Not even the government that the US is propping up likes our plans for them. Talabani Criticizes Study on Iraq - washingtonpost.com (washingtonpost.com, 12/10/06). The U.S. would like to "embed" its own soldiers into the Iraqi army's ranks, decide whether or not ex-Baath party members can hold which jobs, and other major governance issues. The Iraqi president is not pleased.

"What will be left of the Iraqi sovereignty if the Iraqi army becomes a tool in the hand of foreign officers who came form abroad?" Talabani said.

Talabani also said the report gives the impression its authors believe Iraq is a 'colony' to be dealt 'as they will.'

If the Iraqi president isn't convinced, it will be difficult for the US to "win hearts and minds" of everyone else there.

The media notices that Afghanistan still exists: film at 11. Afghanistan: What's Gone Wrong? - World Opinion Roundup (washingtonpost.com, 9/06) is a mini-retrospective with comments from international newspapers and US reader comments about the US' failure to nation-build Afghanistan into a place the US could hold up as a model. The Taliban and other warlord-type forces are thriving; only the capital appears to be under the US-backed government's control; the cultural benefits to women and peace benefits to everyone aren't in effect over most of the land; and many of the rebuilding promises that were made in the past have not been delivered.

The U.S. reader comments are entertaining, as always. It's the usual recent mix of:
(a) these people are hopeless (and so our failure isn't our fault)
(b) it was a great idea and we were completely entitled to involve ourselves, but our military campaign was mismanaged
(c) our PR wasn't good enough
(d) how dare you doubt the US' cause - you are hurting the troops, and
(e) wow, this was just as bad as we thought it would be, it really ought to stop now.

People rarely ask the Afghans what they want in these discussions, which makes them all the more curious as an exercise.

Time to rethink the idea of attacking a tactic. George Soros | Blinded by a Concept (truthout.org, 8/31/06).

The failure of Israel to subdue Hezbollah demonstrates the many weaknesses of the war-on-terror concept. One of those weaknesses is that even if the targets are terrorists, the victims are often innocent civilians, and their suffering reinforces the terrorist cause.

One of the interesting things about the war on terror has been an idea, frequently quoted by military personnel in newspapers, that civilian casualties caused by "good guys" are regrettable, but fundamentally different than civilian casualties caused by "bad guys" - it is supposed to be the intent, not the result, that matters. This results in complete incomprehension in why the families of victims do not instantly perceive our misplaced goodwill and forgive us.

A fresh perspective on this situation could help. At least, it couldn't make things worse.

Lebanon event timeline, for those who have lost track.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Day-by-day: Lebanon crisis - week seven (just up through 8/24/06 as of this posting).

Critics Decry "Destroy and Lend" Policy, by Emad Mekay (truthout.org, from IPS, 8/31/06). There are a variety of valid concerns about the practices that international lending and finance organizations engage in when a country is devastated. You may have already read about the IMF and World Bank, and how their policies often stagnate the development of the countries they are 'helping,' while turning those countries into profit centers for foreign investors.

There is some concern about how that sort of approach may play out in Lebanon.

Just like Iraq in 2003, a foreign country came in and destroyed the country's infrastructure, only to give foreign companies and institutions power in the subsequent reconstruction efforts, they said.

This sounds an awful lot like articles I once read in U.S. construction magazines about how great it was that U.S. companies were going to rebuild the parts of Bosnia that the U.S. had bombed, including schools and hospitals.

US Deaths in Iraq Surpass 9/11 Toll (truthout.org, originally from CNN, 9/03/06):

As the fifth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, attack on the United States approaches, another somber benchmark has just been passed.

The announcement Sunday of four more U.S. military deaths in Iraq raises the death toll to 2,974 for U.S. military service members in Iraq and in what the Bush administration calls the war on terror.

News like this makes it even stranger that I know people who thought the war was over after Bush's "Mission Accomplished" press conference.

Where the war on terror has brought us.

While I've been relieved at the cessation of hostilities in Lebanon, the violence in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, and countless other countries continues. Many of these conflicts are in demand for independence of one sort or another, but independence and a desire for self-determination aren't universally encouraged. As an American, it is awkward to read that independence is undesirable for some, and great for others. It is difficult to reconcile the ideal with the political partisanship that forms our current reality.

*

I had a discussion with an acquaintance about the path to peace. He is an idealist, and suggested that just persuading children when they are young and impressionable that peace is best for everyone should eliminate conflict in a generation or two. It's a nice idea, but children already want peace. Children want to have healthy, happy lives, just like most adults do. However, it doesn't take long to see that the world isn't on their side in that regard. I'm sure kids in Beirut and Haifa love peace, but they have no say in the matter at the moment. Unjust experiences will shape their world view in the future. If they realize that not everyone gets a fair chance for a peaceful life, and they are treated unjustly, what then?

I believe that children shouldn't just be taught that peace is good for them: they should get to live it. Without a serious interest in preventing way by solving its underlying causes, peace will remain illusory. To teach peace to kids, we have to live it, and be sure it is available to everyone.

Currently, the U.S. is in 'sole superpower'-mode, and is trying to shape the world to its strategic advantage. This involves military occupations, providing weapons to allies, leading the world in the production of land mines, avoidance of the International Criminal Court, and other non-peaceful strategic goals. These actions deny opportunities for peace to exist in most of the world, resulting in violence which can then be used to justify more violence and state-sponsored or non-state-sponsored terrorism. Teaching kids peace can't make up for the increasing danger we put the world in for short-term gain.

*

Five Years on: An Era of Constant Warfare by Tom Coghlan and Kim Sengupta (from the Independent UK, reposted at truthout.org, 9/04/06) discusses the kind of world kids are seeing now.

Five years ago this week, the Taliban's al-Qa'ida allies made final preparations to launch devastating attacks on America that would precipitate the 'war on terror,' the US led invasion of Afghanistan and the subsequent invasion of Iraq.

Far from ending terrorism, George Bush's tactics of using overwhelming military might to fight extremism appear to have rebounded, spawning an epidemic of global terrorism that has claimed an estimated 72,265 lives since 2001, most of them Iraqi civilians.

The rest, some 30,626, according to official US figures, have been killed in a combination of terror attacks and counter-insurgency actions by the US and its allies.

Iraqi casualties (civilian and military) are up 51%.

Today's paper is filled with news of death: violence in Iraq, violence in Afghanistan, violence in Palestine, violence in Dafur (news.bbc.co.uk)... CNN, while assuring us that what's happening in Iraq is NOT a civil war, has articles with titles like Cold-blooded carnage soaring in Iraq (cnn.com), which notes that 1,600+ people were executed in July in the current wave of "sectarian violence" - did we mention it's not a civil war? (With a civil war, they'd be uniforms, I guess, like with sports teams, so you could distinguish between the sides.) More than 100 people were killed on one day alone (August 28th) in Iraq (independent.co.uk, 8/29/06); 68 people were killed and 300 injured in the space of half an hour in Baghdad on September 1st (Baghdad attacks kill 68 in half an hour (news.independent.co.uk, 9/02/06)).

Not to state the obvious, but the tactics currently in use are not working.

No, let me rephrase that: they're not making the world a safer place. Making the world a safer place may not be the goal, however.

There are many people benefitting financially and politically from the current state of affairs. If peace is what we want, we need to make some big changes, including making the current state of affairs unprofitable.

Visit warprofiteers.com and give that some thought.

Cease fire in Lebanon!

Let's see if it holds. But it's a good start. I'd love to take a break from reading about this depressing tragedy for a while. BBC NEWS | In Pictures | In pictures: Lebanon ceasefire (news.bbc.co.uk, 8/14/06).

A short (unauthorized) editorial from a friend about "smart bombs." A while back, I quoted an acquaintance who was mystified that people can ever be upset about being accidentally killed by the military. (!) Seriously. Anyway, a friend replied to him, and I'd like to quote that conversation, because I like it.

">How come whenever a smart bomb kills civilians people makes a fuss about it? Even though it's unintentional.<"

It's worth making a fuss about. There are still several people who believe in "smart bombs". Many of these ignorant folks are voters. Some of them are decision makers.

In WWII, most folks said that the Norden Bomb Sight could put a bomb in a pickle barrel from 20,000 feet up. It got a lot of guys to volunteer for bomber crew who otherwise wouldn't have. They liked the idea of the precise bomb. Heck, who wouldn't? Put a bomb into some tank factory, leave the women and children alone, plenty to like about that idea. Later, we figured out that those bombs were lucky to get within two miles of their targets. Guys who'd signed up to be precision bombers instead burned down cities--a task that our precision bomb sights could actually handle.

I believe that there are situations in which it makes sense to use bombers. But when deciding to use them, don't think of those bombs as smartbombs. Think of them as smart-as-an-aphid bombs. Better than they could be, but still pretty bad. Whenever you hear someone use the phrase "smart bomb", call them on that crap. It's your duty as an engineer.

(My friend knew better than to take on the whole idea of why 'accidental killings' aren't okay, since that was beyond the conceptual acceptance range of his intended audience.)

Nothing brings people together like being attacked by other people. Israel expands war (washingtonpost.com, 8/09/06):

A Tel Aviv University poll showed 93 percent of Israelis believed the campaign in Lebanon was justified, and 91 percent backed the air strikes even if they destroyed Lebanese infrastructure and inflicted suffering on civilians. . . .

At least 1,005 people in Lebanon and 101 Israelis have been killed in four weeks of bloodshed which erupted when Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

A sensible editorial from the PM of Lebanon: End This Tragedy Now: Israel Must Be Made to Respect International Law, by Fouad Siniora (washingtonpost.com, 8/09/06). Yes, there's that concept of international law again.

This is a very worthwhile read.

[I was able to take a vacation, from both work and the news. Many were not so lucky...]

The Washington Post has been updating its collection of photo essays and other media associated with the violence in Lebanon at: Crisis in the Middle East Multimedia.

The biggest side effect: unanticipated popular support for Hezbollah. My extremist political friend had been talking up Israel's attacks on Lebanon as the sort of bold action that so many Americans prize, even when it's directed at the wrong target. While I am relieved not to know too many people like my friend, their are plenty of them in the world, but without his particular political biases. As a result Hezbollah, who is seen as taking decisive action against Israeli aggression, is winning support as the violence against the civilians of Lebanon continues. They are "doing something" about the scenes of horror that people see on the nightly news, and people who think like my friend admire that.

This doesn't sit well with many regional authorities. Arab leaders fear rise of Hezbollah (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/28/06) describes the disruption that such broad support for a militia might have on other countries.

Some Saudi religious figures have gone much further. For them the issue is not so much political as sectarian.

One well-known sheikh, Abdullah bin Jabreen, has issued a fatwa, or religious ruling, declaring it illegal for Muslims to join, support or even pray for Hezbollah.

In a time with many unpopular Arab governments, a wildly popular militia in any Arab country could be perceived as a threat.

This points to the fear that many have had about Israel's action against Lebanon destabilizing the region in unpredictable ways.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Blair defends decision on Lebanon (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/29/06):

He added it was 'simply not correct' to say he and US President Bush had not called for an immediate ceasefire because they wanted Israel to win the conflict.

The reason Blair was put in a position to issue this rather odd defense, while traveling to promote high tech business in the U.S., was that he hadn't prepared a really coherent, brief explanation as to why he didn't support a ceasefire. (The article quotes his explanation - see if you can decipher it.)

Please keep track of which war I'm referring to... Meanwhile, in Iraq, the Bush Administration remains frustrated that Americans do not see all the good news about the U.S.-sponsored rebuilding projects. It turns out that it's probably better that we not read about those. Iraq Hospital Touted by Laura Bush Delayed (nytimes.com, 7/28/06) provides some reasons why.

He said that, of nearly 180 medical facilities promised by the U.S., contracts were awarded for 142. Only six have been completed and turned over to the Iraqis and those ''are not even fully complete.''

''This comes as a sharp contrast to the Japanese,'' Ali said. ''They have promised and delivered 13 hospitals around the country, including three cutting-edge cancer centers. The Japanese have been very faithful to us, unfortunately, the Americans aren't like that.''

I think it's important that the interviewee for this story differentiate between the U.S. and the Japanese. U.S. contractors have been saying that working in Iraq is impossible, while still cashing their checks. If the Japanese are delivering on their commitments, it means that it IS possible, but we're not doing it correctly.

Speaking of war crimes... U.N. Says It Protested to Israel for 6 Hours During Attack That Killed 4 Observers in Lebanon (nytimes.com, 7/27/06):

Jane Holl Lute, the assistant secretary general for peacekeeping operations, said at an emergency meeting of the Security Council that over the six-hour period in which the United Nations' warnings were being conveyed to the Israelis, the observation post at Khiam, in southern Lebanon, continued to come under fire.

The firings persisted even after rescuers reached the hilltop site, she said, and in all it was subjected to 21 strikes, 11 of them aerial bombardments and at least 6 artillery rounds.

She described the observation post as "well known and clearly marked" and added that no Hezbollah activity was reported in the area.

The four dead observers were from China, Finland, Canada and Austria.

An eerie resemblance to certain events that occurred in Vietnam. Sergeant Tells of Plot to Kill Iraqi Detainees (nytimes.com, 7/28/06):

Just before leaving, the soldiers had been given an order to "kill all military-age men" at the site by a colonel and a captain, said Paul Bergrin and Michael Waddington, the lawyers who are disputing Sergeant Lemus' account. Military officials in Baghdad have declined to comment on whether such an order, which would have been a violation of the law of war, might have been given.

What I hope the men do not know is how it turned out in one of the Vietnam versions of this story: there was a lot of fuss, and a lot of media (and the loss of 'hearts and minds' everywhere), and then everyone involved basically got off and went back to their normal lives.

*

I've had some complex discussions with my partner about the concept of the 'law of war.' To him, war is fundamentally immoral, and so it is preposterous to provide rules and laws that make war acceptable to anyone.

I do believe in war laws and war crimes. I believe that, if a home country of mine was attacked, that I should be able to have a right to self defense in similar form to the form of the original attack; that the defense should play by certain rules (no raping, pillaging, theft, slaughter of innocents, despoiling of land, etc.) - that a certain level of lawful order should continue to exist, and that everyone who violates that order should be held accountable in the aftermath along with whoever started the attack.

Unfortunately, this is an ideal: superpowers (worldwide and dominant regional powers) only abide by the rules they wish, take what they want, execute dissenters, and then hold themselves above the law. My partner's point about how preposterous the entire idea of war laws are is valid in the world now, where the victor in a war generally gets to choose against whom laws will and won't be retroactively applied. Winners do not currently pay for war crimes. And we live in a country which holds itself above the law consistently, yet uses the same laws to justify invading others who do not comply, as if the laws only exist when applied against our real or imagined enemies.

For this reason, we really need international legal bodies with the authority to hold all nations into account. My country believed in such bodies when it was small and vulnerable, but now that it's strong, it prefers to dominate by force. When it becomes weaker, as other world powers grow, I imagine there will be another change of position on the issue. But such international authority is currently needed.

Tide of Arab Opinion Turns to Support for Hezbollah (nytimes.com, 7/28/06) suggests that Arab governments which previously criticized Hezbollah's actions against Israel are now being forced to jump onto a bandwagon of support that is being pulled by popular opinion. With images of destruction in Lebanon on television nightly, Hezbollah's fight against a government that is devastating innocent civilians looks more respectable to many.

I'm sure this is a consequence that Israel did not intend.

418% Overhead in Iraq. Audit Finds U.S. Hid Cost of Iraq Projects (nytimes.com, subscription required, 7/30/2006): The NY Times' first paragraph:

The State Department agency in charge of $1.4 billion in reconstruction money in Iraq used an accounting shell game to hide ballooning cost overruns on its projects there and knowingly withheld information on schedule delays from Congress, a federal audit released late Friday has found.

The article goes on to describe examples in the audit where figures were fabricated to make projects appear to stay on budget, and situations where significant delays weren't reported.

Awkward, awkward timing. Israel 'presses US on bomb sale' (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/23/06):

Reports from the US suggest Washington has been asked to speed up a shipment of precision bombs sold as part of a deal with Israel last year.

According to a report in the New York Times, Israel made the request after it began its air assault on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon 12 days ago. . . .

Israel is one of the largest customers for US armaments.

It also receives several billion dollars a year in direct and indirect aid from Washington.

Heartbreaking to see. I live in a city, and there are certain things about living in a densely populated area that have a familiar, home-like feeling. People who don't like cities may not understand, but seeing images of cities devastated is painful. This isn't just a city: it's a city like the one I live in.

(Photo popup link) BBC News | In pictures | Beirut destruction | A city in ruins (news.bbc.co.uk).

BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN appalled by Beirut devastation (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/23/06).

The UN's Jan Egeland has condemned the devastation caused by Israeli air strikes in Beirut, saying it is a violation of humanitarian law.

Mr Egeland, the UN's emergency relief chief, described the destruction as "horrific" as he toured the city.

Actual quote from an acquaintance of an acquaintance. I used to attend school with someone who eventually joined the military. This was something of a shock: this person had fled an oppressive military regime in their home country, signed up for our military, and actively advocated the use of force against.... well, everyone. I had expected some enthusiasm for the entire American democratic experiment, but not necessarily for the same force that had been used to threaten his family back home. But, these things happen: sometimes, people like the appeal of power, regardless of who wields it, and he did learn early in life that the people with guns were in charge. And who doesn't want to be in charge?

Anyway, he has a friend who is also in the military, and... always seems to miss some major aspect of any issue, in that same zeal for force that my acquaintance has. And so today, he asked two questions:

How come whenever a smart bomb kills civilians people makes a fuss about it? Even though it's unintentional.

And no one makes a fuss when the suicide bombers deliberately target civilian populations?

There are screamingly obvious answers to these questions: killing people is always wrong, even if it is done out of incompetence; and you need to read the papers, because suicide bombings are covered extensively in our media, so long as the victims are our key allies. I was recently told that Sri Lanka has a much higher rate of suicide bombings than Israel, but Sri Lanka doesn't have a key alliance with us, and so I've only been led to believe by the mainstream press that suicide bombings are performed by (a) Palestinians and (b) various people in Chechnya.

But he didn't ask the question to get an answer (though I foolishly answered). Those were really just statements of position from someone who works in the military, which really meant: the military is not responsible for its accidents, and ONLY the victims within our allies are important.

If you were in the military, would you say the same thing? You might. It might eat you inside, but you might. Which is sad.

*

My main acquaintance then made some additional statements. The key items were:

One man's crusade is another's genocide.

He had several variations of this, which looked like they were leading to an interesting point... But the point is that he agrees. It's all relative; it's all fine; call it what you will.

This is why the U.S. can't lead on any issue of international law. Our leaders keep saying we WANT to be the world's policeman and moral compass... But we don't OWN moral compass. It's whatever works for our allies at this moment. There's no standard of human rights or law that ACTUALLY applies equally to everyone. And that makes the world very confusing.

I like to think that few Americans are like this, but the ones who are like this say so, and are in vogue right now in the corporate media. I believe I only have one acquaintance in a circle of a 140+ people who thinks like this. But he really believes it, whereas most other folks I know will less extreme opinions are open to discussion, and they adjust their opinions over time to match their experiences.

*

(Certain kinds of experience help explain militarism, too. Anyone who wants to militarize you puts you in an extreme situation, especially where [whatever military or vigilante force you're in] has done some harm and is unwelcome, providing an opportunity for armed soldiers to feel threatened by the locals, and bond over their need for mutual defense. It's apparently quite effective.)

*

So there was some back and forth. I noted repeatedly that killing people is wrong, no matter who does it - in this instance, Hezbollah OR Israel. This was flatly rejected. When I got specific about Lebanon, it was rejected even more zealously - in favor of just one side.

Another excerpt:

Me: Under international law, it is illegal to kill civilians in other countries to irritate some other group...

Him: Isn't that what the terrorists are doing? Or, have done. So, am I to surmise that terrorism is illegal? Isn't anyone stopping them? Or, wait, someone is doing something about it.

So, you see, bombing the fleeing civilians (including Americans!) in Lebanon is fine, because it is an anti-terrorist act, even if it is not being taken against terrorists. See? Well, okay, it doesn't work. But you see where he's going? Sort of?

Summary: Hezb. kills anyone = bad; Israel kills anyone = automatic anti-terrorism = good.

There are variations, of course, but this is the overall summary.

*

I feel even worse for my friend than before we had this conversation. I had even asked if there were any circumstances that he could justify having any ally or non-ally kill his family for anti-terrorism purposes, in hopes of having him express some sympathy for either the Israelis catching missiles or the Lebanese catching bombs. He basically said there were such situations, but that he didn't want to commit those to writing. :-(

If this was 1950 and we were similar but back in time, and if our policies then had allowed him to move here from his home country, he'd probably say the same thing about sacrificing his family for the glorious cause of anti-communism. Or, if we were in the 1950s in China, perhaps he'd say the same thing for pro-communism, to be patriotic.

So now I feel EVEN WORSE for my friend. He's been unhappy in many aspects of life, including his military assignments/stations, and now he's burdened with this type of non-thinking. He's always the first to express defensiveness over any military incident that could lead to accusations of "baby killing," having read his history of Vietnam, but now he finds himself in the position of defending the killing of civilians in actual and hypothetical contexts, with a few self-pitying comments about how bad that must look.

It looks bad, and I feel bad that he feels that way. But I can't help him. I think of that website, sorryeverybody.com, where Americans apologize for not electing a better president (or, at least not electing the current one). I'd like to post something that says, 'Sorry world: I have this friend who thinks that killing is fine in general, and he's in the military and is stationed in your countries, and I can't change his mind.'

Perhaps when he leaves the military, and that attitude is no longer adaptive to the macho, force-based environment he works in, he'll get better.

*

There are LOTS of veterans in my family, male and female, especially on my dad's side, and none of them advocate killing in casual conversation. That gives me hope.

*

The folks in the peace movements around the world, who want a better place to live with their families, and who like the idea of universal human rights also give me hope. Because they want the sort of world that I want to live in, too.

*

I know that American foreign policy is a mystery to many, especially over the last few years. Also: the American justice system, which is so clearly rigged based on economics. And American attitudes toward foreigners, which swing like a pendulum. I think it is confusing because we expect it to make sense, when most people who make the confusing announcements are just like my old classmate, and are merely taking sides and justify them later, without any absolute ethical or moral values that would provide a consistent base.

To paraphrase the current figurehead and add a few clarifying comments in plain speech:

You're either with us or against us.
If you are with us, you can do no wrong.
If you are against us, you can do no right.
We reserve the right to redefine who is 'with us' at any time.

Sorry everybody.

"We are not colluding." Oh. Okay. But do you think it looks that way? Reuters AlertNet - UN, defying US, urges quick Middle East cease-fire (alertnet.org, 7/19/06):

"Washington frowns on the idea of a cease-fire now. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said a cease-fire between a state and a 'terrorist group' like Hizbollah made little sense.

... In Washington, White House spokesman Tony Snow said the United States was not engaged in military strategy sessions with the Israelis, 'sitting around at the war map saying, 'Do this, this and this.''

'We're not colluding, we're not cooperating, we're not conspiring, we're not doing any of that,' he told reporters.

I think that was supposed to be the quote that explained why weren't allowing the international community to stop the war against the entire civilian population of Lebanon and its civilian infrastructure, which Mr. Bolton apparently cannot distinguish from a terrorist organization which is supposedly the intended target of these bombardments.

If that was supposed to be the convincing argument... I wonder what the runner up argument was.

Another reference for the current, unfolding tragedy, since our papers have short-term memory, and won't remember the details by the end of the week. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Day-by-day: Lebanon crisis - week two (a link to the first week is also provided).

Comments on Iraq from Baghdad Burning (7/11/06), which is always a good blog to read. This excerpt is part of a much larger piece of commentary on the feeling of Iraqis toward the Americans, as things have gotten worse:

I look at them and wonder just how many innocents they killed and how many more they'll kill before they go home. How many more young Iraqi girls will they rape?

I'm not sure how the people here who believe that the soldiers must stay in Iraq until order is restored can understand that even the perception that the soldiers are part of the problem makes their plan futile.

And who can say it's just the perception?

News update: things still getting worse for women in Iraq. TomDispatch - Tomgram: Ruth Rosen on Sexual Terrorism and Iraqi Women (undated) is a rather terrifying update to the horror stories we've already read about.

No country that falls into chaos and looks toward extremists religious leaders for assistance can provide a situation in which women are fully equal in society, and so cannot form a true democracy in which all citizens can meaningfully participate.

Compilation of global protests over the attacks on Lebanon: Informed Comment: Lebanon (7/15/06).

The note about how these attacks are also attacks on Catholic communities in Lebanon is interesting (which may lead to new political alliances as a result), and how, since the U.S. subsidizes Israel, the current actions tarnish the U.S. also.

Too High a Price, from thenation.com (7/14/06):

It makes no sense for Israel to destroy the civil infrastructure of the Palestinians and of Lebanon in response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, or to further weaken the capacity of the governments of Lebanon and the Palestinian Authority while at the same trying to hold them accountable for the actions of groups and militias they cannot reasonably control. This collective punishment of the Palestinian and Lebanese people is not only inhumane and should be condemned but also leads to more radicalization and to more chaos.

An interesting, relevant point.

Sample of international reactions. BBC NEWS | Middle East | In quotes: Lebanon reaction (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/13/06): From a European Union Statement:

The European Union is greatly concerned about the disproportionate use of force by Israel in Lebanon in response to attacks by Hezbollah on Israel. The presidency deplores the loss of civilian lives and the destruction of civilian infrastructure. The imposition of an air and sea blockade on Lebanon cannot be justified.

From the Russian Government's statement:

All forms of terrorism are completely unacceptable.

That's close to a dangerous, two-sided criticism.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Lebanon seeks Israeli ceasefire (news.bbc.co.uk, 7/13/06)

Lebanese ministers have called for a ceasefire with Israel, saying that all means should be used to end 'open aggression' against their country.

International calls for restraint are growing, with Russia, France and the EU saying Israel's response to the capture of two soldiers was disproportionate.

Especially bad news, which has been casually referenced in a few articles, but not specifically remarked upon by the U.S. government representatives. BBC NEWS | Middle East | UN fails to agree Lebanon truce:

The UN Security Council has failed to agree on a statement calling for a ceasefire in Lebanon, despite pleas from the Lebanese prime minister.

Lebanese diplomats blamed the US for blocking the ceasefire move.

There will apparently be quotes on this soon from the Administration. My guess is that they will be bizarre quotes.

[Postscript: oh yes, they are bizarre. See 'We Are Not Colluding' on July 19th.]

Interest background reading: List of the UN resolutions concerning Israel and Palestine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

There are a variety of very carefully worded Wikipedia entries on the topic of the Middle East conflicts, including Israel's various... departures from international law. (They're worded like that.) Some of them are quite interesting, in that they shed light on the Israeli point of view that they shouldn't be punished for breaking international law or committing war crimes, and the general UN assembly is just picking on them.

Wow.

Part of the lesson of this long list is that heavily armed allies of the U.S. don't need to pay the UN much attention.

Oh look, another war.

There's something painfully discouraging about what's happening in Lebanon right now. I'm old enough to remember the last time that Beirut was bombed, and it was terribly sad then, also. There are certain sort of cities everywhere in the world, despite differences of construction and topography, that still somehow feel familiar. City people can recognize that as a place they might live.

In the early 90s, I worked at an architecture firm that had designed a building in Beirut. They had a photo of it on the wall, and it was such a sad photo: it was the cover of Time magazine, with their building in the foreground, and the city smoldering behind them.

So sad.

And it's happening again.

Anxiety Grips Civilians in Lebanon, Israel (washingtonpost.com photo gallery, 7/16/06).

Israel bombed gas stations, fuel tanks, roads and the last bridge on the highway to Damascus, the major route out of the country.

Near Tyre, fleeing civilians were killed by Israeli helicopters. Israel bombed the airport, and is imposing a sea and air blockade.

This is HORRIBLE.

I'm one of those peculiar people who believes that killing is wrong. Like those folks who believe in international law and human rights, I believe that the civilians of Lebanon have a basic right not to be bombed by neighboring countries who are mad at one of many, many political groups in the government. I do not support terrorism by either Hezbollah nor the State of Israel, and both sides are engaging in it. Israel happens to be doing it on a larger scale, and as an actual government it should know better.

I also believe in treating others as one would like to be treated. I do not believe that it sets a reasonable precedent to say that if any country is home to a group that kidnaps your nationals, you can bomb their home country. I am not only writing this because it came to light earlier that the U.S. has been kidnapping LOTS of foreign nationals, but you can see that there could be a concern there.

If this isn't obvious, killing civilians is a crime. It is always a crime. Just because one killer is your ally, doesn't erase that.

Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan... BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | Refuge from the real Afghanistan:

"The only Afghans that many of these people meet are the ones circulating with the trays of Chardonnay or Merlot at parties."

Ouch. This is an interesting picture of the haves and have-nots in Kabul, a city that is still not safe to wander around in.

It's not a very positive endorsement about what 'nation building' amounts to currently.

What's an Iraqi Life Worth? by Andrew J. Bacevich (washingtonpost.com, 7/7/06), discusses the alarmingly, anti-Iraqi remarks that various U.S. officials have made in the course of 'liberating' the Iraqi people, and points out that policies that cost Iraqi lives do not aid the U.S.' mission there.

For all the talk of Iraq being a sovereign nation, foreign occupiers are the ones deciding what an Iraqi life is worth.

Yes, sometimes he means that literally, as in when civilians are 'accidentally' killed, and the U.S. pays some form of cash compensation.

Iraq Body Count (iraqbodycount.net).

Civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq: Min 38764, Max 43192.

Another good resource. The Institute for Policy Studies: The Iraq War (ips-dc.org). As of this writing, many of the articles haven't been updated since April, but are still good resources, because nothing has improved since then, and so the information offered is still highly relevant.

A practical item: Ending the Iraq Quagmire: A Real Exit Strategy, a PDF outlining the steps for the U.S. to execute an effective, orderly withdrawal that leaves the Iraqis in charge. Included are the withdrawal of the economic laws that the U.S. has passed to its own benefit, and restrictions on debt forgiveness which would favor international investors over Iraqis.

Non-random violence. GIs May Have Planned Iraq Rape, Slayings (washingtonpost.com, 7/1/06) reports that the group from which the accused soldiers came appears to have been a victim of vengeance attacks associated with the crime, the aftermath of which inspired soldiers who were aware of the crime to come forward.

I still find it peculiar that this story is being publicized. The foreign press has reported many such crimes, going back to the treatment of women in Abu Ghraib (some of whom appeared on films shown to various U.S. government officials as part of their abuse investigation), but our newspapers routinely gloss over such things. Until now. I suspect that by the time revelations of the abuse of female prisoners (and children) were revealed to the U.S. media, they believed the Abu Ghraib story was already out of fashion, but I'm still unsure why this story is making the papers, and the others are passed over. Is it the foreign press' graphic coverage? Something about this unit, aside from the possible revenge killings? I hope the reason this incident is being separated out from the others is revealed.

The longer we're there, the more things like this will surface: another reason to bring the troops home. Troops Facing Murder Probe (washingtonpost.com, 6/30/06):

The case in Mahmudiyah, a rural town in a Sunni Arab region dubbed the Triangle of Death for the insurgent attacks and crimes that are common there, was the latest in a string of allegations of unlawful killings -- and subsequent coverups -- by U.S. forces in recent months, beginning with reports in March that Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians in the western town of Haditha. Investigations continue into that case.

In June, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman were charged with murder and other crimes related to the shooting death of a crippled man in Hamdaniya, west of Baghdad. Residents there said the soldiers planted a rifle and a shovel near the victim's body to make it look as if he had been burying roadside bombs.

Later in June, three soldiers were charged with murdering three Iraqi detainees in U.S. custody and threatening to kill another soldier who saw the incident. And last week, two Pennsylvania National Guardsmen were charged with murder in the shooting death of an unarmed man in the western city of Ramadi and with trying to cover up the crime.

I know I've been quoting the Washington Post quite heavily of late, but their coverage has been succinct and quite good for getting an overview of the situation. I recommend them.

From military victory to peace: reframing US goals for Iraq. For the past few years of war, the pro-war camp's underlying theme has been the same: the U.S. cannot leave Iraq until the U.S. WINS.

Winning has been redefined several times already. Winning meant finding Weapons of Mass Destruction. Those didn't exist, so winning became capturing Saddam Hussein. He wasn't the entire problem, so winning became installing a new government - ANY government - in Iraq. This plan was revised several times, when it became clear that a hand-picked puppet government wouldn't suffice, and that there was plenty of agitation for democracy. So installing a passable democratic, non-proportionately-representative government that could still allow us to take oil was next. The interim government didn't count, the 'unity' government is just getting established, but the country has been in a spiral descent toward civil war. This prevented 'rebuilding Iraq' from being the next measure of success. Winning is being redefined again, sometimes associated with defeating the less pro-US side(s) of the civil war, sometimes not with any clear goals. But peace? Peace isn't usually a word that comes up in this context.

A Road Map Home ( washingtonpost.com, 6/28/06) discusses the idea of winning the peace.

I asked Khalilzad how he would answer members of Congress who are indignant that insurgents who opposed the U.S. occupation might be pardoned by the Iraqi government. 'They need to understand that we want this conflict to end,' he said, and stressed that Iraqi and American hopes of reducing U.S. forces can be achieved only if the insurgents agree to stop fighting and recognize the Iraqi government's authority. 'The biggest thing we can do to honor those who sacrificed here is to achieve the cause they fought for' by creating a peaceful and democratic Iraq, he said.

What is proposed is controversial to Americans, who have reduced the current conflict to one between good guys (our side and our allies) and bad guys (everyone else), and under our rules, bad guys should always be punished. The idea of reconciliation is... abstract.

But it's being proposed. By someone other than the U.S. Which is novel: the U.S. hasn't been especially open to proposals for Iraq that do not originate somewhere within the U.S. White House. But it happened.

No Kangaroo Tribunals! A Governing Philosophy Rebuffed (washingtonpost.com, 6/29/06):

In rejecting Bush's military tribunals for terrorism suspects, the high court ruled that even a wartime commander in chief must govern within constitutional confines significantly tighter than this president has believed appropriate.

Ah, what understatement. Go read this.

Playing politics. It's a peculiar time in the U.S. as far as the war in Iraq goes. The far away war is considered to be a massive political liability for the current administration, but traditional knee-jerk patriotism keeps surfacing to cloud the issue of what can be done about it. With our largely docile media, a politician can get away with saying just about anything.

The popular approach has been: the war = our soldiers. So if you oppose the war, you are not "supporting the troops" (of course, the troops who disapprove of the war do not count, because they do not officially exist for political purposes). This is a completely simplistic and nonsensical statement: the same people who put the troops in harms way, cut their pay, cut their benefits, and refuse to treat them for war-related illnesses claim to hold the moral high ground in 'supporting' them. But the media represents this as true, and so it is widely accepted. Even after Vietnam, in which a few soldiers discredited the war effort in the eyes of the media (rather than the powerful who caused the war in the first place), it sort of became okay to support the WAR without supporting the troops as an awkward, temporary workaround.

The fundamental war/troops confusion from Vietnam is being revived and applied to the current war. Staying on Message -- Nixon's Message (washingtonpost.com, 6/27/06) is an interesting read. Here's a sample to induce you to read the entire opinion piece:

Today Republicans in general and Karl Rove in particular have resurrected the Nixon game plan. They are not mounting a point-by-point defense of the administration's plan for Iraq, not least because the administration doesn't really have a plan for Iraq. When Senate Democrats brought two resolutions to the floor last week, each calling for a change in our policy, the Republicans defeated them both, but they pointedly failed to introduce a resolution of their own affirming the administration's conduct of the war. That, they understood, would have been a loser in the court of public opinion. Instead, they walked a tightrope: not really defending the war per se but attacking the Democrats for seeking to end it. This was Nixonism of the highest order.

Go read this, and see how world events can be reduced to simplistic characterizations for the game known as politics.

Wrong direction. Army Manual to Skip Geneva Detainee Rule (latimes.com, 6/05/06):

The Pentagon has decided to omit from new detainee policies a key tenet of the Geneva Convention that explicitly bans 'humiliating and degrading treatment,' according to knowledgeable military officials, a step that would mark a further, potentially permanent, shift away from strict adherence to international human rights standards.

Go read the whole article - there are some great quotes.

Steps like this permanently prevent the U.S. from claiming the moral high ground in any conflict. This could not be what is intended.

Human rights exceptionalism. The war in Iraq has hurt Americans in many ways: increased our taxes, decreased our civil liberties, killed our relatives and peers, reduced our public services, resulted in racial hysteria, damaged our economy, thrown our government into insurmountable debt, and made us less secure at home and abroad.

European governments are also catching some harm for their role in assisting the U.S.' less savory activities associated with the so-called war against global badness. Europe under 'rendition' cloud (news.bbc.co.uk, 6/7/06) notes that not only have Poland and Romania tarnished their international reputations by hosting U.S. 'black' facilities, where untold human rights violations have occurred, but Sweden, Bosnia, the UK, Italy, Macedonia, Germany and Turkey have all aided and abetted the U.S. in a variety of ways. This puts the EU in an awkward position of wanting to enforce human rights everywhere, but having its own members shun that responsibility at key points in its dealings with the U.S. government.

The goal of the investigation is to prevent these sorts of human rights violations from occurring again. But with the violator countries unwilling to admit their guilt, it's hard to get to a point where such events can be prevented with any certainty.

Who wants to be a citizen of a country whose government 'disappears' its citizens, or who permits other governments to 'disappear' citizens to undisclosed locations in its country?

Blinded by denial. One of the more interesting things about the tragedy at Haditha is the way the military has changed its story over time. Probe Into Iraq Deaths Finds False Reports (truthout.org, originally from washingtonpost.com, 6/1/06, which now has a shorter article up) describes not just the revisionism the military's spokesmen used, but their overt hostility toward the press involved in factual inquiry.

Bargewell's report also is expected to address why the Marine Corps let stand statements issued by official spokesmen that were known to be false at least two months ago. On Nov. 20, the day after the shootings, Marine Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool told reporters that the Iraqis died in a crossfire, stating that, 'Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents.' Time magazine, which first began making inquiries about the incident in January, reported that when one of its staff members asked Pool about the allegations, he accused the journalist of being duped by terrorists. 'I cannot believe you're buying any of this,' the magazine said the officer wrote in an e-mail. 'This falls into the same category of any aqi [al-Qaeda in Iraq] propaganda.' Another military representative, Lt. Col. Michelle Martin-Hing, told the magazine that insurgents caused the civilian deaths by placing the Iraqis in the line of Marine fire.

In March the magazine broke the news that Marines had killed Iraqi civilians at Haditha.

(Bold emphasis added.)

Just because something looks like propaganda, doesn't mean it isn't true, as we learned from Abu Ghraib. (Well, we should have learned that from Abu Ghraib.)

Unfortunate parallels. BBC NEWS | Middle East | Haditha: Massacre and cover-up? (5/31/06).

Media commentators have spoken of it as 'Iraq's My Lai' - a reference to the 1968 massacre of 500 villagers in Vietnam.

I read a book on My Lai, actually, years ago. It was a very interesting story. A soldier witnessed the massacre of civilians by fellow soldiers, but had a heck of a time getting anyone to investigated. When the story finally went public and an investigation occurred, the soldiers responsible for the massacre were all eventually excused for their crimes (serving very limited sentences and then being forgiven), and went back to their normal, civilian lives after ruining the reputation of nearly all soldiers. The officials and politicians responsible for the war didn't couldn't separate atrocities from the overall war effort, and not wanting to tarnish the war effort, swept the crimes aside. The damage they did to the entire concept of 'military justice' is still with us.

Perhaps it's a bit late to start. 'Ethics training' for US troops (news.bbc.co.uk, 6/1/06)

The US military is to put all troops in Iraq through ethical training, in the wake of the alleged murder of civilians in Haditha, US press reports say.

General George W Casey is expected to order that 'core values' training begin immediately, the reports say.

This article goes on to remark that the Haditha massacre may have an adverse impact on U.S. public opinion. But I think PR is a different course entirely.

In Haditha, Memories of a Massacre (washingtonpost.com, 5/27/06):

The 24 Iraqi civilians killed on Nov. 19 included children and the women who were trying to shield them, witnesses told a Washington Post special correspondent in Haditha this week and U.S. investigators said in Washington. The girls killed inside Khafif's house were ages 14, 10, 5, 3 and 1, according to death certificates.

Not what 'liberation' usually means. BBC NEWS | Middle East | No quick fixes for new Iraq government (BBC, 5/21/06) provides a sad update on what Iraq is like now.

The Baghdad morgue has said that violence-related deaths have been running at an average of 1,100 a month since February. . . Sunni leaders have blamed some of the killings on Shia militias operating under cover of the Shia-run interior ministry. Public trust in the security forces has been deeply shaken, especially among Sunnis.

A recent report by the inspector-general of the Iraqi oil ministry said that billions of dollars a year were being lost to outright theft and smuggling, with official collusion, throughout the oil industry. . . .

Services and utilities, especially electricity, and the employment situation have also deteriorated, adding to public disillusion with life and the authorities.

I assume this is why coverage of Iraq has been reduced to smaller and smaller news items in U.S. papers: there's so little to feel good about, that they'd prefer to fill the pages with, well, anything else.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq Body Count: War dead figures (news.bbc.co.uk, 6/15/06): Iraq Body Count currently puts the total number of civilian dead at 34,830 - 38,990.

The issue of counting the number of Iraqis killed since the US-led invasion is highly controversial and the figure is disputed. The US and UK military authorities do not record the number of civilians killed by their forces.

Atrocities. In the eyes of the American media, American troops could do no wrong in the early months of the war in Iraq. It just wasn't possible. Everyone who died under American fire had to be bad, be they a wedding party or a family. The press didn't ask many questions. The military, which was permitted to make up its own rules of engagement, wrote rules that forgave them for shooting just about anyone: when tragedy struck, they'd note that the outcome was sad, but the military was playing by it's own rules, so everything was fine.

That era is over. Official: Iraq Civilian Deaths Unjustified. (washingtonpost.com, 5/26/06) describes an ongoing investigation into an incident where, for once, the military's story didn't stick. Two dozen dead Iraqi civilians, supposedly killed in a roadside skirmish with insurgents, are now considered to be the victims of an actual war crime.

Video released by the foreign media are contributing to the sense that this incident must be investigated.

In the Haditha case, videotape aired by an Arab television station showed images purportedly taken in the aftermath of the encounter: a bloody bedroom floor, walls with bullet holes and bodies of women and children. An Iraqi human rights group called for an investigation of what it described as a deadly mistake that had harmed civilians.

On May 17, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, said Corps officials told him the toll in the Haditha attack was far worse than originally reported and that U.S. troops killed innocent women and children "in cold blood." He said that nearly twice as many people were killed as first reported and maintained that U.S. forces were "overstretched and overstressed" by the war in Iraq.

Once one atrocity is presented by the U.S. media, others are likely to follow.

And the war goes on. The war in Iraq continues on, contrary to the way the media has represented it since Bush's "Mission Accomplished" media blitz so long ago. A civil war of sorts has been raging on continually, but the daily death toll is no longer on the front page every day.

I'd always wondered, while reading about long-running wars elsewhere in the world, how people deal with the constant bad news, since war inevitably produces bad news. Now I know: the war's space allotment on the front pages of newspapers becomes smaller, and smaller, and smaller...

The definition of "news" in the U.S. is based heavily on the idea of novelty: ongoing tragedies, like poverty, war, famine, abuse, or neglect are not "new" day to day, and so fall from attention. And that's happening here.

Could it be worse? Well, yes. BBC NEWS | Americas | Planning the US 'Long War' on terror (news.bbc.co.uk, 4/10/06):

It sounds eerily like the Cold War - and that is no mistake.

The 'Long War' is the name Washington is using to rebrand the new world conflict, this time against terrorism.

Now the US military is revealing details of how it is planning to fight this very different type of war.

It is also preparing the public for a global conflict which it believes will dominate the next 20 years.

I guess this means we all have time to reread 1984 a few more times.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iraq three years on: A bleak tale (news.bbc.co.uk, 3/17/06). This article quotes Prof. Cole, of the blog Informed Comment, with a particularly sad status report:

"Some 80 bodies have been found in Baghdad and environs since Monday. On Tuesday alone, police discovered 46 bodies around the capital. They appear mostly to have been Sunni Arabs targeted by enraged Shias attacked by the guerrillas during the past three weeks.

"Some were in the back of a minibus. Some were in a mass grave in Shia east Baghdad. The latter were discovered when passers-by saw blood oozing out of the earth. Blood oozing out of the earth is a good metaphor for Iraq nowadays."

There are also quotes from people who think things are going fine. Those people are also not Iraqis, and the sunny things they say are not compatible with news about mass graves.

How embarrassing for U.S. representatives to have a double standard about mass graves. As if they are only important if the maker of them is our political enemy. As if the people in them are less dead.

*

Having double standards about mass graves leads to some awkward questions about the attitude toward war in general. It may be a stretch, but I think it would be nice if we can all be appalled equally. I recall being vexed by reporting of mass graves in the past, when it turned out that graves discovered in Iraq contained evidence that they were actually from the Iran-Iraq war. I remember feeling a bit outraged over being... how can I say it. Used? Manipulated. Manipulated into thinking that the mass grave somehow justified the use of more violence by the U.S. there, when it was something else entirely. But STILL VERY SAD. I would have been sad even if the mass grave was filled with people from Iran from that war. Or people from Iran who were killed with illegal chemical weapons by Iraq, an action that the U.S. condoned. (gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/).

Because those people would still be dead. Dead for really unfortunate, unnecessary reasons.

One of the things that creeps me out about the current political situation, is that there are so many people who seem to believe that atrocities that result in mass graves are only horrid if they were committed by people we don't like. The way atrocities are reported, the descriptions are eerie reminders of horrors we read about in history, things that were NEVER supposed to happen again, and yet the justifications have begun anew.

'Same as it ever was.

A belief that humanity can really improve and become ethical should not be a casualty of this war. Yet...

Remembrance and protest in images. Rallies Mark Iraq Anniversary (washingtonpost.com, 3/19/06). That 12th image is especially lovely.

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Press scathing at Iraq anniversary (news.bbc.co.uk, 3/20/06). Sample:

There is outrage at the conditions on the ground, with one paper asking "is the daily discovery of bodies the freedom President Bush says Iraqis are living in?"

What it costs us. One of the most powerful periodicals I read last year about the damage that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had done to the United States is The Nation | Issue | December 26, 2005 : The Torture Complex (thenation.com). It's a themed issue about what the U.S. is now known for around the world in the post-Abu-Ghraib era: immoral, illegal, physical and mental abuse. The damage isn't limited to our image, of course: it's also a sort of rot from within, and ordinarily upstanding people suddenly stand on their heads and twist their tongues trying to justify something which they have always claimed to abhor. It's ugly to see someone arguing that something was TERRIBLE when the Nazis or Saddam Hussein or [tyrant of the week] did it, but... well, it's peachy keen when the U.S. kills people the same way, "because we're, like, good."

Extra-notable: a reminder that the School of the Americas has been exporting torture for years, and that there has always been denial of the immorality of that on the part of the majority of Americans - and vehement protest by a vocal, moral, minority.

How bad is it, continued. From the ordinarily lighthearted Achenblog (washingtonpost.com, 2/23/06) comes a sobering summary of the status of US intervention:

But each news bulletin is more disturbing than the last. More than 100 bodies have been found in the past day, executed. The BBC reported that a busload of 47 factory workers was stopped at a checkpoint, and all the workers were summarily murdered on the spot. The perpetrators of this massacre and other atrocities remain mysterious. War between Sunnis and Shiites could be averted if the citizens find someone else to blame for the violence, and, according to the Post story, some folks are ready to point the finger at the Americans and 'Zionists.'

The not-quite-correct Colin Powell line, explaining "the Pottery Barn Rule" (which Pottern Barn insists isn't their policy) of 'you break it, you buy it' in which the US' removal of one government makes it responsible for the country they're occupying is just as evident as Powell's warning suggested.

How bad is it? Daytime Curfew in Four Iraqi Provinces Halts Violence (washingtonpost.com, 2/24/06) is actually titled on the front page as "Relative Calm in Iraq Today." Which doesn't mean much.

She has a point: From AlterNet: Blogs: The Mix: Candlelight vigils stop illegal wiretapping! by Rachel Neumann:

writing letters to an administration that already knows what I think since they've been monitoring my emails and phone calls seems ridiculous.

One of the early casualties of the attack on Iraq and the related ideological war was the current US administration's decision that they are absolutely above the law, and can spy on citizens at will.

It seemed at first that there was public sentiment in favor of legal surveillance of anyone who had independent thoughts of any kind in the early days of the war, especially surveillance of the peace movement, which had predicted that the war might be a very bad thing - an unpopular, widespread sentiment. But when the Bush Administration went beyond that, civil libertarians actually woke up and got mad, including some of those in Bush's own party. How novel.

Sad landmark for the British part of the Coalition: BBC NEWS | Scotland | Funeral for 100th conflict death (news.bbc.co.uk, 2/20/06).

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Guantanamo Bay inmates 'tortured' (news.bbc.co.uk, 2/13/06):

[From UN special raporteur on torture, Manfred Novak.]

'We very, very carefully considered all of the arguments posed by the US government. There are no conclusions that are easily drawn. But we concluded that the situation in several areas violates international law and conventions on human rights and torture,' Mr Nowak told the LA Times.

The Center for Justice and Accountability (cja.org) "works to deter torture and other severe human rights abuses around the world by helping survivors hold their persecutors accountable." It's a tricky time to be involved in an anti-torture project in the U.S., which makes this work all the more admirable. Be sure to see their resolutions in support of human rights with regard to the U.S..

Just in case you were wondering: Iraq Coalition Casualties Count (icasualties.org).

Unfortunate unilateral action of the week: It's one thing to pursue a dangerous criminal; it's another to simply bomb a village where the criminal may or may not be. BBC NEWS | World | South Asia | 'Zawahiri' strike sparks protest (news.bbc.co.uk, 1/14/06) has a grim, Keystone Cops sort of flavor that is completely discouraging. This approach is consistent with the US military approach to threats within Iraq, but that isn't helping, either.

A sad anniversary. BBC NEWS | World | Americas | Guantanamo Bay's unhappy anniversary (news.bbc.co.uk, 1/11/06). The 'war on terror (and international law) has meant that the US' lawless, foreign military gulag, Guantanamo Bay, has existed publicly for 4 years. The system that it is supporting has produced no successful convictions, just a long string of embarrassments as the men who were so hastily rounded up and deprived of their liberty are quietly dumped in or near their home countries.

Whoever thought the US would sink so low as this.

U.S. Has End in Sight on Iraq Rebuilding: Documents Show Much of the Funding Diverted to Security, Justice System and Hussein Inquiry (washingtonpost.com, 1/2/06):

The Bush administration does not intend to seek any new funds for Iraq reconstruction in the budget request going before Congress in February, officials say. The decision signals the winding down of an $18.4 billion U.S. rebuilding effort in which roughly half of the money was eaten away by the insurgency, a buildup of Iraq's criminal justice system and the investigation and trial of Saddam Hussein.

An aside: the insurgency didn't actually get the money, despite the comment that the insurgency was eating money. It's just more polite to say that, rather than to point out the high overhead costs of an unpopular military occupation.

Photographs From Iraq: December 2005 : SF Indymedia (sf.indymedia.org)

The New Yorker: Fact: UP IN THE AIR - Where is the Iraq war headed next? by Seymour Hersh (12/5/05, newyorker.com).

The former senior official said that after the election he made a lengthy inspection visit to Iraq and reported his findings to Bush in the White House: "I said to the President, 'We are not winning the war.' And he asked, 'Are we losing?' I said, 'Not yet.' The President, he said, 'appeared displeased' with that answer.

Hersch has published a variety of very interesting articles about the US invasion and occupation of Iraq. Here's something I haven't thought much about, because it isn't often mentioned in the corporate media:

The military authorities in Baghdad and Washington do not provide the press with a daily accounting of missions that Air Force, Navy, and Marine units fly or of the tonnage they drop, as was routinely done during the Vietnam War. One insight into the scope of the bombing in Iraq was supplied by the Marine Corps during the height of the siege of Falluja in the fall of 2004.... Since the beginning of the war, the press release said, the 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing alone had dropped more than five hundred thousand tons of ordnance.

(Bold emphasis mine.) There are several interesting items in this particular Hersch article - go give it a read.

A look at the big picture. EducationGuardian.co.uk | eG weekly | Paul Rogers: Peace studies in our time (education.guardian.co.uk):

He explains the thesis: 'The real long-term conflict in the world is between an elite and the marginalised majority.' In it he describes the spectacle of a World Bank conference on poverty cocooned in a five-star hotel amid the squalor of Dhaka, in Bangladesh, and the grotesqueness of a gated community in South Africa surrounded by a 33,000-volt fence.

It seems obvious that the developed world is pushing the overall world into a variety of painfully unjust, inequitable situations, and that there is resistance to this. What's funny is how rarely this situation is acknowledged.

He doesn't read the newspapers. Or the editorials. Or the interviews. Or the blogs. President Gives Both Reassurance, Warnings on Iraq (washingtonpost.com, 12/18/05):

'I don't think I got it wrong,' Cheney said. 'I think the vast majority of the Iraqi people are grateful for what the United States did. I think they believe overwhelmingly that they're better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein ruled.'

Like a bad penny, he's back! Iraqi Oil Minister Resigns to Protest Higher Fuel Prices (washingtonpost.com, 1/2/06):

...over the weekend, the government named Deputy Prime Minister Ahmed Chalabi as oil minister.

No way! NO WAY!

What the so-called war on terror is costing us at home, or, the perils of a government that engages in purposeless domestic spying. Judges on Surveillance Court To Be Briefed on Spy Program (washingtonpost.com, 12/22/05):

One government official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the administration complained bitterly that the FISA process demanded too much: to name a target and give a reason to spy on it.

'For FISA, they had to put down a written justification for the wiretap,' said the official. 'They couldn't dream one up.'

They couldn't dream one up? What does that tell you about the folks doing the spying?

A Life, Wasted: Let's Stop This War Before More Heroes Are Killed, by Paul E. Schroeder (washingtonpost.com, 1/3/06) is an eloquent clarification of what it really means to LIVE as a hero, and a challenge to the near silent opposition to the war of so many.

He was a hero before he died, not just because he went to Iraq. I was proud of him before, and being a patriot doesn't make his death okay. I'm glad he got so much respect at his funeral, but that didn't make it okay either.

It's a good, but sad, read.