoln to proclaim "Mission Accomplished," MSNBC's Chris Matthews could barely contain himself. "We're proud of our president. Americans love having a guy as president, a guy who has a little swagger, who's physical...." Matthews is so in love with his fellow white guys that he even likes the way they smell:
"Can you smell the English leather on this guy (Thompson), the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke?"

Chris Matthews either needs to leave his wife or stop sniffing men. The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.








Posted by at

Friday, August 24, 2007

Iraq snapshot

Friday, August 24, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, the US military reports another death, a US helicopter attack leaves many Iraqis dead, war resistance gets covered on PBS, activist, author, feminist, peace advocate Grace Paley passed away Wednesday, and more.
 
Starting with war resistance.  This week's NOW with David Brancaccio (PBS, begins airing in most markets Friday nights) takes a look at war resistance:

Choosing to go to war is both a government's decision and one made by individual enlistees. But changing your mind once you're in the army is a risky decision with serious consequences. On Friday, August 24 (checkyour local listings), we talk to two soldiers who went AWOL and eventually left the Army, but who took very different paths. NOW captures the moment when one man turns himself in, and when another applies for refugee status in Canada, becoming one of the 20,000 soldiers who have deserted the army since the War in Iraq began. Each describes what drove him to follow his conscience over his call to duty, and what penalties and criticism were endured as a result. "I see things differently having lived through the experience," former army medic Agustin Aguayo tells NOW. "When I returned from Iraq, after much reflection I knew deep within me I could never go back."The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into the case made by conscientious objectors, as well as more stories of desertion in the ranks.

In addition to the broadcast, a preview of the show is posted at YouTube.  And the show will be available in various forms (audio, video, text -- though maybe not in full) at the NOW with David Brancaccio site.
 
Camilo Mejia is the new chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War. The decision of the new board members of IVAW were made last weekend.  Tony Pecinovsky (People's Weekly World) reports on the Veterans for Peace conference and quotes Mejia explaining, "There is no greater argument against war than the experience of war itself. In the military you're not free to decide for yourself what is right and wrong. The fog of war is very real. Your main concern is staying alive" and explaining his decision to self-checkout, "I couldn't return knowing that we are committing war crimes. This war is criminal. But I'm no longer a prisoner of fear. I have hope that we can end this war."  IVAW is gearing up for their big Truth in Recruting  campaign.  Adam Kokesh, who is co-chair of IVAW, is currently doing workshops (tonight at St. Bede's at the corner of St. Francis and San Mateo 7-9 pm PST). And Camilo Mejia tells his story in his own story of resistance in his new book Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia. 
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
 
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
 
Turning to the jibber-jabber.  The NIE was released yesterday.  It is a much kinder and less explicit version of Peter W. Galbraith's "Iraq: The Way to Go" (The New York Review of Books, August 16, 2007).  In the essay, Galbraith writes, "The Iraq war is lost.  Of course, neither the President nor the war's intellectual architects are prepared to admit this.  Nonetheless, the specter of defeat shapes their thinking in telling ways.  The case for the war is no longer defined by the benefits of winning -- a stable Iraq, democracy on the march in the Middle East, the collapse of the evil Iranian and Syrian regimes -- but by the consequences of defeat."  If that stance is still not clear, Alex Spillius (Telegraph of London) reports: "Frontline generals in Iraq spoke openly yesterday of the need to have a government that could function and guarantee security above all else, including democratic legitimacy.  Brig Gen John Bednarek, who commands forces in Diyala province, told CNN that 'democratic institutions are not necessarily the way ahead in the long-term future'."  As all the lies are dropped, the reality of the crimes being committed may be grasped.  Maybe not.
Michael Ware and Thomas Evans (CNN) report that "officials now say they are willing to settle for a government that functions and can bring security."  Yesterday, White House flack Gordon Johndroe declared (in Crawford, TX) that "we know that there are significant challenges ahead, especially in the political area. I would say that the strategy laid out by the President on January 10th was a strategy that provided for security first, so that there would be space for political reconciliation. The surge did not get fully operational until mid-summer. It is not surprising -- it is frustrating, but it's not surprising that the political reconciliation is lagging behind the security improvements. I think that is the way the strategy was laid out."  The 'improved' security is a lie.  Repeating, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting earlier this month that the US military claims of 'progress' were based on numbers they would not release and that McClatchy Newspapers' figures do not track with the findings the US military has trumpeted: "U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim." But clearly the generals, the officials and the White House are all on the same page regarding the 'problems' with democracy -- pure chance, of course. 
 
Greg Miller (Los Angeles Times) summarizes the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE): "Despite some military progress, Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki is unable to govern his country effecitvely and the political situation is likely to become even more precarious in the next six to 12 months, the nation's intelligence agencies concluded in a new assessment released  Thursday.  The document, an update of a National Intelligence Estimate delivered in January, represents the view of all 16 U.S. spy agencies."
 
'Democracy' on hold or out the window . . . what to do, what to do?  Bring in a 'strong man' dictator?  Reuters reports that 3 "secularist ministers . . . will formally quit" the cabinet of Nour al-Maliki today and that three are from Iyad Allawi's party. Yesterday Democracy Now! noted  Allawyi is working with "Republican lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers" in an effort to become the new prime minister of Iraq (Allawi was previously interim prime minister). CIA asset Allawi was still working with the CIA in 2003, as Jim Lobe (Foreign Policy in Focus) noted, in attempted "Iraqification" which was a popular thing in late 2003 as the White House and hand maidens of the press attempted to treat "Iraqification" as a process which would put Iraqis in control.  The policy was at odds with much of the White House's aims and never got off the ground.  Had it, it still wouldn't have allowed for Iraqi control.  Allawi was interim Prime Minister following the start of the illegal war and, during that time, he made his 'mark' early on.  Paul McGeough (Sydney Morning Herald via Common Dreams, July 2004) reported in July 2004:  "Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings. They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security center, in the city's south-western suburbs."
 
Never having been handed democracy, Iraqis now face the very likely prospect that the puppet (al-Maliki) will be replaced with a dictator/strong man.  It's not about what the Iraqis want or desire on the US government's end, it's just more of the same.  A point driven home by the announcement that Abdel-Salam Aref has died in Jordan.  In 2004, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) explained, "The US-installed regime in Iraq said last night it would pay a monthly pension to a former president overthrown more than 35 years ago in a coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baath party to power. The Iraqi Governing Council says it will pay Abdel-Rahman Aref $1,000 a month and allocate $5,000 to cover his medical bills in Jordan. Aref rose to prominence in 1963 when he was appointed army chief of staff by his elder brother, then President Abdel-Salam Aref. He was overthrown in July of 1968 in a coup that was aided by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA also gave the Baath Party the names of some 5,000 Iraqi Communists who were then hunted down and killed or imprisoned. Following the coup, Baath party leader Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr became president, with Saddam as his right hand man."
 
As Peter W. Galbraith explains, there was no democracy following the start of the illegal war, not in what was imposed by the US (and the US shut out the UN).  What exists is a system where the Shi'ites and Sunnis are two major groups (Sunnis the smaller of the two) and the system imposed has left one group shut out (elections would change that only to a small degree -- but they aren't happening) and the third most populous segment, the Kurds, are ready for their own country (Kurdistan).  The system imposed on Iraq by the US was fatally flawed from the beginning so, it can be argued, ignorance wasn't the issue.  Considering past history, a failed system that could be tossed aside quickly.  Warren P. Strobel (McClatchy Newspapers) observes the the NIE's "best-case scenario" would be "Iraq's security will improve modestly over the next six to 12 months, but violence across the country will remain high. The U.S.-backed central government will grow more fragile and remain unable to govern. Shiite and Sunni Muslims will continue their bitter feuding. All sides will position themselves for an eventual American departure. In Iraq, best-case scenarios have rarely, if ever, come to pass."
 
 
Andrew Stephen (New Statesman) wonders if the Bully Boy is imploding and notes, "The conundrum, of course, is that it was precisely that dark art which got Bush into the White House in the first place. The poisonous divisiveness that gradually festered around him as a result now allows the state department, to take just one example reported in the Washington Post, to think nothing of simply ignoring an order from the president. Yet I suspect that the extent to which the Bush administration has become so shambolic will not come home to many Americans until the country returns to work on 4 September. Bush is now a truly rudderless president, with no realistic agenda left for the next 513 or so days, other than to tread water and hope for the best."
 
Is Bully Boy imploding?  His laughable attempting to rewrite history this week indicates something strange.  Robert Parry (Consortium News) evaluates the latest lunacy, "It is often said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But a much worse fate may await countries whose leaders distort and falsify history. Such countries are doomed to experience even bloodier miscalculations.  That was the case with Germany after World War I when Adolf Hitler's Nazis built a political movement based in part on the myth that weak politicians in Berlin had stabbed brave German troops in the back when they were on the verge of victory.  And it appears to be the case again today as President George W. Bush presents the history of the Vietnam War as a Rambo movie with the heroic narrative that if only the U.S. military had stuck it out, the war would have been won.  Or, more likely, the black wall of the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial would stretch most of the way to the U.S. Capitol."  And Rosa Brooks (Los Angeles Times), who has gotten nothing but hisses in these snapshots, tackles the Bully Boy's nonsense, "Some might quibble with Bush's understanding of historical causation. Yes, many innocent civilians suffered in the aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam -- but it's more accurate to attribute their suffering to the prolongation of the war itself, rather than to the U.S. withdrawal as such.  It's hard to be precise (as is the case in Iraq today, no one kept careful count of Vietnamese civilian casualties, and all sides in the conflict had an incentive to fudge the true figures), but somewhere between 1 million and 4 million civilians died as the war needlessly dragged on, many killed by U.S. weapons. Millions more were displaced. But those are details.
Bush went on to assert that 'another price to our withdrawal from Vietnam' was the rise of 'the enemy we face in today's struggle, those who came to our soil and killed thousands of citizens' on 9/11. Yup -- it's so obvious! The U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam caused the rise of Al Qaeda -- and, by extension, 'our withdrawal from Vietnam' ultimately turned Iraq into 'the central front' in 'the war on terror'."  At a time when many left voices played dumb, stayed silent, Rosa Brooks addressed Bully Boy's nonsense, challenged it and put into perspective.
More willing to do that would go along way towards ending the illegal war.
 
The NIE is not the only report making the news.  Another report, this time from an aid agency, also gives a grim picture.  James Glanz and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) report that the Bully Boy's escalation has led to an escalation in the amount of Iraqi refugees. Citing figures by the Iraqi Red Crescent, the reporters declare "the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup [of troops -- the escalation] started in February."
 
Turning to some of today's violence, Carol J. Williams (Los Angeles Times) reports a US helicopter attack on Iraqis in western Baghdad that resulted in the deaths of "at least 18" Iraqis, that the US is claiming the helicopter attack was prompted by an attack from 'insurgents' but eye witnesses note it's the same thing as usual -- due to the heat some people sleep on their roofs and that's what was going on during the "predawn" attack by the US -- and that between 2 and 4 women were killed in the attack.  Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports, "The U.S. military said in a press release that after ground troops came under attack helicopters were brought and 18 'enemy combatants were killed'. The military later amended the release putting the death toll at only 8. The military said armed men on rooftops were spotted. A military spokesman said no civilians were killed."
 
Bombings?
 
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad bombing that claimed the life of 1 Iraqi soldier (two more injured).
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters reports "two construction workers" were shot dead in Diwaniya, a barber was shot dead in in Hawija and 1 police officer was shot dead in Numaniya.  CBS and AP report, "Sixty suspected al Qaeda in Iraq fighters hit national police facilities in a coordinated attack in Samarra, sparking two hours of fighting that saw three people killed and more than a dozen insurgents captured, Iraqi police said Friday. One policeman, a woman and an 11-year-old girl were killed in the fighting in the city 60 miles north of Baghdad, and nine others were injured. There were no details on insurgent casualties, but police arrested 14 suspects, the spokesman said on condition of anonymity."
 
Corpses?
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports  9 corpses discovered in Baghdad and 1 corpse discovered in Hawija.  Reuters notes a corpse discovered in Diwaniya..
 
Today the US military announced: "One Task Force Lightning Soldier died Aug. 24 as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion earlier in the day while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province. Four Soldiers were also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." The current numbers at ICCC are 3725 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 67 for the month thus far.  Reuters' count is also 3725 and they note "Britain 168 [and] Other nations 129".
 
 
Finally, author and activist Grace Paley died Wednesday.  In Sisterhood is Forever: The Women's Anthology for a New Millennium (ed. Robin Morgan, 2003), Paley contributed "Why Peace is (More Than Ever) A Feminist Issue":
 
Today's wars are about oil.  But alternate energies exist now -- solar, wind -- for every important energy-using activity in our lives.  The only human work that cannot be done without oil is war.   
So men lead us to war for enough oil to continue to go to war for oil.
I'm now sure that these men can't stop themselves anymore -- even those who say they want to.  There are too many interesting weapons.  Besides, theirs is a habit of centuries, eons.  They will not break that habit themselves. 
For ourselves, for our girl and boy children, women will have to organize as we have done before -- and also as we have never done before -- to break that habit for them, once and for all.
 
Peace is a feminist issue, still and always, even if one women's group chose to walk away from that reality in order to justify an endorsement of Hillary Clinton.  As Juan Gonzales (Democracy Now!) noted today, "Since the 1960s, Paley was very active in the antiwar, feminist, and anti-nuclear movements.  She helped found the Greenwich Village Peace Center in 1961.  Eight years later she went on a peace mission to Hanoi.  In 1974, she attended the World Peace Conference in Moscow.  In 1980, she helped organize the Women's Pentagon Action.  And in 1985, Paley visited Nicaragua and El Salvador, after having campaigned against the US government's policies towards those countries.  She was also one of the 'White House Eleven,' who were arrested in 1978 for unfurling an anti-nuclear banner on the White House lawn."  Feminist Wire Daily writes that "Paley was known as much for her political activism on behalf of peace and women's rights as her literary accomplishments.  Paley was jailed several times for her opposition to the Vietnam War, and traveled to Hanoi on a peace mission to negotiate for the release of American prisoners in 1969.  She helped found the Women's Pentagon Action and the Greenwich Village Peace Center. . . .  Most recently, she actively opposed the war in Iraq."  When Paley went to NYC for the "Women on War" event in April 2003, Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) interviewed her and the program aired some of that interview today:
 
AMY GOODMAN: Well, you were recently named the poet laureate of Vermont. It's very interesting. You're named by the governor, who is a Republican governor. Can you talk about how you relate to him in your meeting with him?
GRACE PALEY: Well, first of all, he really -- he didn't -- well, he had to sign the paper, but I was chosen by a group of other poets, a couple of whom had been laureates, like Galway Kinnell and Ellen Voigt, and a couple of other people who had to make a choice. I don't even think I was the best one, but that's beside the point. Still, there -- you know, there's time for others. And then I had to meet with him. He wanted to meet with me and talk to me, but before he really signed on. And I -- he knew a lot about me, and I said, well, I wasn't going to change very much, you know? I'd probably be the same person I was, no matter what. And we talked awhile about this fact. And he really -- and then he signed it. That's all.
AMY GOODMAN: Governor James Douglas?
GRACE PALEY: Yes. He's a Republican. He has a very mild manner, and I don't know whether that's the part of the Republicans of Vermont or what, but he's a Republican. I mean, there's no question about it.
AMY GOODMAN: But in terms of your poetry, more significantly, here he is naming you poet laureate, whether he chose you or not --
GRACE PALEY: Right.
AMY GOODMAN: -- he is for the war, and you're opposed.
GRACE PALEY: Yeah, right. Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: And you have been using your poetry a lot in the last few months to express that view.
GRACE PALEY: Well, I would do that, no matter what. I mean, this is what I'm about, and this is how I live my life. It's -- I don't even -- I wouldn't understand how to do otherwise.
 
Interviewed by Phyllis Exkhaus and Judith Mahoney Pasternak (War Resister League) at the start of this century, Paley reflected on what the peace movement accomplished: "Well, I think it did two things.  It acted as an education in resistance and nonviolence.  And probably the education in nonviolent direct action couldn't have been learned without a war.  It had to take a war for people to learn that things could be defied and resisted.  I think that was an important legacy of the peace movement."
 
Elaine Woo (Los Angeles Times) reports on Paley's work on the issue of draft resistance and notes "she also was an inveterate street-corner leafleteer and protest marcher who supported or helped found the Greenwich Village Peace Center, the War Resisters League, Women's Pentagon Action and the Feminist Press." The Feminist Press published Here And Somewhere Else (Two By Two) in March of this year which paired Paley's work with Robert Nichols (her second and surviving husband).
 
In the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Anne-Marie Cusac noted a passage by Paely that stood out: "One of the things that art is about, for me, is justice.  Now, that isn't a matter of opinion, really.  That isn't to say, 'I'm going to show these people right or wrong' or whatever.  But what art is about -- and this is what justice is about, although you'll have your own interpretations -- is the illumination of what isn't known, the lighting  up of what is under a rock, of what has been hidden."
 
In 2002, she was among those signing "Not In Our Name: A Statement Of Conscience Against War And Repression."  Meredith Tax remembers Paley at Women's WORLD:  "Grace and I became close during the PEN Congress of 1986, during which we organized a meeting to protest the inadequate number of women speakers, which took over the ballroom of the Essex House Hotel and led to the formation of a Women's Committee in PEN American Center.  Grace and I were co chairs of that committee until she moved to Vermont, and she became founding Chair of Women's World in 1994. Grace was the kindest and most generous person I have ever known.  This is unusual in a writer, especially one of her quality, because writers tend to husband their inner resources for their work, but Grace had so many inner resources that she could afford to be generous.  She gave unstining love to her family and friends, took speaking engagements at any whistlestop, often without pay, organized antiwar and antinuclear and women's demonstrations, worked endlessly against nuclear armaments, did draft counseling, protested on behalf of the environment, free expression, and a just peace betwen Israel and Palestine."
 
In addition, Matthew Rothschild interviewed Paley for Progressive Radio and Neda Ulaby (NPR) provides an audio overview of Paley's life and work.  In terms of writing, "My Father Addresses Me On The Facts Of Old Age" (June 17, 2002) is available online at The New Yorker.
 
 

Sick sense of humor? Visit Yahoo! TV's Comedy with an Edge to see what's on, when.
Posted by at

NOW with David Brancaccio looks at war resistance tonight

A police officer and a woman and young child died today in Samarra. Sameer N. Yacoub (AP) reports:

Sixty suspected al-Qaida in Iraq fighters hit national police facilities in a coordinated attack in Samarra, sparking two hours of fighting that saw three people killed and more than a dozen insurgents captured, police said Friday.
The masked attackers drove into the city at dusk Thursday in about 20 vehicles, including pickups with machine-guns, then split into small groups and assaulted four police checkpoints and a headquarters building, a Samarra police official said.

Meanwhile, Reuters reports that 3 "secularist ministers . . . will formally quit" the cabinet of Nour al-Maliki today and that three are from Iyad Allawi's party. As Democracy Now! noted yesterday, Allawyi is working with "Republican lobbying firm Barbour, Griffith, and Rogers" in an effort to become the new prime minister of Iraq (Allawi was previously interim prime minister). Allawi was (and maybe possibly still be) a CIA asset. Jim Lobe (writing at Foreign Policy in Focus on December 18, 2003, noted by Lynda) summarized the then current situation in Iraq:

While the neo-cons continue to try to bolster their favorites on the Iraqi Governing Council, primarily Ahmed Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), the "realists" are more inclined to work with others on the Council, notably Ayad Alawi, leader of the Iraqi National Accord (INA), long a CIA favorite.
During the 1990s, the two groups, both of which boasted high-ranking secret contacts within the Iraqi army and intelligence services, competed for influence in Washington, but, with the empowerment of the neo-conservatives after 9/11 and Bush's decision to give the Pentagon the lead in the war on terrorism, the INC became clearly dominant. The two groups fundamentally distrust and detest each other. The INC has always contended that the INA was heavily infiltrated by Iraq's intelligence services and that, in any case, many of its operatives were Ba'athists whose democratic credentials were questionable at best. The INA, on the other hand, that the INC was essentially a vehicle for Chalabi's personal ambitions as opposed to a movement that could mobilize significant sectors of the population.
Their major differences at the moment are over the CPA's "Iraqification" plans. Chalabi, who helped persuade the Pentagon neo-cons to summarily disband the army after the war, has long called for a thorough de-Ba'athification of Iraq, particularly in the military and police. INA, on the other hand, has long argued that purges should be kept to a minimum in order to ensure the cooperation and loyalty of competent officials and military officers in post-war Iraq.
In the run-up to the next June's scheduled transfer of sovereignty from the CPA to a provisional government, both parties are now pursuing their separate but largely contradictory agendas. While the Pentagon leadership continues to support Chalabi's efforts to launch a wide-ranging de-Ba'athification by, for example, blacklisting companies close to Saddam Hussein for new contracts or sponsoring laws that would enable tribunals to prosecute even mid-ranking Ba'athist officials, Alawi's INA is working with the CIA and U.S. military authorities in Baghdad to recruit former Ba'athist intelligence officials into a new service that is being deployed against the insurgents. INA has also lobbied hard for accelerating "Iraqification" of the army and security forces.
All of these incoherencies reflect the lack of an underlying strategy behind which the key factional interests back in Washington are united, a unity that has long eluded the Bush administration. And while Bush has clearly been tilting away from the hawks in favor of the realists over the past two months, incoherence is likely to persist so long as both forces retain the ability to undermine each other.

When Allawi was briefly in power after the US began the illegal war he was reported to have killed prisoners. From Paul McGeough's "Allawi Shot Inmates in Cold Blood, Say Witnesses" (Sydney Morning Herald via Common Dreams, July 2004):


Iyad Allawi, the new Prime Minister of Iraq, pulled a pistol and executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station, just days before Washington handed control of the country to his interim government, according to two people who allege they witnessed the killings.
They say the prisoners - handcuffed and blindfolded - were lined up against a wall in a courtyard adjacent to the maximum-security cell block in which they were held at the Al-Amariyah security center, in the city's south-western suburbs.
They say Dr Allawi told onlookers the victims had each killed as many as 50 Iraqis and they "deserved worse than death".

In this morning's New York Times, James Glanz and Stephen Farrell report that the Bully Boy's escalation has led to an escalation in the amount of Iraqi refugees. Citing figures by the Iraqi Red Crescent, the reporters declare "the total number of internally displaced Iraqis has more than doubled, to 1.1 million from 499,000, since the buildup [of troops -- the escalation] started in February." Citing no known figures, the reporters contrast this was the alleged "evidence that the troop buildup has improved security in certain areas". This was the talking point put out by the US military but they refused to release any figures for the claim.

And Lloyd notes Josh White's "U.S. Falters In Bid to Boost Iraqi Business" (Washington Post):

More than a year after the Pentagon launched an ambitious effort to reopen Iraqi factories and persuade U.S. firms to purchase their goods, defense officials acknowledge that the initiative has largely failed because American retailers have shown little interest in buying products made in Iraq.
The Pentagon thought U.S. firms would be willing to help revitalize the war-torn Iraqi economy and create jobs for young men who might otherwise join the insurgency. But the effort -- once considered a pillar of the U.S. strategy in Iraq, alongside security operations and political reform -- has suffered from a pervasive lack of security and an absence of reliable electricity and other basic services.

Reminder: On this week's NOW with David Brancaccio (PBS, beings airing in most markets tonight):

Choosing to go to war is both a government's decision and one made by individual enlistees. But changing your mind once you're in the army is a risky decision with serious consequences. On Friday, August 24 (checkyour local listings), we talk to two soldiers who went AWOL and eventually left the Army, but who took very different paths. NOW captures the moment when one man turns himself in, and when another applies for refugee status in Canada, becoming one of the 20,000 soldiers who have deserted the army since the War in Iraq began. Each describes what drove him to follow his conscience over his call to duty, and what penalties and criticism were endured as a result. "I see things differently having lived through the experience," former army medic Agustin Aguayo tells NOW. "When I returned from Iraq, after much reflection I knew deep within me I could never go back."The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into the case made by conscientious objectors, as well as more stories of desertion in the ranks.

In addition a preview of the show is posted at YouTube.

Already this morning, Reuters notes 26 Iraqis killed or found dead today.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Posted by at

US military announces the death of a US service member and the death of a prisoner in US custody

On this week's NOW with David Brancaccio (PBS, beings airing in most markets tonight):

Choosing to go to war is both a government's decision and one made by individual enlistees. But changing your mind once you're in the army is a risky decision with serious consequences. On Friday, August 24 (checkyour local listings), we talk to two soldiers who went AWOL and eventually left the Army, but who took very different paths. NOW captures the moment when one man turns himself in, and when another applies for refugee status in Canada, becoming one of the 20,000 soldiers who have deserted the army since the War in Iraq began. Each describes what drove him to follow his conscience over his call to duty, and what penalties and criticism were endured as a result.
"I see things differently having lived through the experience," former army medic Agustin Aguayo tells NOW. "When I returned from Iraq, after much reflection I knew deep within me I could never go back."The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into the case made by conscientious objectors, as well as more stories of desertion in the ranks.

In addition a preview of the show is posted at YouTube.

Also today, the US military announced: "One Task Force Lightning Soldier died Aug. 24 as a result of injuries sustained from an explosion earlier in the day while conducting operations in Salah ad Din Province. Four Soldiers were also wounded and transported to a Coalition medical facility for treatment." The current numbers at ICCC are 3725 US service members killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war with 67 for the month thus far.


Today, the US military also announced the death of another prisoner in US custody:

A security detainee died at the Theater Internment Facility at Camp Cropper, Iraq Aug. 23.
Preliminary medical tests indicate the cause of death was from acute renal failure.
The detainee was pronounced dead at 3:31 p.m. by an attending physician at Camp Cropper’s medical facility.
The body will be transported to mortuary affairs and the family will receive the remains upon completion of the investigation, in accordance with standard procedure.

Death by retinal failure? From the July 10th snapshot:

Today, the US military announced a death that took place Saturday: "A security detainee died at the Theater Internment Facility at Camp Cropper, Iraq July 7 from injuries sustained after apparently being assaulted by other detainees. The detainne was pronounced dead at 2:10 a.m. by an attending physician at Camp Cropper's medical facility. The incident is currently under investigation. The family will receive the remains upon completion of the investigation, in accordance with standar procedure." Isn't it great to know the US military has a "standard procedure" when dealing with the deaths of prisoners in American custudy? Did you catch the time? Two in the morning. Two in the morning, Saturday morning, and the US learns of it on a Tuseday.
So the detainee died from injuries sustained after apparently being assualted by other detainees"? And it's under investigation. Anyone thinking of October 30, 2006? That's when the US military announced: "A security detainee died Oct. 29 at Camp Cropper, Iraq, from apparent injuries sustained after being assaulted by other detainees. The incident is under investigation" and what were the results? Camp Cropper sure seems to have a lot of deaths. December 1, 2006, the US military announced: "A security detainee died Nov. 30 at Camp Cropper, Iraq, from what appears to be natural causes." There to they had the "investigation is pending" tossed in. December 6, 2006, the US military announced: "A security detainee died Dec. 2 at Camp Cropper, Iraq, from natural causes." April 6, 2007, the US military announced: "A security detainee died April 4 at Camp Cropper, Iraq." May 28, 2007, the US military announced: "A security detainee died May 26 at Camps Cropper, Iraq." So today's announcement means 6 deaths in less than 1 year. A reported record in the US would probably lead to cries for a prison investigation.

It's now 7 deaths in leass than a year.

Author and activist Grace Paley has died. Democracy Now! will note the passing today:

Grace Paley 1922-2007: We remember the acclaimed writer and poet byreplaying an interview with her from 2003 talking about the peacemovement and the role of poets in a time of war

Marcia passed on that. February 11, 2004, Democracy Now! noted:

Iraq Governing Council to Pay Ex-Iraqi President
The US-installed regime in Iraq said last night it would pay a monthly pension to a former president overthrown more than 35 years ago in a coup that brought Saddam Hussein's Baath party to power. The Iraqi Governing Council says it will pay Abdel-Rahman Aref $1,000 a month and allocate $5,000 to cover his medical bills in Jordan. Aref rose to prominence in 1963 when he was appointed army chief of staff by his elder brother, then President Abdel-Salam Aref. He was overthrown in July of 1968 in a coup that was aided by the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA also gave the Baath Party the names of some 5,000 Iraqi Communists who were then hunted down and killed or imprisoned. Following the coup, Baath party leader Ahmed Hasan al-Bakr became president, with Saddam as his right hand man.

Note the CIA involvement. Abdel-Salam Aref has died in Jordan and you can search the AP write up in vain for any mention of CIA involvement:

Three years later, the brother died in a plane crash and Iraqi army officers, said to have been supported by Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel-Nasser, chose the younger Aref to become Iraq's third president. The plane crash was believed to be a sabotage.
Aref was president until 1968, when he was toppled in a bloodless coup by the Baath Party, led at the time by Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr who became Iraq's next president. But Saddam was believed to have held behind-the-scenes power in the coup and later, until formally taking over the government in 1979.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
Posted by at

Thursday, August 23, 2007

And the war drags on . . .

Choosing to go to war is both a government's decision and one made by individual enlistees. But changing your mind once you're in the army is a risky decision with serious consequences. On Friday, August 24 (checkyour local listings), we talk to two soldiers who went AWOL and eventually left the Army, but who took very different paths. NOW captures the moment when one man turns himself in, and when another applies for refugee status in Canada, becoming one of the 20,000 soldiers who have deserted the army since the War in Iraq began. Each describes what drove him to follow his conscience over his call to duty, and what penalties and criticism were endured as a result.
"I see things differently having lived through the experience," former army medic Agustin Aguayo tells NOW. "When I returned from Iraq, after much reflection I knew deep within me I could never go back."
The NOW website at www.pbs.org/now will offer more insight into the case made by conscientious objectors, as well as more stories of desertion in the ranks.

The above is for this week's NOW with David Brancaccio which airs on PBS and begins airing tomorrow night in most markets. I'll try to note it in entries tomorrow as well. In addition a preview of the show is posted at YouTube. War resistance is very important. It's important to ending the illegal war and it's important in terms of the people who make the decision to resist an illegal war (the people include Brandi Key, Jill Hart, Hegla Aguayo, Monica Benderman and many others whose lives are effected by the decisions as well because of their relationships with war resisters -- all listed are the spouses of a war resister -- Joshua Key, Patrick Hart, Agustin Aguayo and Kevin Benderman -- that is not a complete listing). And when they tell their truths it does have an impact. Truth telling, period, has a big impact on ending the illegal war. Sherry noted to Rebecca who passes on to me Robert Parry's "Bush's Bogus Vietnam History Kills" (Consortium News):


It is often said that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. But a much worse fate may await countries whose leaders distort and falsify history. Such countries are doomed to experience even bloodier miscalculations.
That was the case with Germany after World War I when Adolf Hitler’s Nazis built a political movement based in part on the myth that weak politicians in Berlin had stabbed brave German troops in the back when they were on the verge of victory.
And it appears to be the case again today as President George W. Bush presents the history of the Vietnam War as a Rambo movie with the heroic narrative that if only the U.S. military had stuck it out, the war would have been won.
Or, more likely, the black wall of the Vietnam War Veterans Memorial would stretch most of the way to the U.S. Capitol.
After hearing his selective historical rendition of the Vietnam experience in his Aug. 22 address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, one is tempted to ask Bush what he would have done as President in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Presumably, Bush would have prolonged or escalated the Vietnam War, although it’s doubtful he would have called up the Texas Air National Guard where he was safely ensconced, while skipping his flight physical and seeking an early discharge.

Calling Bully Boy out for his lies is important. And credit to news outlets who took (made) the time to cover the reaction in Vietnam to Bully Boy's lies:

The only way to restore order in Iraq is for the United States to leave, said Trinh Xuan Thang, a university student.
"Bush sent troops to invade Iraq and created all the problems there," Thang said.
If the U.S. withdrew, he said, the violence might escalate in the short term but the situation would eventually stabilize.
"Let the Iraqis determine their fate by themselves," Thang said. "They don't need American troops there."

That's a pretty obvious (and true) evaluation. But the administration is far too busy spinning to deal with truth. If you missed it, today White House flack Gordon Johndroe declared (in Crawford, TX) that "we know that there are significant challenges ahead, especially in the political area. I would say that the strategy laid out by the President on January 10th was a strategy that provided for security first, so that there would be space for political reconciliation. The surge did not get fully operational until mid-summer. It is not surprising -- it is frustrating, but it's not surprising that the political reconciliation is lagging behind the security improvements. I think that is the way the strategy was laid out." There are no security improvements. And what's really shocking about that is the so many in the press corps were happy to take the US government's word on it (after all the lies they've told about this illegal war).

One more time, Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting earlier this month that the US military claims of 'progress' were based on numbers they would not release and that McClatchy Newspapers' figures do not track with the findings the US military has trumpeted: "U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent. But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim." They "declined to provide specific numbers" but didn'tf we didn't all get that false claim shoved down our throats as fact? What does that say about the press? That they haven't learned a damn thing? That they're still taking stenography as opposed to reporting? That the same administration that lied to start an illegal war can still get away with lying becuse the majority of the press will not challenge it, will not call it out, but will gladly repeat it. And in doing so, they prolong the illegal war.


They're just there to try and make the people free,
But the way that they're doing it, it don't seem like that to me.
Just more blood-letting and misery and tears
That this poor country's known for the last twenty years,
And the war drags on.
-- words and lyrics by Mick Softly (available on Donovan's Fairytale)

Last Thursday, ICCC's number of US troops killed in Iraq since the start of the illegal war was 3702. Tonight? 3724 with 66 for the month. Just Foreign Policy's current total for the number of Iraqis killed since the start of the illegal war stands at 1,018,263.

Maybe thirty years from now President Jenna Bush or President Chelsea Clinton can distort the reality of this illegal war to justify another one?

Today James Glanz and Stephen Farrell (New York Times) reported: "Armed groups increasingly control the antiquated switching stations that channel electricity around Iraq, the electricity minister said Wednesday." They tell you that was revealed in an official press conference but wasn't on the agenda (it came up due to questions asked of an Iraqi ministry official, Karim Wahid). If true (I'm not doubting the reporter's abilities but various ministries have a habit of finding excuses for services not provided), it goes to the fact (since this has reportedly been ongoing since 2003) that there is not now and has not been security in Baghdad. If it's true, the administration has certainly known about it for sometime (US administration) and it hasn't been an issue or a priority. That's partly due to the fact that the whole point was to 'schock' the Iraqis while destroying their economic system in place and imposing a neocon wetdream. If true, the US has allowed basic services to be denied. And Reuters reports that in Syria a water treaty is being asked for regarding the Tigris and Euphrates rivers:

"The problem is growing and we need an agreement. There is speculation that the next regional war will be about water, but more conflict does not achieve anything," Water Resources Minister Abdul Latif Rasheed told Reuters in the Syrian capital.

The next regional war? What is Abdul Latif Rasshed implying about the current one? And what has the US done (while the occupying power for over four years) to esnure not only potable water but access to any water? It would appear nothing because this 'crisis' did not just emerge overnight.

Along with the obligations an occupying power (the legal obligations), the US government especially should have paid attention to the issue of the water because of the history involved.
Lauren notes Thomas J. Nagy's "The Secret Behind the Sanctions: How the U.S. Intentionally Destroyed Iraq's Water Supply" (The Progressive, September 2001 issue -- part of the archives the magazine is now putting up online):

Over the last two years, I've discovered documents of the Defense Intelligence Agency proving beyond a doubt that, contrary to the Geneva Convention, the U.S. government intentionally used sanctions against Iraq to degrade the country's water supply after the Gulf War. The United States knew the cost that civilian Iraqis, mostly children, would pay, and it went ahead anyway.
The primary document, "Iraq Water Treatment Vulnerabilities," is dated January 22, 1991. It spells out how sanctions will prevent Iraq from supplying clean water to its citizens.
"Iraq depends on importing specialized equipment and some chemicals to purify its water supply, most of which is heavily mineralized and frequently brackish to saline," the document states. "With no domestic sources of both water treatment replacement parts and some essential chemicals, Iraq will continue attempts to circumvent United Nations Sanctions to import these vital commodities. Failing to secure supplies will result in a shortage of pure drinking water for much of the population. This could lead to increased incidences, if not epidemics, of disease."
The document goes into great technical detail about the sources and quality of Iraq's water supply. The quality of untreated water "generally is poor," and drinking such water "could result in diarrhea," the document says. It notes that Iraq's rivers "contain biological materials, pollutants, and are laden with bacteria. Unless the water is purified with chlorine, epidemics of such diseases as cholera, hepatitis, and typhoid could occur."
The document notes that the importation of chlorine "has been embargoed" by sanctions. "Recent reports indicate the chlorine supply is critically low."
Food and medicine will also be affected, the document states. "Food processing, electronic, and, particularly, pharmaceutical plants require extremely pure water that is free from biological contaminants," it says.

In the face of that, the mass kidnapping, the continued chaos and violence, the White House wants to say that, with the escalation, the focus was on 'security.' No one's been made secure in Iraq. What region? The southern region where Iraqi governors are assassinated (the same region that the British will soon pull out of)? The northern section where over 500 people died as a result of multiple bombings last week (on Tuesday)? Even the Green Zone is under attack these days.

"Security" with regards to Iraq appears to be used the same manner in which the White House applies it to America. A lot of money tossed to cronies and the average citizens see their services cut. Iraq: The New United States.

As Naomi Klein has pointed out [Klein's "Baghdad Year Zero," Harper's magazine ], Iraq was supposed to be the free enterprise lab. Not because the US government was attempting to win a science fair but because the hope was to take the 'success' in Iraq and impose on other areas. It was a toy for the administration. They could trash it because the plan was never about 'helping' Iraqis.

Or about listening to them. Which is why when the inhabitants of the country the White House maintains they are 'liberating' want US troops out of Iraq, they can (and are) ignored. Which brings us back to the points the Vietnamese college student, Trinh Xuan Thang, was making, let the Iraqis determine their own fate. "They don't need US troops there." Four years after the illegal war started, malnutrition on the rise, the refugee crisis continuing, electricity and potable water remain (at best) iffy. It's time for the foreign forces to leave Iraq. More 'helping' means more deaths.

The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.



Posted by at

Iraq snapshot

Thursday, August 23, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue, women and children taken in a mass kidnapping in Iraq, the US military announces another death, Bully Boy lies (again) and largely gets a pass (again), Bill Richardson speaks frankly, and more.
 
 
 
AMY GOODMAN: Talk first about this decision of Iraq Veterans Against the War, a group of, what, more than 500 people to actively encourage war resistance?   
   
CAMILO MEJIA: Last count was 525 members, with new members joining every day, Amy. And the decision was made to, as an organization, support war resistance within the military as a way to undermine the war effort.         
 
JUAN GONZALEZ: And in terms of the growth of that resistance movement over the last couple of years -- obviously since you were one of the first -- how do you see that developing?
 
CAMILO MEJIA: I think we've come a long way from the time when I resisted the war. Like Amy said, I was the first public combat veteran to refuse to redeploy to Iraq. Back then, when I went public with my refusal to go back to the war, we had approximately twenty-two cases of desertion in the military. And then, by the time I got out of jail, that number was 5,500. Today, it's over 10,000 people within the military who are refusing to go to the war in Iraq since the war started. And just to put it in perspective, that's almost like saying like the 101st Airborne Division was wiped out by desertion or AWOL, basically people not wanting to fight the war.
 
AMY GOODMAN: How many?
 
CAMILO MEJIA: Over 10,000 people. So that's the equivalent to an Army division.
 
Over the weekend, Iraq Veterans Against the War held their board elections and Mejia was elected as the new chair.  On the issue of those who self-check out, Mejia noted that despite claims that the military isn't going after them, it is happening and cited Suzanne Swift as one specific example noting she is among the "cases of people who have not yet gone public and yet have been seized in their home" and that Swift was "apprehended by police without even a search warrant at her mother's house, and she had not gone public at that time.  And she had refused to go back to the war, because she had been subject to military sexual assault and command rape from her leadership and being forced to go back to the war with the same unit and with the same people who had attacked her."  Swift received no justice.  A military white wash investigation did find 'some' validity in her recount of the ordeal she endured but instead of doing the right thing and immediately discharge with full benefits and a honorable discharge, instead of stating publicly, "This never should have happened and we apologize to Suzanne Swift and promise we are addressing this systemic issue," they refused to discharge her, they punished her and there's been no Congressional oversight despite the fact that Swift's case is not an isolated one.  In September 2006, US House Rep Peter DeFazio declared that Congress would investigate the case and that he would be the one leading that.  Of course, September 2006 was before the 2006 elections and the Democratically controlled Congress hasn't shown much spine since they were swept into office claiming they would end the illegal war.  As Sara Rich, Swift's mother, explained of DeFazio to Jennifer Zahn Spieler (Women's eNews) in December 2006, "His office gave us a lot of red tape.  And he basically laughed at our petition.  I walked away feeling rather humiliated by him."
 
AMY GOODMAN: Now you have become chair of Iraq Veterans Against the War, and you are launching the organization Truth in Recruiting campaign in September. Can you explain what that is?
 
CAMILO MEJIA: Sure. Well, we are launching a number of actions that we had, and Truth in Recruiting is one of them. What we're basically going to do is we are going to continue doing what we have been doing, but we're going to up the tempo. We are going to increase the number of members who are going to go into high schools to inform young people about the reality of the military and about the reality of war. Far from telling them not to join the military, we are going to tell them, "You want to join the military, this is what could happen to you. This is what's happened to our members. This is what the contract means. This is what stop-loss is. This is what conscientious objection is," so to basically inform them and thus empower them to make an informed decision.
We are going to go into recruiters' offices, and we're going to talk to the recruiters. And this, in time, is going to -- in turn, is going to take up their time, so they're not, you know, out there basically lying to young people about, you know, the many wonderful benefits of the military, without talking about the realities of war.
And we're going to continue doing, you know, what we're doing. We're going to continue going out into recruiting events. And we just had one action, actually, at the St. Louis conference. Across the street, there was a convention, an African American expo, where they had the America's Army game, and they were basically targeting like, you know, kids as young as twelve years of age, you know, teaching them that the military is cool and the military is good for you. And, you know, about ninety of us went in there, and, you know, we had this very military-style formation. And, you know, we all sounded off, saying, you know, "War is not a game. War is not a game. War is not a game." And then we leafleted the families and the youth with our fliers, you know, that talk about the reality of being in the military, which talk about our position as veterans against the war. And this is basically what's behind this campaign and this effort, you know, to basically inform young people about the realities of the military.
 
In Aimme Allison and David Solnit's new book Army of None -- from Seven Stories press, available at book stores, online, and via Courage to Resist  --  one of the stories they recount is a high school counselor who was happy to invite the US military on campus and thrilled to steer students to them (especially to the Coast Guard) until he was given some information that included the military contract service members sign:
 
Reading the language of the military enlistment contract changed Brian's mind about promoting the military option to his students.  Section 9b reads, "Laws and regulations that govern military personnel may change without notice to me.  Such changes may change my status, pay, allowances, benefits, and responsibilities as a member of the Armed Forces REGARDLESS of the provisions of this enlistment/reenlistment document."  section 10d2 reads, "I may be ordered to active duty for 24 months, and my enlistment may be extended."  In other words, the military enlistment contract isn't a real contract.  The military does not legally have to honor its promises to the enlistee.  That was enough to change this counselor's opinion of the service" (pages 10 - 12). 
 
It should be noted that Camilo Mejia's contract was 'extended' -- he was one of the many whom the military decided to 'stop loss' aka backdoor draft.  The US military couldn't do that and US Senator Bill Nelson and elements within the military knew that (Mejia was a non-citizen, non-citizen's cannot be extended).  Mejia tells his story in  Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia  but we should note again that he had completed his service and should have been sent home.  Those who attempt to argue "You signed a contract!" have no concerns over the fact that it's a one-sided document.  In Allison and Solnit's book they explore the contracts and how to convey the actual realities. 
 
Truth in Recruting is an attempt to get those and other realities out.  Adam Kokesh (Sgt. Kokesh Goes to Washington) reports on last week's Truth in Recruitng workshop in Berkeley "a sort of trial run for the format that I have created. . . .  The next one for me is this Friday in Santa Fe.  The Santa Fe Chapter of Veterans For Peace (especially Ken Murray) has been a great help in setting this up and promoting it."  Kokesh also notes the new board members of IVAW including Mejia as chair, Kokesh as co-chiar, Phil Aliff as secretary and Margaret Stevens as treasurer and encourages everyone to check out Meeting Resistance an "incredibly powerful" documentary.
 
Aimee Allison and David Solnit remind, in Army Of None, that if you're handing out information about the realities of recruitment, it's a good idea to have the information in more than one language based on the diversity of the community.  Juan Gonzales addressed with Mejia (on Democracy Now! today) the fact that enrollment for African-Americans in the military is declining while Latinos are now being heavily targeted.  Meija noted, "Some people may have heard about the DREAM Act, through which the military hopes to recruit undocumented youth who are graduating from high school.  The proposal is to serve two years in the military or go to college for two years and then get your green card, which 65,000 people who are undocumented and graduate from high school and are not eligible for financial aid from the federal government are not going to be able to go to college for two years.  So, you know, this is one of the ways in which, you know, the military is targeting young immigratns, mostly Latinos, to join the military."
 
Tonight, Camilo Mejia had a reading from his book  Road from Ar Ramaid: The Private Rebellion of Staff Sergeant Mejia at Different Drummer  at 6:30 pm.  Friday he has events in Syracuse (click here and check out the sidebar).
 
There is a growing movement of resistance within the US military which includes Timothy Richard, Robert Weiss, Phil McDowell, Steve Yoczik, Ross Spears, Zamesha Dominique, Jared Hood, James Burmeister, Eli Israel, Joshua Key, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Carla Gomez, Luke Kamunen, Leif Kamunen, Leo Kamunen, Camilo Mejia, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Agustin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Abdullah Webster, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Mark Wilkerson, Patrick Hart, Ricky Clousing, Ivan Brobeck, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, Clifton Hicks, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Joshua Casteel, Katherine Jashinski, Dale Bartell, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Chris Capps, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake, Christopher Mogwai, Christian Kjar, Kyle Huwer, Vincent La Volpa, DeShawn Reed and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty-one US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.
 
Information on war resistance within the military can be found at The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, Iraq Veterans Against the War and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters. Tom Joad maintains a list of known war resisters.
 
Turning to the Bully Boy.  Yesterday he made ridiculous claims regarding Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia and did so in an attempt to resell his tired but ongoing illegal war. As Jane Fonda notes in the incredible documentary Sir! No Sir!,  "You know, people say, 'Well you keep going back, why are you going back to Vietnam?' We keep going back to Vietnam because I'll tell you what, the other side does. They're always going back. And they have to go back -- the Hawks, you know, the patriarchs. They have to go back because, and they have to revise the going back, because they can't allow us to know what the back there really was."  Jim Rutenberg, Sheryl Gay Stolber, Mark Mazzetti, Damien Cave and Erich Schmitt (New York Times) observe: "With his comments Mr. Bush was doing something few major politicians of either party have done in a generation: rearguing a conflict that ended more than three decades ago but has remained an emotional touch point."  As Ron Jacobs (CounterPunch) observes, "Beware, this is only the beginning of a new effort to sell these wars.  The next salvo will take place on September 11, 2007, when General Petraeus, the latest general to run the war in Iraq, presents his commercial for an extended surge and an increased commitment to the ongoing occupation of that country.  Of course, the date has 'absolutely nothing' to do with the anniversary of the attacks in New York and Virginia six years ago."
 
 
 
Bully Boy made ridiculous comments about how US withdrawl from Vietnam led to a host of things when the realities are that the illegal war itself led to that.  Bully Boy felt the need to speak of new vocabulary the withdrawal created (it didn't create it) and while it's nice to know he is attempting to increase his Word Power, let's explore some of the actual vocabulary that illegal war did create.  "Double veteran" was someone who killed a woman after he'd had sex with her.  "Expactants" was a 'cute' term for those who were 'expected' to die.  "Glad bags" were body bags and "litters" were what the dead and wounded were carried on. "Willie Peter" which was white phosphorus added to napalm to prevent water from stopping the burning of skin. "Fragging" which was when those serving under an officer elected to kill him often with a grenade.  "Dust offs" were when service members were medicially evacuated by helicopter.  Those are only some of the words that illegal war added to the vocabularly. 
 
Historian Douglas Brinkley tells Michael Tackett (Chicago Tribune),  "If we get into a Vietnam argument, the country is divided, but if you are going to try to sell this concept that the blood is on the American people's hands because we left and were weak-kneed in Asia, that is a very tenuous and inane historical argument."  Political analyst Bruce Cain tells Carolyn Tyler (KGO News) that what Bully Boy is "trying to do is use a conservative argument to rally the conservative base because what he fears is not that Nancy Pelosi and the democrats are going to vote for withdrawal. What he fears is members of his own party are going to join in."  On the rollout attempt to resell the illegal war, Massimo Calabresi (Time magazine) explains, "The speech marks the start of a weeks-long campaign in the run-up to the politically charged September report card to be delivered to Congress by General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker.  Bush will give a second speech next week at the American Legion in Reno, Nevada, and another a week later on a trip to the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit taking place this year in Sydney, Australia.  The speeches will coincide with the launch of a $15 million ad campaign by a group called 'Freedom's Watch' -- which counts former Bush press secretary Air Fleischer as one of its founders -- aimed at bolstering flagging support for the war."
 
This is an atttempt massive rollout and that's why it needs to be called out in real time.  Not a week later, not a few weeks later.  Today, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez (Democracy Now!) spoke with Inter Press Service (IPS) journalist and historian Garth Porter who said of Bully Boy's ridiculous speech:
 
Well, you know, it reminds me very much of the way in which, of course, Richard Nixon used the threat of a bloodbath in Vietnam as the primary argument for continuing that war for four more years after he came to power in 1969. And really, it seems to me, the lesson of the Vietnam War that should be now debated and discussed is really the way in which Nixon could have ended that war when he came to power, negotiated a settlement and avoided the extension of that war into Cambodia, which happened because Nixon did not do that.   
Had Nixon listened to the antiwar movement and the American people by 1969 and ended that war, there would not have been the overthrow of Norodom Sihanouk in 1970. There would not have been the extension of the war into Cambodia. There would not have been the rise of the Khmer Rouge. When Sihanouk was overthrown, we tend to forget that the Khmer Rouge was really an insignificant movement. They were about 2,500 or 3,000 very poorly armed soldiers or guerillas. And it was really the extension of the Vietnam War into Cambodia which made the Khmer Rouge the powerful movement that they were.         
So really, you know, the lesson of Vietnam that we should be hearing, which we should have heard for the last three decades, but we haven't, is that government officials in the White House simply do not pay attention to the real consequences of the wars that they wage. They seem to be totally unable to take account of the destabilizing ways that the wars that they wage affect not only the country in which the war is being waged, but then the neighboring countries, as well.
 
Meanwhile, CBS and AP report the Bully Boy "touched a nerve among Vietnamese when he invoked the Vietnam War in a speech . . . People in Vietnam, where opposition to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq is strong, said Thursday that Mr. Bush drew the wrong conclusions from the long, bloody Southeast Asian conflict.  'Doesn't he realize that if the U.S. had stayed in Vietnam longer, they would have killed more people?' said Vu Huy Trieu of Hanoi, a veteran of the communist forces that fought American troops in Vietnam. 'Nobody regreats that the Vietnam War wasn't prolonged except Bush. . . Does he think the U.S. could have won if they had stayed longer?  No way'."
 
Anne Zook (Peevish . . . I'm Just Saying) notes Bully Boy was "saying that we can't leave Iraq because then it would be like Vietnam.  It's not like Vietnam now, you understand.  We didn't charge in there uninvited and start slaughtering people right and left with no clear idea of what we were dealing with and no rational plan for how wholesale killing was going to make things better."  Rebecca addressed the topic of Vietnam in "robert parry, vietnam," Mike in "Ron Fullwood, William S. Lind," Elaine in "Matthew Rothschild, John Nichols, Katha Pollitt," and Kat in "Glen Ford, Iraq, Vietnam" yesterday.  Today Ira Chernus (Common Dreams) notes that the Dems are caving on Iraq and buying the myth of 'progress' so he suggests, "The alternative is to refuse to take the administration's new bait.  The antiwar movement could refuse to use Iraq as a backdrop and Iraqis as extras in a drama about the trials and tribulations of America.  Instead, we could insist that the issue is not about how well our soldiers are doing or what is happening here at home.  It's about what is happening in Iraq, where ordinary people like us have been dying and suffering in horrifying numbers ever since we occupied their country.  We have no magic button that we can push to end the tragedy now.  But we can do our best to refocus the debate on the real terror: the terror endured by the Iraqi people who live under military occupation every day."
 
 
Turning to the violence in Iraq, yesterday Damien Cave and James Glanz (New York Times) noted that the death toll from last week's bombings in northern Iraq (Tuesday) had passed 500 with over 1,500 injured.  On yesterday's US helicopter crash in Iraq, Joshua Partlow (Washington Post) notes that US military flack Michael Donnelly maintains, "The helicopter was not shot down".  Remember that if and when the investigation concludes differently. The Honolulu Advertiser notes: "Ten Hawai'i soldiers were among those killed when a Army Black Hawk helicopter crashed today in northern Iraq".  Heather L. VanDyke (Muskegon Chronicle) notes 30-year-old Matthew Tallman was among the dead and AP notes that some of the dead "were based in Hawaii; others in Washington state" and that the 14's home states included California, Texas, Washington, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Missouri and Ohio.
 
Today in Iraq . . .
 
Bombings?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad roadside bombing claimed 1 life (five wounded). Reuters notes a Baghdad mortar attack that claimed 2 lives (four injured), a mortar attack in Kut that claimed 2 lives (six wounded)
 
Shootings?
 
Reuters notes one person dead in Mosul from a drive-by shooting and "At least 25 people were killed in a battle between Sunni Arab militants and al Qaeda in villages near Baquba" in a battle involving mortars and gun fire.
 
Kidnappings?
 
Mariam Karouny (Reuters) reports that "15 women and children" were kidnapped following the battle outside Baquba.
 
Corpses?
 
Hussein Kadhim (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 12 corpses discovered in Baghdad.  Reuters notes 2 corpses discovered in Mosul.
 
Today the US military announced: "A Multi-National Division-Baghdad Soldier was killed and four others wounded during combat operations in an area west of the Iraqi capital Aug. 22."  Currently ICCC shows 3723 as the number of US service members killed in the illegal war since it started with 65 for the month thus far.
 
In political news, Reuters reports US Senator John Warner has stated Bully Boy needs to use September 15th to make an announcements that he will begin withdrawing troops from Iraq. On Warner's request for a phased withdrawal to begin, AP quotes him stating, "We simply cannot as a nation stand and continue to put our troops at continuous risk of loss of life and limb without beginning to take some decisive action."  Warner's statements come as the spin flies around the supposed 'progress' that's not happening.  We'll again note Leila Fadel (McClatchy Newspapers) reporting earlier this month that the US military claims of 'progress' were based on numbers they would not release and that McClatchy Newspapers' figures do not track with the findings the US military has trumpeted (and many, most recently the Los Angeles Times have swallowed and spat back at readers): "U.S. officials say the number of civilian casualties in the Iraqi capital is down 50 percent.  But U.S. officials declined to provide specific numbers, and statistics gathered by McClatchy Newspapers don't support the claim."
 
Staying on the topic of politics and the lack of progress, US Democratic presidental hopeful
Bill Richardson released a statement noting the absurdity of Bully Boy's speech ("The correct conclusion to draw from our experience in Vietnam is that dragging out the process of withdrawal will be tragically worse in the terms of U.S. lives lost and worse for the Iraqi's themselves in terms of the ultimate instability we will create by staying longer") and addressed Hillary Clinton's some days 'up' attitude on the escalation, sometimes 'down':
 
I am pleased that Senator Clinton, today, recognizes that the surge has produced no progress of any long term significance to the Iraq debacle. That is different from what she said yesterday to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. But, it is that audience, who has sacrificed more than any of us, who deserves to hear a clear statement that our sons and daughters and mothers and fathers are not going to be sacrificed because of an irrational commitment to a failed strategy.
The President is asking the country to wait for next month's progress report from General Petraeus. The chances are that report will be just another White House spin job and attempt to justify this war. This has been the bloodiest summer yet -- our troops have done an admirable job at trying to make a bad idea work, but the surge has failed, the war has failed, Bush has failed. It is time to end this war and bring all of our troops home as soon as possible. I'm glad Hillary Clinton has retracted her comments yesterday and has declared the surge a failure today -- but I still haven't gotten an answer to my question -- a peace in Iraq will fail as long as we leave troops behind -- how many would you leave behind? Every other major candidate would leave thousands of US troops in Iraq for an indefinite. I will leave no U.S. forces there. Zero.
The only way out of the Iraq mess is to remove all U.S. troops, and to use that leverage to get the warring parties to resolve their differences, and surrounding Muslim nations to help stabilize the country. Any residual U.S. force reduces the chances for success, and exposes our troops as targets. Our brave troops, and the American people, deserve better.
 
John Walcott (McClatchy Newspapers) reports that that US National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) finds that "to date, Iraq's political leaders remain unable to govern effectively."  The NIE was released today [PDF format of the report can be read here].  CBS and AP quote from the report: "The strains of the security situation and absence of key leaders have stalled internal political debates, slowed national decision-making, and increased Maliki's vulnerability to alternative coalitions" and "CBS News correspondent Tara Mergener reports tension is growing between President Bush and the prime minister after Mr. Bush appeared to back away from al-Maliki earlier this week when he said: 'Clearly, the Iraqi government's got to do more'."
 
Finally, Ali al-Fadhily (IPS) reports on the victims of those 'prescision' US airstrikes bringing 'liberation' to Iraqis and quotes Kassim Hussein, "This is not the first time that we have heard nice words about military operations that they say aim for our security and prosperity.  Yet every time it was more killing, sieges and poverty.  It is a war that we did not have to fight, but we are the biggest losers every time it is ignited by the Americans."
 
 
x

Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase.
Posted by at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)