Colonel Daugherty's report found that a "quick reaction force" in the area took 25 minutes to arrive at the scene of the ambush, where it found Specialist Babineau dead and the two other soldiers missing.
The report criticized numerous aspects of the way the outpost was situated, supported and supervised. "This platoon needs to take a hard look at its standards and discipline," the report said.
The above is from Paul von Zielbauer's "Army Punished 2 Officers in ’06 After Failures in Iraq Ambush" in this morning's New York Times. Now, note, PvZ is not writing about the current missing soliders, he's writing about last June. Note the criticism of the "quick reaction force" for taking "25 minutes to arrive" and remember that Saturday's attack took longer to respond to than that. The original story was one hour and then, on Wednesday, they started putting out, no, no, it was only 30 minutes.
Martha notes a remark of "Col. Michael Kershaw, the 2nd Brigade Combat Team's commander" quoted in Sudarsan Raghavan's "For Searchers in Iraq, a Peerless Mission" (Washington Post):
He added that the soldiers who are pushing the hardest are the ones who arrived at the scene first. "They feel like they didn't get there in time," Kershaw said.
Not their fault. It's the fault of those in command. No ones accusing those attempting to respond of dilly-dallying. The issue is that the command created a sitting duck situation. And there's something more shameful than CYOA about Kershaw's statement. As long as Kershaw's confessing to others feelings of blame, why doesn't he address his own? This is from Tina Susman's "Hunt for 3 U.S. soldiers in Iraq enters 7th day" (Los Angeles Times):
Col. Michael Kershaw, the commander of the 2nd Brigade of the 10th Mountain Division and the man leading the current search, said the victims of last year's ambush had been paraded up Route Malibu before being killed. An insurgent group loyal to the Al Qaeda terrorist network claimed responsibility for the capture and slayings.
Route Malibu also was the site of Saturday's ambush. The military says attackers hurling explosives and firing guns assaulted eight soldiers in two Humvees as they manned a position beside the road, watching for insurgents placing roadside bombs. Four U.S. troops and one Iraqi soldier working as an interpreter died in the attack; the remaining three Americans disappeared.
And low and behold on the 7th day, the New York Times declares "Let it be news" and finally front pages the story. Damien Cave's "Hunt for 3 G.I.’s in Iraq Slowed by False Trails" breaks no new ground other than speaking and seeking lower in the chain than the paper normally does, but finally the 3 missing are on the front page. Now maybe Bono wasn't suffering from ennui yesterday or had no complaints about his neighbors? Whatever the reason, it certainly took the paper long enough.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
the new york times
paul von zielbauer
tina susman
damien cave
the washington post
sudarsan raghavan
Friday, May 18, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
And the war drags on . . .
In northern Baghdad, about 200 Iraqis marched down a street in the mostly Shiite neighbourhood of Shaab, shouting slogans and carrying banners demanding that the thousands of US soldiers conducting a security crackdown in the capital stop creating forward operating bases in neighbourhoods and searching homes for suspected insurgents and militiamen.
The above is from Thomas Wagner's "Hunt is on for missing troops" (AP). In today's snapshot, the following appeared in the first paragraph: "protests take place in Baghdad." The above wasn't noted anywhere in the snapshot. Thank you to Keesha for e-mailing to point that out. I'll note it in tomorrow's snapshot. I obviously wrongly assumed it was in there due to dictating the snapshot in pieces. My apologies. And we can team that up with:
"U.S. Conducts House-to-House Searches Looking for Missing Troops" (Democracy Now!):
In other Iraq news, thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops have been conducting house-to-houses searches in an attempt to find three missing U.S. soldiers. Iraqi residents complained about the actions of the U.S. troops. Iraqi Woman: "They damaged the fence of the house and entered. They damaged the house and belongings, seizing our money, gold, passports and identity cards. They threw the old man here and hit the young man too. They blind folded them and bound their hands."
Which is one way to get 200 people out in the streets.
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, the American military fatality count in Iraq, since the start of the illegal war, stood at 3384 (ICCC). Tonight? 3403. And Reuters reports that the marine Corps Commandant General James Conway stated, "The difference in the time we in uniform need for success in Iraq and the amount of time our countrymen are prepared to invest is a disconnect that's troubling." No, what's troubling is that a military commander thinks the people's thoughts are the "disconnect." In the United States there is civilian control over the military. That's why Bully Boy is not the Commander-in-Chief of the American people (no matter how many times Diane Sawyer repeated that dopey phrase in 2003). In the US, the military is under civilian control and, guess what, a commander's wants or dreams (within the job) are always subject to the civilian control. The people are not the problem and James Conway needs to have that explained to him. If tomorrow his 'mission' is cancelled, oh well, get used to it.
The alternative is a nation-state that's controlled by the military and that's generally termed a "junta" and not a "democracy." So if Conway values the Constitution or the country, he'll get it through his head that it's not up to him or military brass. That's not their decision. If tomorrow Congress decided all US troops leave Iraq on September 30th, that's the end of the mission and that's the end of it period. Bully Boy's perfectly comfortable unleashng the military and perfectly comfortable letting the ones on the ground die. If that sounds harsh, how else do you explain his bragging, months ago, that the US would be in Iraq through the end of his term and it would be left for the next person occupying the White House to end the illegal war?
Congress can end the war, obviously. But that he would make that decision just proves that he has no interest in what the brass says. Maybe Conway heard that talk and thought otherwise?
Or maybe he hears Bully Boy talking about listening to the brass and takes that seriously? Bully Boy doesn't listen and he demonstrated that when he announced
As noted in "Make Room For Bully Peters Out" (The Third Estate Sunday Review, August 27, 2006):
We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake.
So let's stop pretending that Bully Boy listens to any reports and makes judgements about planning based on that. "Send more!" isn't planning.
He likes to hide behind the military and maybe that's why Conway thinks he's in a position to deride the American people? The American people are the country. It is a democracy. If the mission ends and Conway's unhappy he can take any moral stand he wants. But he doesn't make that call and I think the military trashing the people as a whole is even more insulting than their insulting a president, whomever the president may be at any given point.
If there's a "disconnect," Conway needs to look to himself and not project it out on the American people. And excuse me, but has any commander died in Iraq? I don't belive so. I believe they've been safe and sound while the rank and file have been the ones risking life and limb. It must be really easy to want to stay longer and longer when you've got it comfy and cozy. Maybe he's got it a little too comfy and cozy and that's why he can say things like this: "I think there is less of an appetite in our country than we, the military, might think we need to sustain that kind of effort over that period of time." The will of the people is the will of the people. That's what rules in a democracy.
If he wants endless wars, there are several mercenary companies he can apply to but when he serves in the US military he needs to grasp that it is held in check by civilian authority, not the other way around.
3403 Americans have died. (Nearly 1 million Iraqis.) At what point will Conway be satisfied? How many more lives because there is no 'win' there? And Conway better grasp that the US is leaving. That's not even a question anymore, the only question remaining is when.
When the US decides to pull out, he's perfectly welcome to step forward as War Supporter and take whatever moral stand he wants but the people control military, not the other way around. Which is why Congress' refusal to do anything about Suzanne Swift, for instance, is so appalling. She's harassed, she's bullied. She tries to get help and ends up being 'trained' in how not to 'invite' sexual advances. That's really something, isn't it? That someone who signs up has to learn how not to be seen as a sexual outlet. Conway might want to spend some of his fretting time on that very serious issue because it's the lack of leadership that allows these events to take place. And Congress' refusal to address what happened to Swift (and has happened to many other women serving) is an abdication of their responsibility.
Or maybe Conway can worry about recruiters who tell people to lie so they can be accepted and inducted?
He's got a lot to worry about. The will of the American people? That's not his worry. The people are the last word in a democracy. Since the craven Joe Lieberman tossed aside the Florida recount by asserting that military votes matter more than any other vote in a democracy, it's been a rush to hide behind the military. The military doesn't call the shots in a democracy. If Conway's unhappy with the American people, he might need to look for a career in a profession that isn't answerable to them. He can share his thoughts on Iraq, he can share his thoughts on the military but when he's bemoaning the will of the American people, he's crossing over into dangerous territory.
Monday, Ehren Watada's pre-trial hearing is scheduled to begin. In addition, Megan notes Carol Brouillet's "Questioning War- Organizing Resistance- War Resisters Radio Show" (Indybay IMC):
Monday, May 21, 2007, 7-9 pm (PST) on the Questioning War- Organizing Resistance internet radio show, the show will be devoted to War Resisters with guests- Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia, Michael Wong, Jeff Paterson. The show is hosted by Carol Brouillet.
Listen 7:00- 9:00 pm (PST) to the WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com and to our guests-
More information via the link. Today, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez spoke with Agustin Aguayo and Marcia notes this from "War Resister Agustin Aguayo Speaks Out After his Release from Military Prison for Refusing to Fight in Iraq" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your time in jail, but begin with your explanation of why, though you joined the military, you applied for conscientious objector status?
AGUSTIN AGUAYO: Yes, Amy, I came in the military, 2003, wanted to do wonderful things for myself and my country, and I soon realized that morally I couldn’t participate in this armed conflict. I was there. I did the best I could.
I decided before I left I wouldn’t take anyone's life. While I was there, it was overwhelmingly clear to me that war is definitely something I couldn’t take part of anymore, based on moral principles, life experiences, so I decided not to return.
I [sought] all the legal channels to be recognized as a CO, and I was unsuccessful. There was a constant struggle, and at the Pentagon, the panel of three people that decided on my case, they were divided two-to-one. So conscientious objection is something that they struggle with -- I mean, who is one and who is not.
When you show that you make the ultimate experience of your sincerity by not going back, then you are punished the most harsh, in the most harsh way. My time in prison was a time of deep reflection. I felt completely free there, as free as I had not been in so long. I was able to share my experience with others, and that brought me a sense of joy. It was also painful, since I was separated from my wife, but this was something I was willing to pay or something I was willing to do in order for me to save my sanity and not go against my conscience.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And how did your fellow soldiers react to your stance, both while you were serving in the Army and then while you were in the brig?
AGUSTIN AGUAYO: Well, while I was serving in the Army, those who knew me well supported me, especially when they got to know me. Initially, when people heard about me, you know, there was some resentment, because we all are volunteers, and they figured, you know, people just want to get out of dangerous situations. But after meeting me and living with me and spending time and speaking, they could understand that that fear had nothing to do with it. And the ones that got to know me well truly respected me, I feel.
AMY GOODMAN: Agustin Aguayo, it's interesting that your IO, your investigating officer who investigated your desire to be considered a conscientious objector, recommended it, said that -- and I looked at the documents. He said, you know, this is the real thing, you’re the real deal here.
AGUSTIN AGUAYO: Yes, Amy. And the interesting thing you point out about that is that in my court-martial, all these facts came out, and when he was called, he responded and said to the attorneys, you know, no one could ever explain to me why he wasn't a conscientious objector, which is very interesting to me. I mean, there was a constant debate between them -- should we, or should we not? Should we keep him, or should we not?
And I think, in the end, it really has to do with the numbers. Retention is hard, and, you know, they don't really want to see people go, people that they’ve trained, people that they know they can count on. And it's sad, because our country has a history of conscientious objectors and the government recognizing them, and I think it's important that we focus on this issue and, you know, consider that the Army prepares us for many things -- for war, for danger -- and I was there -- and we can function in this environment, but it doesn't teach us to deal with our moral conflict, because it's not in the best interest, of course.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
camilo mejia
pablo paredes
agustin aguayo
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
suzanne swift
The above is from Thomas Wagner's "Hunt is on for missing troops" (AP). In today's snapshot, the following appeared in the first paragraph: "protests take place in Baghdad." The above wasn't noted anywhere in the snapshot. Thank you to Keesha for e-mailing to point that out. I'll note it in tomorrow's snapshot. I obviously wrongly assumed it was in there due to dictating the snapshot in pieces. My apologies. And we can team that up with:
"U.S. Conducts House-to-House Searches Looking for Missing Troops" (Democracy Now!):
In other Iraq news, thousands of U.S. and Iraqi troops have been conducting house-to-houses searches in an attempt to find three missing U.S. soldiers. Iraqi residents complained about the actions of the U.S. troops. Iraqi Woman: "They damaged the fence of the house and entered. They damaged the house and belongings, seizing our money, gold, passports and identity cards. They threw the old man here and hit the young man too. They blind folded them and bound their hands."
Which is one way to get 200 people out in the streets.
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, the American military fatality count in Iraq, since the start of the illegal war, stood at 3384 (ICCC). Tonight? 3403. And Reuters reports that the marine Corps Commandant General James Conway stated, "The difference in the time we in uniform need for success in Iraq and the amount of time our countrymen are prepared to invest is a disconnect that's troubling." No, what's troubling is that a military commander thinks the people's thoughts are the "disconnect." In the United States there is civilian control over the military. That's why Bully Boy is not the Commander-in-Chief of the American people (no matter how many times Diane Sawyer repeated that dopey phrase in 2003). In the US, the military is under civilian control and, guess what, a commander's wants or dreams (within the job) are always subject to the civilian control. The people are not the problem and James Conway needs to have that explained to him. If tomorrow his 'mission' is cancelled, oh well, get used to it.
The alternative is a nation-state that's controlled by the military and that's generally termed a "junta" and not a "democracy." So if Conway values the Constitution or the country, he'll get it through his head that it's not up to him or military brass. That's not their decision. If tomorrow Congress decided all US troops leave Iraq on September 30th, that's the end of the mission and that's the end of it period. Bully Boy's perfectly comfortable unleashng the military and perfectly comfortable letting the ones on the ground die. If that sounds harsh, how else do you explain his bragging, months ago, that the US would be in Iraq through the end of his term and it would be left for the next person occupying the White House to end the illegal war?
Congress can end the war, obviously. But that he would make that decision just proves that he has no interest in what the brass says. Maybe Conway heard that talk and thought otherwise?
Or maybe he hears Bully Boy talking about listening to the brass and takes that seriously? Bully Boy doesn't listen and he demonstrated that when he announced
As noted in "Make Room For Bully Peters Out" (The Third Estate Sunday Review, August 27, 2006):
We're not leaving so long as I'm the president. That would be a huge mistake.
So let's stop pretending that Bully Boy listens to any reports and makes judgements about planning based on that. "Send more!" isn't planning.
He likes to hide behind the military and maybe that's why Conway thinks he's in a position to deride the American people? The American people are the country. It is a democracy. If the mission ends and Conway's unhappy he can take any moral stand he wants. But he doesn't make that call and I think the military trashing the people as a whole is even more insulting than their insulting a president, whomever the president may be at any given point.
If there's a "disconnect," Conway needs to look to himself and not project it out on the American people. And excuse me, but has any commander died in Iraq? I don't belive so. I believe they've been safe and sound while the rank and file have been the ones risking life and limb. It must be really easy to want to stay longer and longer when you've got it comfy and cozy. Maybe he's got it a little too comfy and cozy and that's why he can say things like this: "I think there is less of an appetite in our country than we, the military, might think we need to sustain that kind of effort over that period of time." The will of the people is the will of the people. That's what rules in a democracy.
If he wants endless wars, there are several mercenary companies he can apply to but when he serves in the US military he needs to grasp that it is held in check by civilian authority, not the other way around.
3403 Americans have died. (Nearly 1 million Iraqis.) At what point will Conway be satisfied? How many more lives because there is no 'win' there? And Conway better grasp that the US is leaving. That's not even a question anymore, the only question remaining is when.
When the US decides to pull out, he's perfectly welcome to step forward as War Supporter and take whatever moral stand he wants but the people control military, not the other way around. Which is why Congress' refusal to do anything about Suzanne Swift, for instance, is so appalling. She's harassed, she's bullied. She tries to get help and ends up being 'trained' in how not to 'invite' sexual advances. That's really something, isn't it? That someone who signs up has to learn how not to be seen as a sexual outlet. Conway might want to spend some of his fretting time on that very serious issue because it's the lack of leadership that allows these events to take place. And Congress' refusal to address what happened to Swift (and has happened to many other women serving) is an abdication of their responsibility.
Or maybe Conway can worry about recruiters who tell people to lie so they can be accepted and inducted?
He's got a lot to worry about. The will of the American people? That's not his worry. The people are the last word in a democracy. Since the craven Joe Lieberman tossed aside the Florida recount by asserting that military votes matter more than any other vote in a democracy, it's been a rush to hide behind the military. The military doesn't call the shots in a democracy. If Conway's unhappy with the American people, he might need to look for a career in a profession that isn't answerable to them. He can share his thoughts on Iraq, he can share his thoughts on the military but when he's bemoaning the will of the American people, he's crossing over into dangerous territory.
Monday, Ehren Watada's pre-trial hearing is scheduled to begin. In addition, Megan notes Carol Brouillet's "Questioning War- Organizing Resistance- War Resisters Radio Show" (Indybay IMC):
Monday, May 21, 2007, 7-9 pm (PST) on the Questioning War- Organizing Resistance internet radio show, the show will be devoted to War Resisters with guests- Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia, Michael Wong, Jeff Paterson. The show is hosted by Carol Brouillet.
Listen 7:00- 9:00 pm (PST) to the WeThePeopleRadioNetwork.com and to our guests-
More information via the link. Today, Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez spoke with Agustin Aguayo and Marcia notes this from "War Resister Agustin Aguayo Speaks Out After his Release from Military Prison for Refusing to Fight in Iraq" (Democracy Now!):
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about your time in jail, but begin with your explanation of why, though you joined the military, you applied for conscientious objector status?
AGUSTIN AGUAYO: Yes, Amy, I came in the military, 2003, wanted to do wonderful things for myself and my country, and I soon realized that morally I couldn’t participate in this armed conflict. I was there. I did the best I could.
I decided before I left I wouldn’t take anyone's life. While I was there, it was overwhelmingly clear to me that war is definitely something I couldn’t take part of anymore, based on moral principles, life experiences, so I decided not to return.
I [sought] all the legal channels to be recognized as a CO, and I was unsuccessful. There was a constant struggle, and at the Pentagon, the panel of three people that decided on my case, they were divided two-to-one. So conscientious objection is something that they struggle with -- I mean, who is one and who is not.
When you show that you make the ultimate experience of your sincerity by not going back, then you are punished the most harsh, in the most harsh way. My time in prison was a time of deep reflection. I felt completely free there, as free as I had not been in so long. I was able to share my experience with others, and that brought me a sense of joy. It was also painful, since I was separated from my wife, but this was something I was willing to pay or something I was willing to do in order for me to save my sanity and not go against my conscience.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And how did your fellow soldiers react to your stance, both while you were serving in the Army and then while you were in the brig?
AGUSTIN AGUAYO: Well, while I was serving in the Army, those who knew me well supported me, especially when they got to know me. Initially, when people heard about me, you know, there was some resentment, because we all are volunteers, and they figured, you know, people just want to get out of dangerous situations. But after meeting me and living with me and spending time and speaking, they could understand that that fear had nothing to do with it. And the ones that got to know me well truly respected me, I feel.
AMY GOODMAN: Agustin Aguayo, it's interesting that your IO, your investigating officer who investigated your desire to be considered a conscientious objector, recommended it, said that -- and I looked at the documents. He said, you know, this is the real thing, you’re the real deal here.
AGUSTIN AGUAYO: Yes, Amy. And the interesting thing you point out about that is that in my court-martial, all these facts came out, and when he was called, he responded and said to the attorneys, you know, no one could ever explain to me why he wasn't a conscientious objector, which is very interesting to me. I mean, there was a constant debate between them -- should we, or should we not? Should we keep him, or should we not?
And I think, in the end, it really has to do with the numbers. Retention is hard, and, you know, they don't really want to see people go, people that they’ve trained, people that they know they can count on. And it's sad, because our country has a history of conscientious objectors and the government recognizing them, and I think it's important that we focus on this issue and, you know, consider that the Army prepares us for many things -- for war, for danger -- and I was there -- and we can function in this environment, but it doesn't teach us to deal with our moral conflict, because it's not in the best interest, of course.
The e-mail address for this site is common_ills@yahoo.com.
iraq
and the war drags on
donovan
camilo mejia
pablo paredes
agustin aguayo
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalez
suzanne swift
Iraq snapshot
Thursday, May 17, 2007. Chaos and violence continue, 3 US soldiers remain missing, protests take place in Baghdad, Chatham House issues another report (one the domestic mainstream will probably get behind this time), recruiters caught lying on tape and more.
This morning, ICCC was reporting that the total number of US service members who have died in Iraq since the start of the illegal war reached 3400. Today the US military announced: "Three Soldiers were killed and one was wounded when their patrol was struck by a roadside bomb south of Baghdady May 17." So the 3400 marker has been surpassed -- 3403 is the current total. Michael Munk (Democracy Rising) calculates that the US military has seen "at least 55,471 casualties" during the same period. Meanwhile, for the sixth day, 3 US soldiers remain missing following a Saturday attack. Tina Susman and Julian E. Barnes (Los Angeles Times) report: "Evidence indicated that the attackers used grenades and other hand-held explosives, and converged from several directions . . . Drag marks leading to tire tracks showed that the missing men were pulled from the area to vehicles about 45 away. The military is trying to determine whether the two Humvees were sufficient to guarantee the troops' protection and whether the patrol had taken necessary precautions. Those precautions would include not being positioned at a spot previously used by U.S. troops". As CNN noted yesterday, "Caldwell said the division headquarters is 'looking very carefully at the whole tactical situation to see if there's something they need to do better." And possibly, a year from now we may know one way or another if the 7 US soldiers and 1 Iraqi were sitting ducks (4 of the 7 US soldiers and the Iraqi translator are dead) and who's responsible for that?
Almost a year ago a similar abductiion happened in the same region (and the ones claiming credit for the kidnapping also cited the gang-rape and murder of 14-year-old Abeer). In that case, the 3 US soldiers were killed. CBS and AP report: "Three U.S. soldiers slaughtered in a grisly kidnapping-murder plot south of Baghdad last June were not properly protected during a mission that was not well planned or executed, a military investigation has concluded. Two military officers have been relieved of their commands as a result of the litany of mistakes, but neither faced criminal charges, a military official familiar with the investigation told The Associated Press on Wednesday." Yet despite that reality, the New York Times is not only not interested in front-paging the story (the story has never made the front page), they also aren't interested in pursuing how it happened. Just like they aren't interested in Abeer, war resisters . . .
Democracy Now! has regularly explored is war resisters and today Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez spoke with Agustin Aguayo who explained where his status currently stands: "Technically, I'm still in the military, because I have the right to an automatic appeal to the court-martial. And that is a long process. It could be up to two years. I have a rehearing in the courts in my civil suit against the Army in D.C., and I would like to be reddemed and I would like to be recognized . . . I'm challenging that I was wrongfully denied conscientious objector status. And so, I'm still essentially in the military. However, I don't have to report to any duty station. So I'm essentially free to live my life. And from here, I would like to share with others my experience. I think it's vital, it's crucial that people understand from a different perspective what is actually taking place, what I saw, what my conclusions were and why I couldn't return."
Aguayo joined Pablo Paredes, Camilo Mejia and Robert Zabala in the speaking out tour to raise awareness on the realities of the illegal war and the need to stand up against it which has two more scheduled date remaining:
Thursday May 17 - Oakland
4pm youth event and 7pm program at the Humanist Hall, 411 28th St, Oakland. Featuring Camilo Mejia, Pablo Paredes and the Alternatives to War through Education (A.W.E.) Youth Action Team. Sponsored by Veteran's for Peace Chp. 69, Courage to Resist, Central Committee for Conscientious Objector's (CCCO) and AWE Youth Action Team.
Friday May 18 - Berkeley
7pm at St. Joseph the Worker featuring Camilo Mejia.
US war resisters are part of a growing movement of war resistance within the military: Camilo Mejia, Ehren Watada, Terri Johnson, Kimberly Rivera, Dean Walcott, Linjamin Mull, Joshua Key, Augstin Aguayo, Justin Colby, Marc Train, Robert Zabala, Darrell Anderson, Kyle Snyder , Corey Glass, Jeremy Hinzman, Kevin Lee, Joshua Key, 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, Chris Teske, Matt Lowell, Jimmy Massey, Tim Richard, Hart Viges, Michael Blake and Kevin Benderman. In total, forty 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.
Iraq Veterans Against the War bring truth with them whenever they speak (and they are available for speaking engagements if you have a group or organization that would like to hear from them).
Always speaking truth to power, Iraq Veterans Against the War. In March, a group spoke at
Different Drummer Cafe. Eric Ruder (ISR) provides a transcript and we'll note Adrienne Kinne
today:
Since leaving the military and now that I've finished my degree in psychology, I've been working in VA (Veterans Adminstration) hospitals. I've worked at VA hospitals in Georgia and Virginia and now in Vermont and I've seen so many different soldiers. For the first time our VA hospitals are seeing active-duty soldiers because our Department of Defense hospitals cannot keep up with demand. I've seen a lot of people come back from Iraq and Afghanistan with serious injuries and a lot of serious things going on with their health. And it really makes me mad -- and I'm not here speaking as a VA employee, but I'm certainly allowed to speak about my experiences there. Not in any official capacity, but it makes me mad when I hear veteran after veteran telling me the difficulties they have getting their services. It makes me embarrassed to work for the VA and I don't want to feel that way because I actually want to work in the VA to help our veterans. It's just so frustrating.
There are so many things that are tied together. I saw one soldier who was stationed overseas and he was an MP and he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) because he saw our government do things to people that no person should ever have to see our government do. He said that he couldn't go into details because it's all classified, but he still felt that he was bound to military doctrine where you can't tell anything to anyone. But he has nightmares every night because he saw us tortuing people. He was at one of our secret, non-existent prisons and he saw people tortured and he cannot cope with what he has seen.
Turning to today's violence . .
Bombings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 5 dead from 4 Baghdad mortar attacks (8 wounded) and a police officer died from a Baladroz bombing (one more was left wounded). Reuters reports the death of a police officer from a grenade hurled into his Hilla home (three members of his family were injured) and a Baghdad bridge bombing that left two dead and five injured. AFP reports "in Najaf a street cleaner was killed when he lifted a bag of trash and set off a hand grenade." Thomas Wagner (AP) reports that Thursday saw the third day in a row of attacks on the heavily fortified Green Zone: "Terrified pedestrians raced for the safety of concrete bunkers. Motorists abandoned their cars and sprinted for cover. Sirens wailed and loudspeakers warned people to seek safety."
Shootings?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports two police officers shot dead in Baghdad (1 wounded), a seucirty worker for a clinic was shot dead in the Diyala province, an electrical engineer was shot dead in Basra, and an Iraqi police officer was shot dead in Salahuddi. Reuters notes a "police major" who was shot dead (so was his son) in Basra. AFP notes a police officer shot dead in Baiji and an Iraqi soldier shot dead in Kirkuk.
Corpses?
Laith Hammoudi (McClatchy Newspapers) reports 30 corpses discovered in Baghdad, the corpses of Emad Ahmed Shareef was found in Kirkuk and 3 corpses in Baquba (one of which was a woman -- all "were shot many times in the head"). Reuters reports 2 corpses discovered in Latifiya. AFP reports the corpse count on Baquba has risen to 9.
On the heels of their previous report castigating Tony Blair for putting the interests of the US ahead of England, Chatham House issues another report. This one is entiteld (PDF format warning) "Accepting Realities in Iraq." Chief points include that a series of civil wars is taking place in Iraq, that US political leaders (including the White House) have repeatedly lowered expectations on Iraq in the last year, that regional neighbors (Iran, Saudi Arabia and Turkey) have more influence than does the US, that there is no "military solution," that power brokers must be reached out to and that Iraq is facing the possibility of collapse. "Muqtada al-Sadr cannot be ignored" is the heading of one section and before Bully Boy thinks Chatham House is on board with him there, they argue instead that efforts must be made to reach out to al-Sadr and that it is foolish to ignore his base, popularity and influence (they also argue that the Jaish al-Mahdi would continue with or without al-Sadr as its leader). Elsewhere in the paper, they argue for the Joe Biden option (splitting Iraq up into three regions and calling it a federation). At nine pages-plus of text, they make many recommendations and it's largely what one would expect from Brookings or any other centrist think tank in the US. They ignore serious realities and, it needs to be noted, they need to learn to source properly. The New York Times and the International Herald Tribune are owned by the same company and IHT has a stronger European presence (than does the Times) so it may make sense to source to IHT over the Times; however, Sudarsan Raghavan and Karin Brulliard work for the Washington Post, not the Boston Globe. Iraqi popular will is not merely discounted, it's ignored which either suggests Gareth Stansfield (author of the report) is unfamiliar with it or that he has no interest in what the people of Iraq might want for themselves. This is the attitude throughout in spite of the occassional sentence such as this: "In effect, Iraqi solutions will need to be found to Iraqi problems." Most alarming is that Stansfield seems completely unaware of the issues for Iraqi women.
Yifat Susskind (MADRE), at CounterPunch, observes the attacks on women and their rights in Iraq and notes: "The US has empowered Islamist political parties whose clerics promote 'honor killing' as a religious duty. The US has empowered Islamist political parties whose clerics promote 'honor killing' as a religious duty. . . The US also destroyed the Iraqi state, including much of the judicial system, leaving people more reliant on conservative tribal authorities to settle disputes and on unofficial 'religious courts' to mete out sentencing, including 'honor killings'." To repeat, Chatham House says nothing about that which doesn't seem to demonstrate "Accepting Realities in Iraq." The BBC's James Robbins characterizes the report as "unremittingly bleak." Imagine how much more so if it had really expored realities?
On the subject of the oil law, Tina Susman (Los Angeles Times) covered it Sunday noting that it "was in serious trouble among Iraqi lawmakers" despite the "vital" importance the US government has placed on it. Andy Rowell (Oil Change) notes that London, Wednesday, was the site for a protest "oustide the Shell AGM".
In activism news, Matthew Rotchschild (The Progressive) reports on Tim and Yvette Coil (husband and wife) who, in March, happened upon military recruiters attempting to enlist at their public library (Slow-Munroe Falls Public Library, Ohio) and, after getting permission from libary employees, began leaving cards warning people from enlisting. The military recruiters -- apparently never have been taught about freedom of speech -- made a scene, dragged in the library director and Tim Coil (Gulf War Veteran) was arrested. The case goes to trial June 5th. (Contact info can be found here.)
Also on the topic of recruiting, David Swanson (AfterDowningStreet) notes Nashville's WTVF report (audio-video here) of recruiters asking a local man, Jay Mallard, to lie about being on Zolfoft (the man signed up, lied and killed himself) which led WTVF's news team to set up three cameras: "In each case, our undercover producer told recruiters that he was put on Zoloft by a physician for depression. Asked whether he could function without it, he said he wasn't sure. And there, inside those Army recruiting stations, we got the same advice described by Private Mallard's family. . . . Over and over, the recruiters tell us that it's OK to lie."
tina susman
julian e. barnes
camilo mejia
pablo paredes
agustin aguayo
robert zabala
democracy now
amy goodman
juan gonzalezFussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect. Join Yahoo!'s user panel and lay it on us. http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48516/*http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7 hot CTA = Join Yahoo!'s user panel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)