Freedom, democracy and other things we don't understand

Do you ever read the news, and think you're actually reading a clever parody? I've been having that experience quite a bit lately. I think my favorite recent experience was reading a New York Times article in which the paper - the paper of Judith Miller - expressed shock and horror at the idea of the US Government paying off Iraqi news outlets to print propaganda stories. This was on the front page - NOT, as you might think, on the "Irony" pages.

*

If I had to choose the top stories about the moral, ethical, and political disaster that the war in Iraq has become, my top choice would surely be CIA Holds Terror Suspects in Secret Prisons, by Dana Priest (washingtonpost.com, 11/2/05). This article has inspired international investigations, carefully worded denials by foreign governments (some of which amount to selective confessions), court actions, and some dramatic concessions from the Bush Administration's Department of State about international law.

The gist of this report is that the U.S. now maintains a "hidden global internment network" beyond the reach of law.

[T]he CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military -- which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress -- have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

The CIA's response to these allegations? CIA prisons leak 'to be probed' (news.bbc.co.uk, 11/9/05) - yes, the CIA wants to engage in a criminal inquiry over LEAKING the information, not over the conduct itself. Their plans validate the information - they would not prosecute a leak if the information weren't true.

*

I suppose the next topic would be the fact that the U.S. is admitting that Iraqi civilians have been killed. Bush Estimates Iraqi Death Toll in War at 30,000 (washingtonpost.com, 12/13/05) is a strange concession to reality by an administration which, famously, has claimed it is impossible to know how many civilians have died as a result of its invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Bush's number is actually similar to a number tabulated by Iraqbodycount.net. Their figure, made by tabulated various reports, is in the high 20,000s. (See Iraq Body Count: War dead figures, news.bbc.co.uk, 12/14/05).

However, both figures are a fraction of the likely number of dead, as they are tabulated from media reports, which record very little of what happens to civilians. The BBC article also notes:

One study, published by the Lancet medical journal in October 2004, suggested that poor planning, air strikes by coalition forces and a "climate of violence" had led to more than 100,000 extra deaths in Iraq.

*

The U.S.' nearly complete abandonment of Afghanistan has not been considered much of a news story. Even looking at the BBC link site, "Afghanistan's Future", there are a lot of discouragingly old articles.

It's as if that failed experiment in U.S. interventionism ceased to exist when things went bad. Current elections with dismally low turnout aren't making the effort something the U.S. government wants to call attention to right now. Five years in, rebuilding has largely been dropped, and stability isn't near at hand.

*

U.S. Troop deaths are obviously news. Back in October, when the 2000th death was recorded, there was quite a fuss. (Americans are, after all, rather superstitious about numbers.) Death toll an awkward yardstick on Iraq (news.bbc.co.uk, 10/25/05) didn't give much hope that things would improve.

Meanwhile, a leading military think tank said continuing violence and instability was likely to mean US troops would probably have to remain in Iraq until well after the US presidential elections in 2008.

*

The continually poor conditions in Baghdad are no longer news: they aren't new, by definition.

*

Saddam Hussein's trial is also big news, but nothing is really happening in it, so far as can be interpreted from the news we get here.

*

Scandals associated with the new Iraqi government and police forces engaging in prisoner abuses, sowing distrust and reminding everyone of the corrupt old regime, are a topic I posted about previously. I haven't noticed any "new" allegations, but it appears that the populace are coming to dread their police as they once dreaded the ousted regime's police.

*

And then there are the elections in both Afghanistan and Iraq. I've posted a few links about those today (below): the more you read, the more you doubt that anyone is happy with the outcome.

Enjoy the collection of links below from stories which caught my interest recently. I haven't grouped them in any special order, but I hope you also find them interesting.

t r u t h o u t - Iraq Sunni, Shiite Groups Threaten Boycott of Government (truthout.org, 12/22/05):

Allawi representative Ibrahim al-Janabi took the accusations one step further and described last week's elections in all 18 provinces as 'fraudulent.'

"These elections are fraudulent, they are fraudulent, and the next parliament is illegitimate. We reject all this process," al-Janabi told a news conference.

Iraq parties unite to reject poll (news.bbc.co.uk, 12/22/05). 35 parties are allegeding widespread fraud in the current elections. The allegations from "Sunni Arab and secular parties" are being dismissed by other groups who think they'll gain. Which is a bad sign about the current system not really being set up to benefit everyone.

Not yet enjoying liberation. t r u t h o u t - Dahr Jamail and Arkan Hamed: Iraqis Have Dim Hopes for 2006 (truthout.org, 12/21/05):

The majority of Iraqis in Baghdad now fear the security forces, as dozens of people each week are 'disappeared' by police and soldiers around the city and new torture chambers have been discovered recently. . . .

"Nothing is good in Iraq now," said the doctor. "Torture, detained friends, pillaging of houses, seeing neighbors suffering from poverty, no electricity, no water and gun fights everywhere. We have no relief from this suffering now."

Truth, democracy... Well, okay, just democracy. Sort of.

One of the more interesting stories of recent U.S. persuasion efforts was the news that the US has to pay off the press in Iraq to get the sort of perspectives they want to appear in the newly "free" press. U.S. Military Covertly Pays to Run Stories in Iraqi Press (latimes.com, 11/30/05) provides some unfortunate and fascinating information about the workings of PR firms in the employment of the Pentagon, who generate propaganda, translate it, and distribute it.

[My first thought was that, if they have to TRANSLATE it into Arabic, they're not using the right people. But this is an American operation, so letting actual Iraqis write the propaganda directly probably wouldn't work - because Americans might not think they were "in charge."]

The military's effort to disseminate propaganda in the Iraqi media is taking place even as U.S. officials are pledging to promote democratic principles, political transparency and freedom of speech in a country emerging from decades of dictatorship and corruption.

It comes as the State Department is training Iraqi reporters in basic journalism skills and Western media ethics, including one workshop titled 'The Role of Press in a Democratic Society.

I think my favorite part of the article is this:

"Here we are trying to create the principles of democracy in Iraq. Every speech we give in that country is about democracy. And we're breaking all the first principles of democracy when we're doing it," said a senior Pentagon official who opposes the practice of planting stories in the Iraqi media.

One of the disturbing side effects of this scandal has been a lax attitude toward the entire idea of propaganda in "free" societies. Rather than complete condemnation of this tactic, there are now casual debates on news programs about the relative appropriateness of undermining ACTUAL freedom of speech with purchased government propaganda, which is justified by saying that the purpose is important.

That lesson about the ends justifying the means? We haven't learned that yet.

And that important purpose for which we are disposing of the free press and an open society? Yes, it's part of an extraordinarily belated effort to - say it with me - win hearts and minds. Having the U.S. military bombing Iraqis didn't win their hearts or minds, but manipulating their newspapers will surely make them feel better, according to this logic.

I think the U.S. public has become so accustomed to being lied to by its leaders, that this fails to shock to the extent it should.

It's nice when someone remembers Afghanistan. For profane and passionate commentary and cartoons, see www.mnftiu.cc | get your war on | page 51 and drop down to "published 11/21/05."

Baghdad Burning, 12/1/05 on Bush's Iraq strategy:

It’s almost as if someone is paying him to intentionally sabotage American foreign policy.

There have been jokes about that. But for people living in Iraq, it's no joke.

A Baghdad resident remarks on the Hussein trial. Baghdad Burning, 12/15/05 (riverbendblog.blogspot.com):

One thing that struck me about what the witnesses were saying- after the assassination attempt in Dujail, so much of what later unfolded is exactly what is happening now in parts of Iraq. They talked about how a complete orchard was demolished because the Mukhabarat thought people were hiding there and because they thought someone had tried to shoot Saddam from that area. That was like last year when the Americans razed orchards in Diyala because they believed insurgents were hiding there. Then they talked about the mass detentions- men, women and children- and its almost as if they are describing present-day Ramadi or Falloojah. The descriptions of cramped detention spaces, and torture are almost exactly the testimonies of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, etc.

It makes one wonder when Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney and the rest will have their day, as the accused, in court.

Riverbend always has something worthwhile to read, when she has electricity to post. She also has a book out now, which is a compilation of her blog posts. She's won several awards for her efforts. If you haven't visited her site, you should have a look.

Old, yet significant news about warlords. For whatever reason (feel free to guess), a minor fuss was made about the "historic" ritual of elections in Afghanistan, but not about the substance of the election. Warlord fears in Afghan elections (news.bbc.co.uk, 8/17/05) provides a bit more substance, reporting that despite widespread concern about warlords participating in government, only 11 of 208 candidates were disqualified because of past acts.

In many areas, 'at least half of those standing are warlords or have some links to these commanders,' claims Prof Wadir Safi of Kabul university. . . .

Those involved in the vetting process say there was only so much they could do.

Furthermore, they say many on the original disqualification list turned in weapons, thereby making them eligible.

Yes, dumping some of your weapons stockpiles, despite atrocities you may have committed with them, was enough to be forgiven for warlordism. And to think we fuss over candidate qualifications here!

Unintended consequences. This is an item from a report by the International Crisis Group's page, Unmaking Iraq (crisisgroup.org), (which I reached by following a link from Get Your War On):

"The constitution is likely to fuel rather than dampen insurgency," says Robert Malley, Director of Crisis Group's Middle East and North Africa Program. "A compact based on compromise and broad consent could have been a first step in a healing process. Instead, [the process that exists instead] is proving yet another step in a process of depressing decline."

The article discusses how the current process is promoting weak documents in a structure that allows certain minorities to be overridden by other groups, leading to deeper splits.