Hey, embedded reporters can be good for something after all! There's quite a fuss going on over the missing 380 tons of explosives that the International Atomic Energy Agency attempted to call the U.S.' attention to, but which the U.S. ignored for a few months due to other priorities.

This article provides a very detailed chronology of events involving U.S. forces at the site, from the time the IAEA visited and confirmed their seals were still on the explosives, until "...late May, when a U.S. weapons inspection team declared the depot stripped and looted." Of course, no fuss was made about it then by the U.S., but the Iraqi government only reported to the UN a week or so ago that these were still missing. Pentagon seeking to account for movement of munitions: "On April 18, a Minnesota television crew traveling with the 101st Airborne shot a videotape of troops as they first opened the bunkers at the Al-Qaqaa that shows what appeared to be high explosives still in barrels and bearing the markings of the International Atomic Energy Agency."

Scientists estimate 100,000 Iraqis may have died in war (sfgate.com, 10/28/04).

Designed and conducted by researchers at Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University and the Al-Mustansiriya University in Baghdad, the study is being published Thursday on the Web site of The Lancet medical journal.

The survey indicated violence accounted for most of the extra deaths seen since the invasion, and air strikes from coalition forces caused most of the violent deaths, the researchers wrote in the British-based journal.

"Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children," they said.

Read the whole thing. The researchers who conducted the nationwide study even made modifications to exclude coalition violence in Fallujah to check their conclusions for the rest of Iraq. And they believe that the problem is structural:

"This isn't about individual soldiers doing bad things. This appears to be a problem with the approach to occupation in Iraq," Roberts said.

In a demonstration of... something, officers with military rifles have been showing themselves off on our local commute trains. One of my friends pointed out that their powerful guns would be useless against any substance-based attacks (chemical or biological), and that the bullets, if used, would penetrate multiple train cars, hitting countless civilians. Sadly, killing civilians to "save" them isn't as remote a possibility as I would like.

In Moscow theater siege remembered - Oct 26, 2004 (cnn.com), a memorial service was held for the victims of the Chechen hostage crisis of two years ago. In that tragedy, nearly all 130 victims of the siege died at the hands of their rescuers, overzealous Russian special forces who gassed the theater prior to storming the building. The gas knocked out the hostages permanently, saving them from the hostage takers... by ending their lives.

Authorities held a separate memorial ceremony, so they would not have to face the victim's relatives.

"For two years, we have been trying to persuade the government to draw conclusions from the tragedy so that it doesn't happen again, but no such conclusions have been made," Tatyana Karpova, co-chair of a group of former hostages and victims' relatives, said in a reference to recent terror attacks...

How long will it take for authorities to learn?

*

Short update: Thailand's Prime Minister is sort of apologizing for the 78 suffocation deaths mentioned earlier (ccn.com, 10/27/04). But only sort of.

But several Thai officials, including Thaksin, say Ramadan fasting was a contributing factor in the deaths, saying they were weak because of dawn-to-dusk fasting during the Muslim holy month.

"There are some who died because they were fasting, and they were crammed in tight," Thaksin told reporters on Tuesday.

"It's a matter of their bodies becoming weak."

I'm sure this will go over ever-so-well with the victim's families. At least the Russian officials responsible for the gas deaths at the theater didn't announce that their victims were partly to blame for breathing too much.

*

Allawi blames US 'negligence' for massacre (guardian.co.uk, 10/26/04). Though Allawi is waiting for the results of an official investigation into the killing of busloads of newly trained national guard troops, he is raising hard questions about why they were unarmed and unguarded during their final bus ride.

Radio news reports have expressed concerns that the mass execution of the guards by persons in police uniforms was 'an inside job,' with the local Iraqi forces easily infiltrated by malevolent persons because of the desperation for recruits.

*

There are some interesting comments about how the public doesn't know the full scope of events occurring in Iraq in Troops back from long, hard combat (guardian.co.uk, 10/26/04).

"I've stood before a company of soldiers who have the same haunted gaze as soldiers from the second world war and Korean war because they've been subjected to the most extraordinary events which to a large degree have gone unreported," Brigadier Andrew Kennett, commander of the 1st Mechanised Brigade, told Soldier magazine.

The article goes on to express fears that the soldiers will have difficulty adjusting to civilian life again, and will be troubled and frustrated.

It's interesting that such concerns for the well being of returned soldiers here in the U.S. has been muted, except by domestic violence prevention groups and other non-profits. Perhaps because so few of our troops are returning?

*

Tons of explosives gone missing: whose fault?; White House plays down breach of Iraq's 'Fort Knox of explosives.' (csmonitor.com, 10/26/04) provides a good summary of the discussion over the loss of 380 tons of explosives from a site the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly pointed out to the Bush Administration as an area of concern.

Some partisan outlets appear to think the breach is no big deal. NBC cites reports of visits to the site during which the explosives were not sought as possible evidence that the weapons were taken prior to the invasion, but

However, other US outlets, including NBC's own news website, quoted Pentagon officials who said a search of the site after the US-led invasion had revealed the explosives to be intact.

The IAEA verified the materials were present in January of 2003 (iaea.org, PDF), and having advised the U.S. of where they were, the U.S. should have verified their presence AND taken control of their location. But they didn't.

The White House hasn't had much of an explanation so far. Bush aides try to explain missing weapons (thestate.com, 10/6/04 repost from nytimes) offers this:

White House officials said they could not explain why warnings from the agency in May 2003 about the vulnerability of the stockpile to looting never resulted in action. At one point, McClellan pointed out, “there were a number of priorities at the end of Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Well then.

*

Why is it that U.S. forces, the Allawi government, AND the insurgents all hate reporters? Media in Iraq see through a shrinking window (csmonitor.com, 10/27/04) reports that 44 journalists have been killed since March 2003, and the press is free - free to receive death threats and non-cooperation from the government.

Beside getting short shrift from officials in Iraq, local journalists and photographers - while at least able to get to the scene of an attack - find they are frequently prevented from working by Iraqi police or US forces.

"After the liberation, we thought life would be better, but it's the opposite," says Samir Hadi, a veteran photographer who shoots for Al-Mada and has been held back from attacks scenes by Iraqi forces.

"This is the same style as the Saddam regime," he laments. "We face many attacks and explosions both from American and terrorist forces. Now they never let us shoot pictures."

It's as if everyone in some position of power - the occupiers, interim government, and violent rebels - are all embarrassed of their activities. Are they?

Tell me there's some good news, that nations are learning from their mistakes.

Hello? Hello? Is this thing on?

Is this supposed to make us feel better about attacking Iraq, which had nothing to do with September 11th?Yahoo! News - Kerry Ridicules Bush on Terrorism Remark:

In a taped interview with Fox News Channel's "Hannity and Colmes," Bush was asked whether the nation would always be vulnerable to another terror attack and whether Americans would always have to live with that.

"Yes, because we have to be right 100 percent of the time in disrupting any plot and they have to be right once," Bush said. He said the nation is safer from terrorism, but "whether or not we can be ever fully safe is up — you know, up in the air."

Morley's World Opinion Roundup: Is God an American Voter? (washingtonpost.com, 10/26/04) quotes numerous, previously Bush supporting conservative papers (including some owned by Rupert Murdoch) expressing disgust over Bush's exploitation of religion in this campaign. With Bush supporters going on record as saying that Bush is doing God's will by attacking Iraq, prior supporters dislike the false link made between extremism and the actual will of God. Interesting bit from "London's reliably conservative Daily Telegraph":

"To those who see war as an occasional and necessary evil, the developing situation in Iraq is a disaster. Violence is feeding violence. The Abu Ghraib pictures, the rounding up and detaining of thousands of civilians and the cockpit-shot film of an American pilot firing missiles into the streets of Fallujah: all of that has fuelled and will fuel decades of future rage and resentment," he writes.

"But for any Christian who is driven by an apocalyptic and millennial vision, these events are exactly what should be happening. Terrible and desperate violence, blood and grief are all, for them, mileposts on the road to God's dominion," Nicolson says.

If the message is that religious extremists are misdirecting previously conservative impulses, and non-extremist conservatives are annoyed, I think it's nice for them to share that.

There's some more sharing In the previous World Opinion roundup, which strikes a positive note:

In a poll and survey by the Israeli daily Haaretz, leading international journalists found Americans are held in much higher esteem than their president in eight out of 10 countries where the review was conducted.

Which would be more complimentary if we knew exactly how much higher in esteem Americans are held. I mean, if it's just RELATIVE, it may not be saying much.

Let me report sad news about someplace that isn't Iraq. 78 Die in Military Custody in Thailand (washingtonpost.com) (washingtonpost.com, 10/26/04). That total excludes 6 rioter-protesters who were shot dead by police, and others who were injured.

All happened to be Muslim, protesting the arrest of several prisoners accused of stealing state weapons in support of a separatist movement.

Here is a comment from the Thai government:

"The protesters had several motives, but the main reason was separatism," [ Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra] said, speaking before the announcement of the 78 suffocation deaths. "I cannot allow the separatists to exist on our land."

He added: "We cannot allow these people to harass innocent people and authorities any longer. ... We have no choice but to use force to suppress them."

Because violent suppression has worked so well in places like Chechnya, Iraq, and Palestine??? Do you get the impression that the Prime Minister has a lot of guns and very few ideas?

Here is an interesting opinion piece: The colonial precedent: the growing brutality and deception of the Iraq war mirrors Britain's recent imperial history, by Mark Curtis (guardian.co.uk, 10/26/04):

British ministers' claim to be defending civilisation against barbarity in Iraq finds a powerful echo in 1950s Kenya, when Britain sought to smash an uprising against colonial rule. Yet, while the British media and political class expressed horror at the tactics of the Mau Mau, the worst abuses were committed by the occupiers. The colonial police used methods like slicing off ears, flogging until death and pouring paraffin over suspects who were then set alight.

British forces killed around 10,000 Kenyans during the Mau Mau campaign...

Guerrillas resisting British rule were routinely designated 'terrorists', as now in Iraq. Britain never admitted that it was opposing a popular, nationalist rebellion in Kenya. Similarly, leftwing Malayan insurgents fighting British rule in the 1950s had strong popular support among the Chinese community but were officially called 'terrorists'. In secret, however, Foreign Office correspondence described the war as being fought 'in defence of [the] rubber industry', then controlled by British and European companies.

Wouldn't it be nice if such comparisons weren't so easy to come by?

Today's news: tragedy. Yesterday's news: tragedy. Tomorrow's news...

I have been terribly discouraged about the way things are going in Iraq. Every day I hear of an increased death toll. (Iraq Rebels Kill Nearly 50 Army Recruits, U.S. Envoy (reuters.com, 10/24/04), for example). Every day I hear plans of a new military assault on some town. The CIA appears to have found a new way to violate the Geneva conventions (reuters.com, 'Senators Question U.S. Treatment of Iraqi Prisoners,' 10/24/04). The Bush Administration has reacted somewhat strangely to a poll showing Iraqis prefer religious candidates for their upcoming elections (washingtonpost.com, 10/22/04), which make me wonder if the elections will be permitted to occur if both US and 'insurgent' forces choose to oppose them.

I'm not SURPRISED, however. This is pretty close to the worst-case scenario warned of by the peace movement. (And now, we hear, by Pat Robertson, which I never would have guessed.) Which still hasn't been acknowledged, and may never be. I'm not concerned with the peace movement being able to say 'I told you so,' - I'm concerned with the U.S. making the same mistakes repeatedly, choosing between falsely limited options over and over, and making things worse, as they have been.

A very thorough summary of recent violence is provided at Professor Cole's blog, Informed Comment. (juancole.com) (As is an interesting analysis of an Eminem song which expresses anti-Bush sentiments. Of all things. Pat Robertson AND Eminem suddenly agree with me on something? Is the world ending so soon?) It's a litany of bad news.

*

I had a chat with my partner about the troops in Iraq. He (more or less) asked if U.S. forces needed to stay to help ensure the election occurs. This question would make sense if U.S. forces appeared to be contributing to stability, and if they had credibility with the local people. Has this been demonstrated?

If soldiers feel unsafe making routine deliveries in Iraq ("Platoon Defies Orders in Iraq" reposted at truthout.org, 10/15/04), how is the U.S. presence supposed to help maintain order?

It appears that U.S. forces and those who work with them are the primary targets of so-called insurgent attacks. If the U.S. absented itself, some of the passion for repelling invaders would lose its source. The U.S. presence, because it is so unpopular, unintentionally taints those things it touches: if the U.S. military protects a charity (or an interim leader), it appears that the military and charity are collaborating, which draws attackers and kidnappers, which draws more military support... The cycle needs to end. Angry Iraqis aren't going to leave their home country, but the occupying U.S. certainly could.

So I believe that a U.S. endorsed and guarded election will carry the same occupiers taint that has inspired so much reactionary violence. This isn't a new argument, but still one that should be considered more carefully than it has been by leaders who won't change course, and are heading in the wrong direction.

This is barely on topic, but it is fun commentary on a very strange incident. Riba Rambles: Musings of a Mental Magpie writes twice (also see here) on the announcement from evangelist and Bush supporter Pat Robertson on his warnings to Bush about how the casualties in Iraq would be severe. Bush, for his part, denied that there would be any casualties at all.

Robertson's website, which Riba quotes from, provides several comments consistently in opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

I never would have guessed.