Monday, March 26, 2007

Iraq snapshot

Monday, March 27, 2007.  Chaos and violence continue in Iraq, KPFK Lila Garrett (Connect the Dots) and, on WBAI's Law and Disorder, guest Anthony Arnove note that the Pelosi measure that pass Friday is full of holes (on KPFA the myth that all US troops will be brought home continues to be broadcast -- again, Charlie Gibon's not the only one who needs someone to do on air corrections for his 'news' delivered), Zalmay gets a good-bye farewell from the Iraqi resistance, and, for news on Iran, stick with Patrick Cockburn.
 
 
On KPFK's Connect the Dots with Lila Garrett today, Garrett spoke with US House Reps Barbara Lee and Dennis Kuckinich -- both of whom voted against the Pelosi measure and Dennis Kucinich is also running to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008.
 
Garrett: What is good in this bill?
 
Lee: Just having the House of Representatives establishing a timeline is good.  Whether you agree or disagree with the timeline, whether it's enforceable is another question.. . .
 
Garrett: Barbara Lee, we want to know what's enforceable?  Is the banning of permanent bases enforceable?  Is the banning of torture enforceable? 
 
Lee: It's enforceable if the Bush administration wants to follow the law.  But, remember now, he's going to veto this bill and, remember, the only enforceability that you can require on a supplemental bill is taking him to court -- Congress can take the Bush administration to court.  But how many times have you seen the Congress take the  administration to court?
 
Lee went on to note the things in the bill such as its attempt to address avian flu and other non-bird related and, certainly, non-Iraq related issues.
 
Garrett: You have a lot of good things here but my question is how much of it is enforceable and what you're telling us is that really, basically, none of it is enforceable  because he has the option should he decide that the circumstances warrant it  not to follow this bill, isn't that true?
 
Lee: Yeah, that's the waiver positon but also remember he's going to veto it . . .
 
For those who missed it, the answer to Lila Garrett's question, which she asked more than once, is that the Pelosi measure cannot be enforced -- or as Garrett noted near the end of the interview, "The bill forces him to do nothing."  (Contractors and a number of other issues -- including Iran were discussed.  Jeremy Scahill also was on the program to discuss his book on the mercenary company BlackWater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army which is a BuzzFlash premium -- those unable to listen to Garrett's interview can also check out BuzzFlash for their interview with Scahill.)  Garrett then spoke with Kucinich in an interview taped right after Friday's vote.
 
Kucinich: I voted against it and I voted against it because it will continue to fund the war through the end of the president's term.  That President Bush is talking about vetoing it is no small comfort. The Democrats essentially bought the war and now President Bush is saying even that isn't enough.
 
Garrett: The bill has contained with in it, some people will argue, and some of the Democrats argued, some very positive things.  The president wanted 93 billion dollars to continue the war and he got it, but there were 25 billion dollars worth of things, some of which were very worthwhile, 1.7 billion for the health care for the veterans, there was money for child and spousal abuse, there was money for contractor control, there was money that banned permanent bases, banned torture, that provided troop readyness.  What's your response to the so-called positives in this bill?
 
 
Kucinich:  Are you kidding?  The war's going to keep going through the end of President Bush's term.  No amount of attempt to sweeten this is going to make it anything but a mess.  We need to get out of Iraq, the Democrats have the power to do it. Why they chose not to excercise it today is beyond me but I will tell you this that the American people are going to have a rising demand for peace, they're fed up with this war, they're fed up with the Democratic party not standing up for the people,  And frankly the idea that somehow we can end the war somehow we can end this war if we just give it a little more time?  Baloney.  You end the war by ending a war you don't end the war by letting it go for another year or two.  And it's the same kind of thinking that got us into Iraq -- says, "Well, you know, we don't have any other alternative to go and attack Iraq and now we're saying we don't have any other alternative but to keep the war going for a year or two until we figure out what to do with it. We got to stop this war and I voted against it.
 
Kucinich and Garrett then discussed the reality of Iraq today ("bombed their country to smitheerens") and the nonsense behind the attitude that demandes "benchmarks" from an occupied, puppet government.  Kucinich then spoke of  "making the administration accountable for their actions."  Kucinich propsed a national discussion on impeachment.  To be clear for those who didn't hear or won't be able to listen, he's proposing a discussion of the topic -- he's not (or not yet) proposing introducing a bill in the House.  On why he's now bringing up this issue, Kucinich stated, "I didn't talk about it as long as there was a chance that we could stop this war but with Congress determined to give the president the money he wants to keep the war going, it appears that the war is going to just keep going no matter what and so I think, at this point, we need to get back to how we got into war.  We got into war because President Bush and Vice President Cheney lied to the American people.  You know what?  There's got to be consquences for that.  And I think it's time for us to have a discussion so I'd like to hear from your listeners, I'd like to hear from others as to whether or not this is the time to start talking about impeachement and the time to start drawing up resolutions of impeachment.
 
Garrett brought up a conversation she had with US Senator Ted Kennedy about impeachment where he asked her if she would like President Dick Cheney and Kucinich responded, "When you talk about resolutions you need to use the plural 'resolutions'."  To repeat, Kucinich is proposing a dialogue on this issue and, from that, other steps would or would not be taken.
 
On WBAI's Law and Disorder today, Michael Ratner noted that Anthony Arnove's latest book was IRAQ: The Logic of Withdrawal and asked him about the Congressional measure and what's been proposed by US Senators and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
 
Anthony Arnove: In terms of the proposal that's now in Congress about withdrawal it has about 8 million loopsholes.  First of all it refers to combat troops even those combat troops that it talks about setting a timetable for removing from Iraq -- that timetables is based on conditions so in other words at any point along the line they can say "well the conditions require us to continue as an occupying force".  Then, of course, it's not calling for a complete withdrawal of troops.  It's not talking about the mercenaries that the US is sponsoring in Iraq.
 
Ratner: Which are probably almost the equivalent of the US soldiers, right? It's over 100,000.
 
Arnove: Well there are more than 100,000 private contractors.  We don't know if all of those are involved as actual mercenaries  but certainly the second largest contigent of military force in Iraq is private contractors, not England -- which is what you hear about in the media.  But also the plans say nothing about removing US military bases.  They don't address the fact that today the US is building the largest embassy it has in the world in Baghdad.
 
Ratner: It's 300,000 square feet, right?
 
Arnove: It's just this enormous compound.  And it's very clear that they're going to stay that they want to establish military bases, that they want to establish a client regime in Iraq, they want to continue a presence in Iraq and they want to be able to not only control events in Iraq and, of course, control the oil in Iraq. but They want to be able to use Iraq as a staging ground to protect their power in the region particularly vis a vi Iran but also Syria and other countries.
 
Ranter and Arnove then discussed Antonia Juhasz' op-ed that ran in the New York Times regarding the oil privatization and how the issue was about the control -- who will get it, who won't, a weapon against other countries whose oil needs are growing such as China.  Michael Ratner is one of the co-hosts of Law and Disorder (Daliah Hashad, Michael Smith and Heidi Boghosian are also co-hosts) and that's the segment I heard but the firend who phoned (and held up the phone so I could hear) also wanted me to note that today's program features, in music between segments, a very strong acoustic performance of "People Have The Power" by Patti Smith.
 
I believe everything we dream
Can come to pass through our union
We can turn the world around
We can turn the earth's revolution
We have the power
People have the power . . .
"People Have The Power," written by Patti Smith, originally on her Dream of Life
 
Which also acts as segue to Howard Zinn who wrote (in The Progressive): "As I write this, Congress is debating timetables for withdrawal from Iraq.  In response to the Bush Administration's 'surge' of troops, and the Republicans' refusal to limit our occupation, the Democrats are behaving with their customary timidity, proposing withdrawal, but only after a year, or eighteen months.  And it seems they expect the anti-war movement to support them.  That was suggested in a recent message from MoveOn, which polled its members on the Democrat proposal saying that progressives in Congress, 'like many of us, don't think the bill goes far enough, but see it as the first concrete step to ending the war.'  Ironically, and shockingly, the same bill appropriates $124 billion in more funds to carry the war.  It's as if, before the Civil War, abolitionists agreed to postpone the emancipation of the slaves for a year, or two years, or five years, and coupled this iwth an appropriation of funds to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act.  When a social movement adopts the compromises of legislators, it has forgotten its role, which is to push and challenge the politicians, not to fall meekly behind them."
 
Also weighing in is Peace Mom Cindy Sheehan (via AfterDowningStreet.org) -- against the weak measure and against MoveOn while noting, "In 2002 the Democrats authorized Bush to invade Iraq (or any other country he deemed to support terrorism, for example Iran) in hope he would become involved in an unpopular war which would produce a Democratic White House.  The Democrats 2007 policy is equally political, and may have the paradoxical effect of producing Republican victories in 2008.  The prolongation of the occupation is now opposed by two-thirds of all Americans; we want our troops safely home by this Christmas, not politically chicanery.  As a consequence Americans now think even more poorly of Congress than ever; the failure to withdraw from Iraq dropped Democratic support of Congress from 44% to 33% according to the latest Gallup poll.  The Democrats failue to stem what has become a Democrats war will be a factor in the 2008 elections."
 
 
"Busy week here on the Hill, and I'm sure you know that the 110th Congress just bought the war in Iraq. On Monday, the 19th, the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, Military Families Speak Out held a press conference on the steps of the Cannon House building. We unveiled the Certificate of Ownership, complete with warranty -- the brainchild of MFSO member Tammara Rosenleaf, who stayed with me and is planning to return in April. (You can download the certificate at Military Families Speak Out) Iraq War veterans also spoke, taking a break from Operation First Casualty, which had them in uniform "patrolling and occupying" the streets of D.C. and Capitol Hill (Photos are available at http://digitalgrace.livejournal.com/ ). After the press conference, the veterans went deep into enemy territory i.e. the White House, and several dozen military family members and supporters went to Congresswoman Pelosi's office to pepper the staff with questions, and make another seemingly futile request for a meeting with the Speaker. Military family members spent several hours canvassing Congressional offices with the Certificates, appealing to Representatives to stop the supplemental and end the war."
 
Another source for the conversation that media -- big and small -- largely seems determined to avoid is CounterPunch where World Can't Wait's Sunsara Taylor (CounterPunch) observes, "Anyway you slice it, yesterday's vote is no 'victory' for the people of this country, of Iraq, or of the world, all of whom overwhelmingly oppose the Iraq war and are aching for it to be stopped.  Instead it means that after four years of war crimes, massacres, rapes, torture and what can only be called a colonial occupation that has cost more than half a million deaths and led to the fastest growing refugee crisis in the world, the Iraqi people must now brace themselves for more!"  John V. Walsh (CounterPunch) speaks for many when he writes, "And so it was basically a bill to make the Democrats look good without terminating the war."  In his interview with Lila Garrett, Dennis Kucinich speaks of how Congress is using the same excuses and offering the same rationalizations for voting in favor of the Pelosi measure that they did in supporting the bill which Bully Boy used to go to war on Iraq.  Equally true is that the same 'logic' defending the current support was heard over and over (from the same party flacks and hacks) following the 2002 vote. 
 
Turning to news of war resistance, Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse to deploy to Iraq in June of 2006 and, in February 2007, the first to be court-martialed.  That court-martial ended when Judge Toilet (Lt. Col. Head) ruled it a mistrial.  In making that ruling (over the objection of the defense, legal experts have argued, double jeopardy was immediately attached which would mean Watada cannot be court-martialed again for the same charges.  ThankYouLt.Watada has prepared a "Mistrial Synopsis" to walk people through the events and singles out the stipulation (the agreement that Watada wouldn't dispute reported accounts which meant there was no need to call journalists as witnesses) which was signed a week prior (an agreement between the prosecution and the defense) and those reviewing and signing off were "the Prosecution, the Staff Judge Advocate (the legal advisor to Lt. Gen Dubik), Lt. Gen Dubik, the Defense, Judge Head and Lt. Watada.  All parties should have known what they were signing.  In addition: "Judge Head had already questioned Lt. Watada throughoutly about his understand of the Stipulation of Facts, when the court martial opened and before the Panel was sworn in." This was the agreement that, on day three of the court-martial, Judge Toilet was suddenly 'concerned' about and ended up throwing the case out over.  Currently, despite double jeopardy, the US military has scheduled the pretrial for May 20th through 21st with the court-martial to begin July 16th.
 
 
Ehren Watada is a part of a movement of resistance within the military that also includes  Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder, Joshua Key, Dean Walcott, Joshua Key, Agustin Aguayo, Mark Wilkerson, Camilo Mejia, Patrick Hart, Ivan Brobeck, Ricky Clousing, Aidan Delgado, Pablo Paredes, Carl Webb, Jeremy Hinzman, Stephen Funk, David Sanders, Dan Felushko, Brandon Hughey, Corey Glass, Clifford Cornell, Joshua Despain, Katherine Jashinski, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, thirty-eight US war resisters in Canada have applied for asylum.


Information on war resistance within the military can be found at Center on Conscience & War, The Objector, The G.I. Rights Hotline, and the War Resisters Support Campaign. Courage to Resist offers information on all public war resisters.
 
Meanwhile, Ian Herbert (Independent of London) reports today that: "Thousands of British soldiers have gone absent without leave since 2003 because the Army is unwilling to accept the gravity of mental problems caused by their tours in Iraq.  The Ministry of Defence estimates there have been 10,000 Awol incidents since the invasion of Iraq in 2003 and 1,100 servicemen are currently 'on the run' from the Army."  This follows Paul von Zeilbauer's (New York Times) report last Friday on revealing that the US army was undercounting their figures and that the "new figures also show a faster acceleration in the rate of desertions over the previous two fiscal years than the Army had disclosed.  In 2006, for instance, desertions rose by 27 percent, not 17 percent, as the Army previously said, and Army spokesman said."
 
Meanwhile Joshua Key's The Deserter's Tale  continues to receive praise.  In the book, Key explains what he saw while serving in Iraq, how it transformed him, and how that led to him to self-check out and move to Canada with his wife (Brandi Key) and his children.   John Freeman (Louisville Courier-Journal) reviews the book and concludes "as a chronicle of the experiences that led one soldier to this irrevocable step, Key's is a grim and necessary book."
 
In Iraq today?
 
In No-It-isn't-An-Acid-Flashback news, Reuters reports that "hours after outgoing U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad told reporters that he was cautiously optomistic about the future in Iraq" "[a] rocket lnaded in Baghdad's heavily fortified international Green Zone . . . rocking the U.S. embassy".  If it seems strangely familiar, last Thursday United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon had just declared "improvement in the situation on the ground" when he was suddenly very close to the ground as he crouched, "flinched" and "ducked" in the face of a mortar attack. 
 
Bombings?
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a Baghdad mortar attack that left 1 person dead and wounded three ("from the same family"), a downtown Baghdad car bombing that killed 2 people and left 4 wounded, a Baghdad rocket attack that wounded 4 ("from one family"), a south west Baghdad bombing that injured two people, and a west Baghdad bombing that killed 1 person; a Tikrit bombing that killed a police officer (3 wounded), a bombing in Baquba that injured a family (five members) and "The spokesman of Basra police said that 4 mortar shells fell on the British consulate downtown Basra city without referring to any casualties." Reuters reports two people died in Iskandariya from a mortar attack.  CNN notes it was "at least two" (five were wounded) and also "Insurgents detonated exposives . . . beneath a crude oil pipeline near Baiji in northern Iraq, a police official said.  The attack ignited a massive oil fire that burned for several hours.  No one was injured, police said."
 
Shootings?
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports a police commando was shot dead and two more were wounded in Baghdad, a person was shot dead in north Baquba,
 
Corpses?
 
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 15 corpses were discovered in the capital today, 2 corpses in Tirkit,
 
In terms of Iran, Patrick Cockburn (CounterPunch) reports the events on Friday:  "The Iranians pick up 15 British servicemen searching ships in the Shatt al Arab.  The cold war between Iran and the US, with Britain trotting along behind, is getting colder.  The confrontation with Iran is very much Bush's doing and once again Blair has given him a blank check with no sign that he gets any influence over Washington's policies in return."; and on Saturday: "The 15 British servicemen have been taken to Tehran.  It was foolish to have them searching vessels in disputed waters off the Shatt al-Arab as friction with Iran increased this year."   The 15 are apparently being questioned by mainstream reports.  Considering some of the details to 'emerge' this weekend, we'll be very careful about who we cited on this story.  We'll miss out on beyond belief stories of eye witnessing, unnamed fishermen who suddenly emerge (such as this past weekend) but we can all do without that nonsense.
 
Finally, today Edward Wong (New York Times) verifies Tom Hayden's reporting from November about the government's secret talks with Iraqi resistance.
 
 


Now that's room service! Choose from over 150,000 hotels
in 45,000 destinations on Yahoo! Travel
to find your fit.

Other Items

The cityscape of Iraq's capital tells a stark story of the toll the past four years have taken on Iraq's once powerful Sunni Arabs.
Theirs is a world of ruined buildings, damaged mosques, streets pitted by mortar shells, uncollected trash and so little electricity that many people have abandoned using refrigerators altogether.
The contrast with Shiite neighborhoods is sharp. Markets there are in full swing, community projects are under way, and while electricity is scarce throughout the city, there is less trouble finding fuel for generators in those areas. When the government cannot provide services, civilian arms of the Shiite militias step in to try to fill the gap.
But in Adhamiya, a community with a Sunni majority, any semblance of normal life vanished more than a year ago. Its only hospital, Al Numan, is so short of basic items like gauze and cotton pads that when mortar attacks hit the community last fall, the doctors broadcast appeals for supplies over local mosque loudspeakers.
Here, as in so much of Baghdad, the sectarian divide makes itself felt in its own deadly and destructive ways. Far more than in Shiite areas, sectarian hatred has shredded whatever remained of community life and created a cycle of violence that pits Sunni against Sunni as well as Sunni against Shiite.


The above is from Alissa J. Rubin's "Sunni Baghdad Becomes Land of Silent Ruins" in this morning's New York Times. For those wondering if the Times had three Iraq stories today, no, they didn't. Wong wrote about Zalmay, Rubin wrote about the above and apparently no one could write about the events of yesterday -- that's one way to 'cover' Iraq. Let's note
Alexandra Zavis' "Blasts kill 5 U.S. troops; 2 Iraqis slain in clashes" (Los Angeles Times):

Five U.S. soldiers were killed Sunday in roadside bombings, four of them in a blast east of the capital, the military said.
The deaths came as clashes erupted in central Baghdad between Iraqi security forces and gunmen firing from the rooftops and alleys, killing at least two Iraqis and injuring six. They were among at least 27 Iraqis slain or found dead during the day. Busy city streets emptied as the fighting broke out in the afternoon in Fadhil, a notorious hide-out of Sunni Arab insurgents. Gunmen attacked Iraqi army patrols and the two sides traded fire for more than an hour, officials and residents said. At least two civilians were killed and three injured in the crossfire, they said. Three Iraqi soldiers also were wounded.
The fighting, the latest in a series of skirmishes in the area, came as thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops comb some of Baghdad's most contested neighborhoods for fighters and weapons caches in the latest attempt to quell sectarian violence.

Now on A10 of the New York Times, you get a brief Reuters article (sub-article) of five paragraphs (all but the second paragraph are single sentence paragraphs -- the second paragraph is a whopping two sentences). So five dead, five US service members and it's apparently not enough to warrant an article in the New York Times. What is the magic number? 10? 16? Five are dead and the cover is Zalmay confirming what was long ago known (even though not a word in the paper) and Rubin's article about the continued conflict.

On long ago (and far away -- Carole King ref), click here for the November 27th segment of Democracy Now! where Tom Hayden discussed the then secret meetings that were going on. Excerpt:

Tom Hayden: Well it's very murky and we'll know enough in a few days, I suppose. Over the past several years but especially in the past month since the election there have been contacts at a deniable level, but definate contacts, between representatives of the armed Iraqi national resistance and the US over the possible conditions of a cease fire and a change of regime in Baghdad.

He also notes, "I don't think this is a plan to get out, I think this is a plan to reduce American casualties dramatically in order to stay in."

To note Kyle's highlight again (from an e-mail sent out to those who sign up for heads up from Dahr Jamail's website):

March, 2007 -- Dahr Jamail on Free Speech TV Show "SourceCode"
In this 10 minute piece, Dahr Jamail gives an Iraq update with exclusive video from Iraq. He describes some of the origins of the "sectarianism" that the US corporate media is so apt to point to when discussing the violence in Iraq, and shows how the US has been involved in fueling the sectarian tensions.

See the streaming WMV file (30 megs)
Download the high-res file (100 megs mpeg)
View the Streaming Flash file (30 megs)

Lastly, Abhilasha wrote "it's non-Iraq" but wanted to know if an excerpt could get in? Yes, because Arunhdati Roy was one of the voices who was right all along about the illegal war (though strangely, the men/boys making their "they were right!" lists somehow manage to leave Roy -- and pretty much every other woman -- off their lists). From Shoma Chaudhurty's "On India's Growing Violence: 'It's Outright War and Both Sides are Choosing Their Weapons':"


There is an atmosphere of growing violence across the country. How do you read the signs? In what context should it be read?
You don't have to be a genius to read the signs. We have a growing middle class, reared on a diet of radical consumerism and aggressive greed. Unlike industrializing Western countries, which had colonies from which to plunder resources and generate slave labor to feed this process, we have to colonize ourselves, our own nether parts. We've begun to eat our own limbs. The greed that is being generated (and marketed as a value interchangeable with nationalism) can only be sated by grabbing land, water and resources from the vulnerable. What we're witnessing is the most successful secessionist struggle ever waged in independent India -- the secession of the middle and upper classes from the rest of the country. It's a vertical secession, not a lateral one. They're fighting for the right to merge with the world's elite somewhere up there in the stratosphere. They've managed to commandeer the resources, the coal, the minerals, the bauxite, the water and electricity. Now they want the land to make more cars, more bombs, more mines -- supertoys for the new supercitizens of the new superpower. So it's outright war, and people on both sides are choosing their weapons. The government and the corporations reach for structural adjustment, the World Bank, the ADB, FDI, friendly court orders, friendly policy makers, help from the 'friendly' corporate media and a police force that will ram all this down people's throats. Those who want to resist this process have, until now, reached for dharnas, hunger strikes, satyagraha, the courts and what they thought was friendly media. But now more and more are reaching for guns. Will the violence grow? If the 'growth rate’ and the Sensex are going to be the only barometers the government uses to measure progress and the well-being of people, then of course it will. How do I read the signs? It isn’t hard to read sky-writing. What it says up there, in big letters, is this: the sh*t has hit the fan, folks.
You once remarked that though you may not resort to violence yourself, you think it has become immoral to condemn it, given the circumstances in the country. Can you elaborate on this view?
I’d be a liability as a guerrilla! I doubt I used the word 'immoral' -- morality is an elusive business, as changeable as the weather. What I feel is this: non-violent movements have knocked at the door of every democratic institution in this country for decades, and have been spurned and humiliated. Look at the Bhopal gas victims, the Narmada Bachao Andolan. The nba had a lot going for it -- high-profile leadership, media coverage, more resources than any other mass movement. What went wrong? People are bound to want to rethink strategy. When Sonia Gandhi begins to promote satyagraha at the World Economic Forum in Davos, it's time for us to sit up and think. For example, is mass civil disobedience possible within the structure of a democratic nation state? Is it possible in the age of disinformation and corporate-controlled mass media? Are hunger strikes umbilically linked to celebrity politics? Would anybody care if the people of Nangla Machhi or Bhatti mines went on a hunger strike? Irom Sharmila has been on a hunger strike for six years. That should be a lesson to many of us. I've always felt that it’s ironic that hunger strikes are used as a political weapon in a land where most people go hungry anyway. We are in a different time and place now. Up against a different, more complex adversary. We've entered the era of NGOs -- or should I say the era of paltu shers -- in which mass action can be a treacherous business. We have demonstrations which are funded, we have sponsored dharnas and social forums which make militant postures but never follow up on what they preach. We have all kinds of 'virtual' resistance. Meetings against SEZs sponsored by the biggest promoters of SEZs. Awards and grants for environmental activism and community action given by corporations responsible for devastating whole ecosystems. Vedanta, a company mining bauxite in the forests of Orissa, wants to start a university. The Tatas have two charitable trusts that directly and indirectly fund activists and mass movements across the country. Could that be why Singur has drawn so much less flak than Nandigram? Of course the Tatas and Birlas funded Gandhi too -- maybe he was our first NGO. But now we have NGOs who make a lot of noise, write a lot of reports, but whom the sarkar is more than comfortable with. How do we make sense of all this? The place is crawling with professional diffusers of real political action. 'Virtual' resistance has become something of a liability.
There was a time when mass movements looked to the courts for justice. The courts have rained down a series of judgments that are so unjust, so insulting to the poor in the language they use, they take your breath away. A recent Supreme Court judgment, allowing the Vasant Kunj Mall to resume construction though it didn’t have the requisite clearances, said in so many words that the questions of corporations indulging in malpractice does not arise! In the ERA of corporate globalization, corporate land-grab, in the ERA of Enron and Monsanto, Halliburton and Bechtel, that's a loaded thing to say. It exposes the ideological heart of the most powerful institution in this country. The judiciary, along with the corporate press, is now seen as the lynchpin of the neo-liberal project.
In a climate like this, when people feel that they are being worn down, exhausted by these interminable ‘democratic’ processes, only to be eventually humiliated, what are they supposed to do? Of course it isn’t as though the only options are binary -- violence versus non-violence. There are political parties that believe in armed struggle but only as one part of their overall political strategy. Political workers in these struggles have been dealt with brutally, killed, beaten, imprisoned under false charges. People are fully aware that to take to arms is to call down upon yourself the myriad forms of the violence of the Indian State. The minute armed struggle becomes a strategy, your whole world shrinks and the colors fade to black and white. But when people decide to take that step because every other option has ended in despair, should we condemn them? Does anyone believe that if the people of Nandigram had held a dharna and sung songs, the West Bengal government would have backed down? We are living in times when to be ineffective is to support the status quo (which no doubt suits some of us). And being effective comes at a terrible price. I find it hard to condemn people who are prepared to pay that price.

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







NYT: Telling the official story when officials are good and damn ready

The senior American envoy in Iraq, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, held talks last year with men he believed represented major insurgent groups in a drive to bring militant Sunni Arabs into politics.

The above is from Edward Wong's "U.S. Envoy Says He Met With Iraq Rebels" in this morning's New York Times and covers 2006 meetings Zalmay acknowledges that took place in Jordan and elsewhere. Are you shocked?

If so you didn't pay attention when Tom Hayden was reporting this (many times) before. We'll note the conclusion of a piece that he wrote at the end of last November, "U.S. Retreat from Iraq? The Secret Story" (The Huffington Post):

It must be emphasized that there is no reason to believe that these US gestures are anything more than probes, in the historic spirit of divide-and-conquer, before escalating the Iraq war in a Baghdad offensive. Denial plausibility -- aka Machiavellian secrecy -- remains American security policy, for understandable if undemocratic reasons.
Yet Americans who voted in the November election because of a deep belief that a change of government in Washington might end the war have a right to know that their votes counted. The US has not abandoned its entire strategy in Iraq, but is offering significant concessions without its own citizens knowing.

It's in the Times today. So it's "news." Of course to make it into the Times means they need an official to tell them about it (on the record or off) . The source has to be a US source because they're a mouthpiece or a megaphone. Now they've developed their own sources in Iraq, solid sources (and they've certainly paid enough money for them) but it does them no good at all because until they get that official, they stay silent.

Kyle notes this:

March, 2007 - Dahr Jamail on Free Speech TV Show "SourceCode"
In this 10 minute piece, Dahr Jamail gives an Iraq update with exclusive video from Iraq. He describes some of the origins of the "sectarianism" that the US corporate media is so apt to point to when discussing the violence in Iraq, and shows how the US has been involved in fueling the sectarian tensions.
See the streaming WMV file (30 megs)
Download the high-res file (100 megs mpeg)
View the Streaming Flash file (30 megs)

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