What, you say you've never heard much about what the inside of the holy shrine in Najaf was like during the seige? Really? Read this: Dispatches From Najaf, Iraq: Inside The Siege Of The Holy Shrine (pdnonline.com, 08/27/04). There are two viewpoints AND a pretty picture.

While I'm on the subject of Russia, I would like to suggest that, if the Russian government were serious about ending terrorism, they would actually look at the less subtle causes of violence against their nation, rather than make plans to punish suicide bombers after the fact.

It looks like causes abound. From Dismal Chechnya, Women Turn to Bombs (nytimes.com, 09/10/04) provides some clues about the abysmal situation that has many people living hopeless lives, with nothing to lose. Lives of "squalor and devastation" don't lead to peace for ruling powers - they haven't historically, and it appears that they aren't now.

The Russian government has contributed to the hopelessness in myriad ways, especially in the lives of women who have been identified as suicide bombers:

The Nagayeva sisters did lose a brother, Uvays Nagayev. On April 27, 2001, he and a friend were badly beaten by Russian soldiers, according to a report compiled by Memorial, a human rights organization. He escaped, but on May 2, he was arrested at the family's home by soldiers in a Russian armored vehicle. He has not been heard from since.

In a bizarre political fantasy world, the Russians think that 'disappearing' people's relatives will result in peaceful responses rather than hatred and vengeance.

In another odd, likely political, posture, they announce that it's not "atrocities by Russian forces," but rather "brainwashing" that turns people against them.

Even when the government has been given opportunities to negotiate, they've done an odd job. The article reports that one potential suicide bomber, who turned herself in and botched the intended explosion, was given 20 years in prison for her "cooperation." Which isn't exactly motivation for others to come forward and cooperate.

*

The Russians are not alone in their poor planning, denial of culpability, or strangely self-defeating tactics. But they're a good example, while I happen to have the NYT article in front of me.

The U.S. does this, too. Though it becomes a more tangled web for us, when war is profitable for the few and powerful, and political motivations for failing to make progress are widespread.

*

It is interesting that neither government shelling of a region, nor assaults on its citizens, nor even 'disappearing' residents without official trial are within the dictionary definition of terrorism. Governments, by definition, do not conduct terrorism. It's a technicality, but an interesting one.

A 'war on terrorism,' then, isn't a plan to eliminate all unjust violence, like genocide by a government against a minority population that may use terrorist violence to strike back. Rather, 'terrorism' is limited to violence by non-government entities.

If my rather obvious hypothesis is correct, and government atrocities at times contribute directly to the rise of terrorism, then the war on terrorism is structurally unwinnable. Instead, state violence leads to terrorist violence which leads to state violence, in a sustained cycle.

*

I have no particular interest in the dispute between Chechnya and Russia, but am horrified by the escalation of violence. The hopelessness that the Chechens -- and the Palestinians, and the Sudanese, and refugees around the world -- are currently living in affects all of humanity's safety. Despair fuels a nihilistic view toward the values of life, which puts everyone at risk.

If we are serious about stopping terrorism, we need to devote resources to curing despair. Attacking the desperate once they become militant is not sufficient.

An unjust world is not a safe one to live in. Even if we cannot make the world completely just, we need to work toward making it MORE just. In that direction lies increased safety for everyone.

"Arab" connection dropped: it's interesting that, in the recent terror attacks in Russia, Russia claimed that Arabs were involved, and immediately blamed al-Queda linked Chechens. But they've dropped those assertions now that the bodies of the hostage-takers are there for examination, and - oops! - none are Arab. See Putin Agrees to Inquiry Into Russian School Siege (nytimes.com, 09/10/04):

None of those identified so far were Arabs, undercutting the government's contention that Arabs were involved....

Putin and Russian investigators have said about 10 of the roughly 30 attackers were Arabs, but authorities have not publicly provided evidence of the assertion. Officials who spoke Thursday made no mention of Arabs being among the militants.

Physical evidence can be very inconvenient.

It is also inconvenient that Russians are unclear on how to prevent terrorism:

Russian lawmakers will consider a series of anti-terrorism proposals when they reconvene Sept. 22, including tighter controls on foreigners, restoration of the death penalty and a color-coded alert system similar to one employed in the United States since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Gazeta newspaper reported Friday.

The death penalty for suicide bombers? HELLO?!? What portions of their remains would they execute?

A moving photographic memorial: The New York Times > National > Roster of the Dead.

A handy item: The 09/03/04 Edition of The World features an audio item on Iraqi bloggers (theworld.org, audio file). The program describes the blogs as an unfiltered way to get Iraqi viewpoints, and provides a link to fabulous Iraqblogcount.blogspot.com. The site provides all sorts of links to Iraq news and Iraqi blogs, including Salam Pax's new blog, "Shut up you fat whiner!" (justzipit.blogspot.com).

It would be lovely if U.S. citizens could come together in unity without a few thousand people dying either here our under our bombs abroad. If patriotism wasn't just an act of hysteria against a common enemy, but a value that involved some positive actions toward our fellows on a routine basis.

I don't believe that the American people "need" a war against one or many foreign enemies, but I believe that governments (and certain business) benefit from the traditional, unquestioning obedience that comes during wartime. What rulers wouldn't like unquestioning obedience?

Very interesting op-ed piece (recommended by Juan Cole): The unwinnable war, by By James Carroll (boston.com, 09/07/04, bold emphasis mine):

Obviously, something else is going on below the surface of all the stated reasons for this war. The Republican convention last week was gripped with war fever, and the fever itself was the revelation. War is answering an American need that has nothing to do with the Iraqi people....

The war, meanwhile, answers the Bush administration's need to justify an unprecedented repressiveness in the 'homeland,' and simultaneously prompts widespread docile submission to the new martial law. But more deeply still, by understanding ourselves as a people at war, we Americans find exemption from the duty to face the grotesque shame of what we are doing in the world.

I'm not expressing agreement -- most people I know believe the war was for oil and political power, and don't feel a false sense of patriotism associated with such shallow political endeavors. But I do read enough pro-war opinions to believe that 'anything goes' during wartime, and opportunists attempting to capitalize and spread such sentiments abound. So I find this view interesting in how it expands on that aspect.

Juan Cole's Informed Comment provides a Toronto Globe & Mail report that "The tally pales in comparison to the number of Iraqis killed (estimated at between 12,000 and 14,000)...." He remarks:

American television news very seldom shows wounded Iraqis in the hospital after an American strike, something that is a staple of Arab satellite t.v. Indeed, the US public is not being given a full view of the fighting in Iraq. I just don't see that many mentions of the US bombing Iraqi cities, and don't remember seeing much footage of this bombing or its aftermath. For the US to bomb inhabited city quarters in a country that it occupies strikes me as problematic. For all the talk of precision hits, civilians are inevitably harmed.

Such restraint!

*

See also Cheney, Halliburton and Iraq: The Purloined Letter, on how Halliburton's "emergency" contract with an administration planning to fight an eternal war allow the right-wing and military industrial complex to support each other, keeping each other in power/fed with public money for an indefinitely long future.

Another blog to read on the state of affairs we find ourselves in: The Shrill Blog.

Bob Harris who posts at This Modern World was harassed upon his attempt to return to the U.S. after traveling abroad. (09/09/04) It's a creepy item about having your name on secret lists that no one will admit to having.

Read it. This is what our country is turning in to under the current administration.

The thing that I found creepiest about this is his report is that there were people on the flight who were afraid of him after he was harassed. Since the possibility of him being dangerous seems especially boneheaded (at least to regular readers), you have to wonder... were the passengers thinking the harassment could be contagious? That he was a 'thought criminal?' Or that such things would never happen to them, if only they didn't look at him too closely...?

[His travelogues were quite pleasant: I encourage you to read those, too.]

All the glories of democracy: This Modern World: New York City follies... or, Guantanamo on the Hudson, part two. (thismodernworld.com, 09/05/04): This is the tale of a casual visitor to a protest, who was swept up before even getting a chance to participate in a police sweep of bystanders which broke a variety of laws about how to arrest people:

I was held for 14 hours in Pier 57, also called 'Guantanamo on the Hudson,' a warehouse previously used by the MTA as an automobile garage. The conditions were appalling. There were numerous cages built out of wire fence and razor wire. The concrete floor was filthy, covered with oil residue, soot and chemicals, there were in fact still signs posted around the facility warning of the chemicals. People experienced rashes, chemical burns, asthma attacks and head to toe filth. Some chose to stand or sit against the fence all night, but I was so exhausted I lay right on the ground and was caked and covered in filth....

Yes, you should read the whole thing. Yes, there are links to supporting materials. Yes, it's appalling.

I don't think I've posted a link to this group before: Iraq Veterans Against the War (ivaw.net):

Iraq Veterans Against the War (IVAW) is a group of veterans from Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. We are committed to saving lives and ending the violence in Iraq by an immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces. We also believe that the governments that sponsored these wars are indebted to the men and women that were forced to fight them and must give their Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, and Airmen the benefits that are owed to them upon their return home.

A report that mentions civilians!! U.S. Deaths in Iraq Top 1,000; Aid Groups Eye Exit (story.news.yahoo.com, 09/08/04): "As well as the 1,003 dead, nearly 7,000 U.S. troops have been wounded since the U.S-led invasion. At the same time, independent analysts estimate that more than 10,000 Iraqis have been killed since the war was launched."

AlterNet: War on Iraq: The Toll of War (alternet.org, 09/08/04): "A new, grisly milestone in Iraq: 1000 American soldiers dead."

In addition to the sorrowful numbers (which, as always, don't reference civilian Iraqi casualties, because the U.S. chooses not to track such things), but now the insurgency is spreading, and the U.S. can't gain control of several key areas. Oh, and everyone who participates in the insurgency in Iraq is a "terrorist." U.S. Conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq (nytimes.com, 09/08/04). A major U.S. attack is being considered, but the timing is odd:

A two-month hiatus before major force is applied to rebel areas would also mean a delay until after the American presidential election, but senior officials insist there is no domestic political calculus in the decision to wait - only a conviction that time is needed for negotiation and for Iraqi forces to gain strength.

Also see The Thief of Baghdad (alternet.org, 08/23/04), which reports that $1.9 billion in Iraqi oil money and a $700,000 generator went missing in Iraq, and were found with... Halliburton, who is throwing both Iraqi and U.S. taxpayer money around with reckless abandon, perhaps because it isn't theirs. If you want to know why Iraqis don't have safe drinking water yet, you may want to read this.

All of the links in this entry are from the Alternet. Visit for more!

[Completely irrelevant aside: the Blogger spellchecker offers "halfhearted" as a spelling correction for "Halliburton." That may reflect the company's management of other people's money better than I would think to.]

Having no shame: Cheney warns terrorists may hit US if Kerry wins (channelnewsasia.com, 09/08/04)

At a campaign stop in this midwestern state, Cheney said 'It's absolutely essential that we make the right choice' in the election.

'If we make the wrong choice, then the danger is that we'll get hit again.'

What, because there's a quota on how many terrorist attacks occur per president?

U.S. Troops in Iraq See Highest Injury Toll Yet (washingtonpost.com, 09/05/04):

U.S. medical commanders say the sharp rise in battlefield injuries reflects more than three weeks of fighting by two Army and one Marine battalion in the southern city of Najaf. At the same time, U.S. units frequently faced combat in a sprawling Shiite Muslim slum in Baghdad and in the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra, all of which remain under the control of insurgents two months after the transfer of political authority.....

Since the start of the war in March 2003, 979 U.S. troops have died in Iraq and almost 7,000 have been wounded.

What happens when governments ignore peaceful protests: serious, timely example

I feel a little slow for failing to have made this connection before, but I hadn't followed the pre-violent phase of this conflict closely enough. This is painfully timely: It's time to bring Najaf back home, by Naomi Klein (guardian.co.uk, 08/27/04). A few entries ago I discussed Arundhati Roy's observation that governments who spurn peaceful overtures "privilege violence," leaving people with an understanding that peaceful methods don't work, leaving only violence as an option. Read this:

Before Sadr's supporters began their uprising, they made their demands for elections and an end to occupation through sermons, peaceful protests and newspaper articles. US forces responded by shutting down their newspapers, firing on their demonstrations and bombing their neighbourhoods. It was only then that Mr Sadr went to war against the occupation.

Sadr. "Radical Shiite Cleric Sadr." THAT Sadr. He tried peaceful methods and was rebuffed. Oh. Well, that makes the situation a bit more clear, doesn't it?

*

Here's a flashback to a reference to Sadr's newspaper from April:

What has changed is that many Iraqis have decided that the peaceful road to evict the occupiers is not leading anywhere. They didn't need Sadr to tell them this. They were told it loudly and brutally a few days ago by a US Abraham tank, one of many facing unarmed and peaceful demonstrators not far from the infamous Saddam statue that was toppled a year ago. The tank crushed to death two peaceful demonstrators protesting against the closure of a Sadr newspaper by Paul Bremer, the self-declared champion of free speech in Iraq. The tragic irony wasn't lost on Iraqis.

This is from an Iraqi political exile (exilee?) in his April 9, 2004 Guardian piece, Iraqis told them to go from day one: Resistance will continue to spread until the occupation ends, by Sami Ramadani.

Another flashback: In quotes: Moqtada Sadr's fiery rhetoric (bbc.com, 06/06/04):

The cleric has always shied away from an outright call to violence, but urged his supporters to consider "other methods" in place of peaceful protest following the closure of his newspaper Al-Hawzah last week.

The following is a selection of recent quotes by him and his newspaper Al-Hawza:

Terrorise your enemies as we cannot remain silent at their violations. Otherwise, we will reach a stage when the consequences will be serious... I am concerned about you because demonstrations are useless... Your enemy loves terrorism and scorns nations and all Arabs. It seeks to silence the opinions of others. I appeal to you not to resort to demonstrations because they have become useless. You should resort to other methods.

Quoted by Iraqi web site Sharja Al-Khalij, 5 Apr 04

If you do a search for "Sadr + newspaper," other references come up to Sadr's paper, closed down by U.S. authorities. (This one gets to use variations of 'radical Shia' several times: Ban lifted on radical Shia paper: ([photo caption:] Radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr)... The interim Iraqi government has lifted the ban on a newspaper belonging to radical Shia cleric Moqtada Sadr....")

He may be radical; he may have views on women and secularism that I consider regressive... But does that mean his newspaper needed to be shut down and his peaceful followers killed? No.

*

Klein also observes what other reporters have remarked, but in the specific context of the Republican convention in New York:

What surprises me is what isn't here: Najaf. It's nowhere to be found. Every day, US bombs and tanks move closer to the sacred Imam Ali shrine, reportedly damaging outer walls and sending shrapnel flying into the courtyard; every day children are killed in their homes as US soldiers inflict collective punishment on the holy city; every day, more bodies are disturbed as US marines stomp through the Valley of Peace cemetery, their boots slipping into graves as they use tombstones for cover.

Sure, the fighting in Najaf makes the news, but not in any way connected to the election. Instead it's relegated to the status of a faraway intractable ethnic conflict, like Afghanistan, Sudan or Palestine. Even within the antiwar movement, the events in Najaf are barely visible. The 'handover' has worked: Iraq is becoming somebody else's problem. It's true that war is at the centre of the election campaign - just not the one in Iraq. The talk is all of what happened on Swift boats 35 years ago, not what is being dropped out of US AC-130 gunships this week.

The obsession with Vietnam is too accurate: it's the butt of jokes in Get Your War On comic strips and the articles on how Bush's election team are attacking Kerry's strengths to hide Bush's weaknesses ("Why Bush's man is fighting dirty: Bush's campaign mastermind has a simple rule: attack your opponent's strengths. As the polls show, it works," from Paul Harris, guardian.co.uk, 09/05/04.)

But that tells you how bad this war is going: the Republicans are making a fuss about a war Bush didn't even attend at their national political convention, rather than one he supervised as Commander in Chief.

Also from the Guardian on the Beslan tragedy: Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | 'Restraint must be encouraged': The world's press considers how Putin should respond to the tragedy (guardian.co.uk, 09/05/04). This is a compilation of world press commentary on the disaster. Joan Smith of the Independent provided a list of actions which could lead to a safer Russia:

The international community needs to make up for its years of neglect by insisting on an urgent criminal investigation into who financed and planned [the siege], a commitment from the president to allow human rights monitors into Chechnya and a UN peacekeeping force to protect the civilian population from reprisals. This is unlikely to happen unless world leaders put maximum pressure on Russia ...

The crisis in the republic has created the conditions in which terrorism can flourish. Chechens have watched for years as Russian forces descended on their cities and villages, raping and murdering with impunity. As the slogans say on the walls of Grozny: Welcome to Hell, part two.

How novel: the idea that terrorism can be prevented through action and the rule of law!

Upon the tragedy in Belsan, Russia, in which a school exploded during a hostage siege initiated by Chechen separatists demanding indepdence, we get this: Guardian Unlimited | Special reports | It's too easy to blame bin Laden by Jason Burke (guardian.co.uk, 09/05/04). Burke provides a look at the way oppressive governments can now claim that any group that opposes their policies is actually Al Queda, which engenders sympathy and military aid from abroad, but which obscures the cause of their own conflicts:

The idea that bin Laden is a global terrorist mastermind, able to engender violence worldwide, flatters him and helps in the competition with other terrorist outfits for recruits and funds. The benefits of myth-making are also clear to the Russians (and the Uzbeks, Filipinos and Algerians, to name but three serial human-rights abusing governments who constantly claim, disingenuously, that the insurgents that they are fighting in their respective lands are linked to 'al-Qaeda')....

Last week's atrocity was not the work of 'al-Qaeda'. It is a result however of the spread of 'al-Qaeda-ism' and, in particular, the ability of the radical new discourse to 'plug into' existing insurgencies, many of which were nationalist or ethnic to start with but have become Islamicised. By misrepresenting the problem, we make the solution harder to find.

This is an interesting warning to leaders that using the same bogeyman as the cause of all their ills won't solve their actual problems.

Well, the Pakistanis who complained that they were pressured to turn over Osama bin Laden during the Democratic convention haven't been making any exciting press releases since their failure to do so. So instead we have this: U.S. Near Seizing Bin Laden, Official Says (news.yahoo.com, 09/05/04). Joseph Cofer Black, U.S. State Department coordinator for counterterrorism, says:

What I tell people, I would be surprised but not necessarily shocked if we wake up tomorrow and he's been caught along with all his lieutenants. That can happen because of the programs and infrastructure in place.

Which has been in place for how long, exactly?