Blogging about war: year five.

When I started this particular blog in opposition to the then-imminent invasion of Iraq, I had no idea I was committing to a five year plus project.

As someone who had been an adult throughout the "first Gulf War," I remembered how simplistic and dumbed-down the news coverage was. The kids at my college who watched those reports with me, the ones who cheered bombings that were shown on television and made racist comments about Arabs with a new found freedom, probably don't recall how oddly censored and selective the news from that war seemed at the time. (There were many of us who were disgusted by their zeal for attacking a country that none of them new anything substantial about; they did not like to have this pointed out to them.)

This current war and occupation were handled quite differently, in a much more media-savvy way by the military, and yet in all of the information that has come out, there are still facts about the nature of war itself that seemed to seep through in a way that was not documented quite the same way previously. I decided I wanted to make a selective record of those facts and concepts, mostly of the reports that I believe will be glossed over when these events are over-simplified for the history books of the future.

I have only been somewhat successful. But this has been a worthwhile project for me. It has made me read news in a different sort of way: I scour for source material, and scrutinize the circumstances under which reporting was made in a different way.

It has been a remarkably sad form of education about the world.

*

There are many things I still do not comprehend about the nature of people's individual thinking about this war, and war in general.

I had a smart colleague at my old employer who, mysteriously, believed everything that the Bush Administration said in the run up to war. He believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; he believed that, although there had been no threats from Iraq at the time, that Iraq posed a great danger to Americans; he believed that the war would be over quickly. We even had a conversation at the time that Bush gave his famous "Mission Accomplished" speech in which he said that all of the partisans who had predicted a long, messy war had all, in that one moment, been proven wrong. I asked if he was certain, and he was.

This, to me, is nearly incomprehensible. He is one of the few people within my skeptical social circle who seemed to believe any of those claims. He used the same basic information to come to completely different conclusions, all of which have now been proven wrong. Where did that misguided certainty come from?

*

I've had some insights about this particular colleague, though I'm uncertain if these insights extend to others. [I will change some details to protect this colleague's identity, but it's light cover: anyone who knows us both will know of whom I'm writing.]

This colleague adopted a baby boy from an orphanage in a poor, Eastern European country. Shortly after this adoption, which involved his only trip to visit this nation, a human rights group issued reports on the horrific conditions of certain orphanages in that same country. This sort of report had come out before, and contained documented information: photos were available, death certificates were filed, interviews were recorded... Some of these orphanages were, in fact, very dangerous places for children to be.

My colleague, when this was brought up in casual conversation, announced with complete confidence that ALL of the orphanages over the entire country where he had adopted his son were SAFE and in good condition.

I looked at him, baffled. He had only spent a few days in this country; he had only visited one orphanage; he didn't speak the local language... He had no factual information about ANY of the other orphanages in the country aside from the one where he was connected to his son. Meanwhile, human rights groups had enormous files on the adverse conditions. Why was he making such a strange denial of something that was well documented?

After some time looking for a rational explanation, I developed a theory. My colleague loves his son more than anything in the world. The boy is his life. And he knows that there are other little boys, very much like his son, back in the orphanage system. He cannot bear to think of boys just like his young son suffering and dying in the sort of conditions that have been documented there. He also knows that he cannot adopt these boys and make them safe; and really, he just wants to lead his private life, which now includes his son. I think that, to keep from having to consider what may be happening elsewhere, and to keep from giving up his peaceful life to dedicate himself to child welfare issues, he has decided to deny any facts which might obligate him to act. By saying that everything is fine, he can go about his life: there is nothing that needs to be done.

*

This is not a scientific theory, and there are other explanations, but I do have other examples of the similar behavior from him. For example, on a very simple note, he remarked that (once it was clear that the war had not, in fact, ended) he could not attend any public demonstrations against the war, because the only persons who attended such events were "aging hippies," perhaps people in their 60s, and he was not like that. When I pointed out that _I_ attended such events, and that I had abundant photographic evidence that a wide range of young people from many ethnic backgrounds attended (and often organized) in addition to people his own age. Upon hearing this, appeared to struggle conceptually. He definitely didn't want to see the photos, but tried to argue that I was wrong... My photos and eyewitness information were depriving him of his excuse for not taking a stand or any other sort of action.

This is consistent with some of the strange denials that meet unfavorable information coming out of Iraq. Even if the soldiers themselves describe something as terrible, it is immediately re characterized by war supporters as something better, something more positive, something that allows things to continue on along the same path without any action on their part.

There are some theories in popular political writing which also attempt to explain how people discard information that doesn't support their position. I just fail to understand how people can be so successful at tricking themselves. I am confused by how people who can rail on against historical atrocities and the people who stood idly by and allowed them to occur, can, well, spend their time now standing idly by and claiming that they see no evil at all.

It is a creepy lesson, but one that I intend to study further.

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness (thenation.com, 07/09/2007). The Nation has consistently provided some remarkable reporting on the situation in Iraq. One of the best things about the Nation's coverage is that the magazine's reporters made some excellent characterizations about war generally, and the circumstances of this war in particular, which are very useful.

For example, the writers for this magazine early on characterized the U.S. occupation of Iraq as an "atrocity-producing situation." This seems obvious in many ways, but this is a useful framework for looking at many micro-situations within the war. For example, when you hear about a family being killed by U.S. soldiers because they failed to stop at an unmarked checkpoint at the middle of the night, and the newspaper notes that the situation was acceptable because the soldiers were following the "rules of engagement" that they created when they invaded, you can pause and say: actually, this was an atrocity-producing situation. The fact that the rules permit entire families to be killed at checkpoints means that the rules are inadequate. It offers a level of conceptual awareness that the "rules of engagement" announcements try to close out.

This approach is also an effective alternative to "one bad apple" theory, in which the Bush Administration blames individual soldiers put into atrocity-producing situations rather than the government and military that created that situation.

Along these lines, one of the best of many articles published by the Nation on the subject of Iraq in 2007 was this piece of investigative journalism.

Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

The article inspired quite a response, and was both applauded and criticized even by the soldiers who participated in the interviews. It is unflinching and informative.

It does leave people with those senseless "support our troops" magnets on their cars in an awkward position of having access to even more proof that some soldiers really object to the war. But that is their magnet/problem to manage.

Various of interest links from 2007

I collected quite a few links in early 2007, which I never commented on or posted. Here is a selection from January and February.

-Military Commissions Act of 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is the law that sets up military tribunals - the sort of secret military courts the U.S. usually mocks other countries for having - and makes a strange, broad definition of who can be imprisoned without rights indefinitely (which can mean forever). This article quotes Senator Leahy:

Passing laws that remove the few checks against mistreatment of prisoners will not help us win the battle for the hearts and minds of the generation of young people around the world being recruited by Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. Authorizing indefinite detention of anybody the Government designates, without any proceeding and without any recourse—is what our worst critics claim the United States would do, not what American values, traditions and our rule of law would have us do.

-Citizens' Hearing on the Legality of U.S. Actions in Iraq:
January 20-21, 2007
Tacoma, Washington, USA.

This was an interesting concept, akin to many traditional community meetings held around the world as a sort of community court.

The Citizens' Hearing will function as a tribunal to put the Iraq War on trial, in response to the Army putting Lt. Watada on trial as the first U.S. military officer to refuse deployment to Iraq.

The hearing will present the case that Lt. Watada would, if allowed, make at his court martial. His defense attorneys maintain that the war on Iraq is illegal under international treaties and under Article Six of the U.S. Constitution. Further, Lt. Watada's defense argues that the Nuremberg Principles and U.S. military regulations require soldiers to follow only 'lawful orders.' In Lt. Watada's view, deployment to Iraq would have made him party to the crimes that permeate the structure and conduct of military operations there.

-BBC NEWS | In Pictures | In pictures: Guantanamo protests (news.bbc.co.uk, 01/11/2007). Photographs of protests from around the world against the U.S.' prison for alleged terrorists, for which no adequate judicial or review system is in place.

-BBC NEWS | Americas | Mass US protest against Iraq war (news.bbc.co.uk, 01/27/2007):

The Democrats took control of both Houses in November's mid-term election, sparking Mr Bush's decision to form a new strategy for Iraq.

But our correspondent says Congress has so far balked at using the power of funding and only a handful of staunch anti-war Congressmen were present at the rally.

Although nearly all Democrats and a growing numbers of Republicans oppose the president's plans, he says, senators have not been able to agree yet on a single non-binding resolution expressing their concerns.

-BBC NEWS | Middle East | Quick guide: Violence in Iraq (this is an older report, from 11/23/06):

An estimate by US scientists in October 2006 suggested that about 655,000 civilians had been killed since the 2003 US-led invasion.

Western human rights campaigners give much lower figures - between 42,000 and 47,000 civilians - but point out many deaths probably go unreported.

About 3,000 coalition troops - more than 2,800 of them Americans - have died in Iraq in the same period.

The monthly Iraqi death toll hit a record high in October 2006, with more than 3,700 people losing their lives, according to a UN report.

-David Ignatius - Expect The Worst In Iraq - washingtonpost.com (02/07/2007): I selected this item because it's one of those interesting opinion pieces that comes right out and says that there are no good courses of actions... and that we should be selfish. Many other opinions are not quite as honest about our self-serving priorities. Selection:

In this bleak situation -- where, as everyone keeps repeating, "there are no good options" -- what's the right course for U.S. policy? A useful approach may be to start planning, not for the best but for the worst. Congress and the administration should begin thinking about potential catastrophes in Iraq -- and about how to protect the core national interests of the United States and its allies.

At least he's open. He also has a section called "Protect the oil." And yes, it comes before the part about protecting Iraqi civilians. Just so you know that I don't only quote people who are consistently humanitarian in their concerns. There are plenty who aren't.

Hiatus.

I took a nice, long break from blogging here about the increasingly discouraging war, and the impact it had not just in Iraq, but also here in the U.S.

When last I wrote, there was great excitement about the change in the balance of political power in the U.S., and anticipation that many of the wrongs that had been done in recent times would be undone in short order, including (of course) a dramatic change in course of U.S. policy in Iraq.

That hasn't happened. It seems that many people who had hung their stars on the political winds no longer admit that they had ever dreamed so big.

The lack of political effect does manage to be surprising, if only because poll after poll in the U.S. has shown ever increasing opposition to the continuation of the current war (and opposition to the start of any new wars, a menu of which is continually floated before us). However, the Democrats may be more perceptive than I am in one particular regard: Americans are firmly against the war, but primarily because the U.S. is losing, not because of ethical factors or differing geopolitical priorities. If this is the case (and I fear it is), how do you exert the political will of people who elected you who are mostly sore about losing, when you've already realized that the war is fundamentally unwinnable?

This riddle has tied up too many otherwise useful minds, and kept them from doing the obvious: ending the disaster.

And so, years into this, the U.S. finds itself in much the same place it had been, only more so, and with a frustrated public along for the ride that, at one point, many claimed they thought was a swell idea. And so the American people, the Iraqi people, and a lot of people around both are suffering from the lack of vision that started all of this.

War resistors still aren't openly discussed in the corporate media, but they are there. 28 arrested in San Francisco as Ltd. Watada faces pre-trial hearing in Ft. Lewis, WA. : Indybay (indybay.org): "Lt. Ehren Watada, the first U.S. commissioned officer to refuse deployment to Iraq, is being courtmartialed."

It will be interesting to see at what point the tide in the military will turn, as we approach yet another anniversary of the beginning of this particular war. War resistors have always existed, but they complicate the historical picture: it is one thing to say that "everyone" supported a war, or "everyone" believed the propaganda that led to an invasion, or even that "everyone" had no choice but to obey orders and do as they were told. War resistors prove that isn't true.

High speed, frontier justice. I don't think I know anyone who believed that Saddam Hussein would not be found guilty of any and all crimes that he has been accused of by the strange Iraqi court that has been set up under U.S. occupation. It also seemed very, very likely that the past rosy relationship between Hussein and various U.S. historical governments was an embarrassment - aiding Iraq with chemical weapons and other behaviors of which the US was not proud - and that many in the US who had a relationship with the dictator in the past would like to see him executed. Just the same, it was a surprise as to how quickly the ex-despot met his end in the gallows on the eve of an Islamic holy period.

Before Hanging, a Push for Revenge and a Push Back - New York Times (nytimes.com, 1/07/06). The execution seemed abrupt and hastily thrown together, and a smuggled in camera recorded the event made the event seem especially... how to put it. Ill planned? Vengeful? Old west?

Even before a smuggled cellphone camera recording revealed the derision Mr. Hussein faced on the gallows, the hanging had become a metaphor, among Mr. Maliki's critics, for how the "new Iraq" is starting to resemble the repressive, vengeful place it was under Mr. Hussein, albeit in a paler shade.

Americans, always looking for an end to an ugly chapter, are eager to count this as a positive outcome in an otherwise untenable post-invasion situation.

U.S. Toll In Iraq Reaches 3,000 (washingtonpost.com, 12/31/06).

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.