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.

Everything is going great now, right? From a BBC Correspondent: Iraqi ship ploughs on in choppy waters (news.bbc.co.uk, 12/27/05):

So the Shias dominate, the Kurds are a strong minority, the secular are suffering but the Sunnis are protesting. Indeed the main Sunni grouping, the Iraq Accord Front, claiming fraud, is threatening to boycott the assembly if there is no re-run vote in some areas. Since there will be no re-run, it remains to be seen if this threat will be put into practice.

...And even if the Sunnis do join the assembly, it may be that they are simply opening up a new front to urge the removal of US and other foreign forces. It does not mean that the insurgency will end.

The election may be over but the war is not.

All of this makes you wonder why the Sunnis showed up for the election at all, doesn't it? They claim fraud, the correspondents shrug; the ticket that won the initial election won on an anti-occupation platform, but there's no way to make that happen under the system the Americans imposed...

I'm not including a quote from an American about how the country is likely to tear itself apart. But it's now being acknowledged at official levels to adjust American expectations.

The Iraqi election is supposed to be another victory and vindication of Bush, but... BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraqis condemn 'election fraud' (news.bbc.co.uk, 12/27/05)

Thousands of Iraqis have staged a protest in Baghdad about results from the recent parliamentary elections, which they say were tainted by fraud.

Of course, the US has been suffering from the same sort of electoral problems, so that's not really news here.

And now, a little levity. Voice Of God Revealed To Be Cheney On Intercom | The Onion - America's Finest News Source.

Freedom, democracy and other things we don't understand

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think my favorite part of the article is this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What happens when a government knows it has foreign military backing, and so it can get away with anything? BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq detainees 'found starving'. (news.bbc.co.uk, 11/15/05)

Abuse of members of the group newly in power against members of the group formerly in power isn't too surprising. And we all already know that abuse - both physical abuses, and the abuse of power - are currently acceptable in the current climate. The US abuses - why shouldn't its proteges? We also know that no one has been punished for the deaths of prisoners at the hands of US allies in Afghanistan, so a very ugly pattern has already been set.

No surprises here.

BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | US death toll in Iraq hits 2,000 (news.bbc.co.uk, 10/25/05).

New Reports Surface About Detainee Abuse (washingtonpost.com, 9/23/05):

'Despite my efforts, I have been unable to get clear, consistent answers from my leadership about what constitutes lawful and humane treatment of detainees,' Fishback wrote in a Sept. 16 letter to McCain, a member of the Armed Services Committee and a former prisoner of war in Vietnam. 'I am certain that this confusion contributed to a wide range of abuses including death threats, beatings, broken bones, murder, exposure to elements, extreme forced physical exertion, hostage-taking, stripping, sleep deprivation and degrading treatment.'

I hope I'm not the only one who thinks there should be no confusion about the appropriateness of torture and murder in any context, but things have been weird here in the US lately. Perhaps he's just using those examples as a method of dramatic understatement.

What the September 11th attacks meant for Iraqis: the dread of being blamed for something they didn't do: Baghdad Burning:

E. looked at me wide-eyed that day and asked the inevitable question, "How long do you think before they bomb us?"

"But it wasn’t us. It can’t be us…" I rationalized.

"It doesn’t matter. It’s all they need."

And it was true. It began with Afghanistan and then it was Iraq. We began preparing for it almost immediately. The price of the dollar rose as people began stocking up on flour, rice, sugar and other commodities.

There's a great deal of sympathy for American suffering in this item, which people who are too defensive about what the US has done there won't take time to read. Hopefully, though, Riverbend's blog is also providing a bit of understanding for a US-centric American readership, who is used to seeing the world news reported just one way: from a perspective of whether or not something benefits us (or our egos) in the short term.

I know in the US we're big on democracy, but seeing it from Riverbend's eyes, you MUST see how undemocratic the world is. To know that an invasion was coming, regardless of fact, and be powerless to stop it. That was not 'spreading freedom.'

Unintended Consequences: A Forum on Iraq and the Mideast (thenation.com, 8/15/05 issue) is a great read from the Nation. It remarks on the instability and animosity the US has engendered for its actions.

My favorite part: an observation that the US seems unusually concerned about foreign fighters, which is ironic - since it is the greatest supplier of foreign fighters to the area.

It's worth reading all four opinions for a range of educated views on what the world has inherited as a result of this war.

The Theater of Cruelty: Reflections on the Anniversary of Abu Ghraib (thenation.com, 7/18/05 issue):

If there is any useful lesson to be drawn from this, it is that now, as ever, means cannot be separated from ends: They are the same thing.

Can the US learn?

Sheehan blog, with lots of great quotes: t r u t h o u t - One Mother's Stand. I especially the 9/11/05 entry on how useless Senator Dianne Feinstein is, and the idea of the Hall of Shame she's developing.

Novel concept! BBC NEWS | Americas | The world four years on from 9/11 (news.bbc.co.uk, 9/9/05):

And the inability of the US to "pacify" Iraq has called into question its ability to act as the policeman for democracy the world over.

The 'world over' has been calling this into question since the US first got the idea. Where have these reporters been?

Catching up on clarifications by those who enjoy becoming the evil we deplore: U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo clarifies 'nuke Mecca' comments - Wikinews (en.wikinews.org, 7/22/05):

Representative Tom Tancredo (R-CO) has clarified his earlier statement that 'you could take out their holy sites,' in the event of a nuclear attack upon the U.S. by Islamic terrorists. Rep. Tancredo has refused to make any apologies, saying 'When we bombed Hiroshima, when we bombed Dresden, we punished a lot of people who were not necessarily (guilty). Not every German was a member of the Nazi Party. You do things in war that are ugly.'

I ask you: is that supposed to make us feel BETTER?!?! That innocents are killed in war?

Setting aside the fact that he clearly does not comprehend that fundamentalists have no one country that one could justify attacking... Here's a question: does he comprehend that saying that it's acceptable for innocents to die in war could justify the killing of innocents HERE, since he finds such terms acceptable?

[Editor's note: clearly not. He's been making public statements about how his remarks 'make America safer.' Seriously.]

No Exit Strategy (thenation.com, 08/01/05) reviews two books from institutional 'insiders' about the way the Iraq war and subsequent occupation were mismanaged. What is refreshing about the review is that it asks the question: who is the US to believe it had the right to manage or mismanage the fate of other nations without their people's consent?

It is a relief to read that the entire project of an invasion/occupation/forced puppet government is fundamentally flawed, NOT merely the way it was carried out.

Update on the World Tribunal On Iraq: The World Speaks on Iraq (thenation.com, 8/01/05 issue):

The World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) held its culminating session in Istanbul June 24-27, the last and most elaborate of sixteen condemnations of the Iraq War held worldwide in the past two years, in Barcelona, Tokyo, Brussels, Seoul, New York, London, Mumbai and other cities....

The WTI expresses the opposition of global civil society to the Iraq War, a project perhaps best described as a form of 'moral
globalization.'"

I like that. Moral globalization. If people can't organize to hold bully governments accountable, who can? What could be more democratic?

This is a good article on the session.

There's more at worldtribunal.org, including excerpts of speeches given. This is from Arundhati Roy's opening statements at the Istanbul session, which you must read in their entirety.

The Jury of Conscience at this tribunal is not here to deliver a simple verdict of guilty or not guilty against the United States and its allies. We are here to examine a vast spectrum of evidence about the motivations and consequences of the U.S. invasion and occupation, evidence that has been deliberately marginalized or suppressed. Every aspect of the war will be examined - its legality, the role of international institutions and major corporations in the occupation, the role of the media, the impact of weapons such as depleted uranium munitions, napalm, and cluster bombs, the use of and legitimation of torture, the ecological impacts of the war, the responsibility of Arab governments, the impact of Iraq's occupation on Palestine, and the history of U.S. and British military interventions in Iraq. This tribunal is an attempt to correct the record. To document the history of the war not from the point of view of the victors but of the temporarily - and I repeat the word temporarily - vanquished.

I am eager to read her closing statements, which are not posted with the others, but which are surely spectacular: Roy has a crystal clear way of phrasing things that can just knock the wind out of you, and I look forward to reading her remarks.

Book. One of the Washington Post writers has a new book out. Excerpts are posted at Book: 'Night Draws Near: Iraq's People in the Shadow of America's War' (washingtonpost.com, 8/29/05).

The book focuses on the lives of an ordinary family, headed by a widow. As with most wars, the consequences fall heavily on those who have the fewest resources, and female-headed families appear to bear the brunt of society's problems around the world. Excerpts from an initially-optimistic daughter's diary provide an insider's view.

Occasionally, there are odd comments about how delusional this family was to think that their government would stand: that doesn't really take into account the media environment that all repressive governments manage to maintain.

Excerpt from the later, more pessimistic sections:

"I regret that I went to the elections and voted," Karima said seven months later, as she sat with Amal and her sisters over breakfast. "What did we elect? Nothing."

"If we voted or didn't vote, it's still the same thing," said Fatima, her oldest daughter and most pessimistic. "If the Americans want to do something, they'll do it."

Being the evil we deplore, Part II: Colorado lawmaker: U.S. could "take out" Mecca (msnbc.com, 7/18/05) reveals that Representative Tancredo was asked about appropriate responses to terror. He gave this inappropriate response:

"Well, what if you said something like - if this happens in the United States, and we determine that it is the result of extremist, fundamentalist Muslims, you know, you could take out their holy sites," Tancredo answered.

"You're talking about bombing Mecca," Campbell said.

"Yeah," Tancredo responded.

The congressman later said he was "just throwing out some ideas" and that an "ultimate threat" might have to be met with an "ultimate response."

So if the Oklahoma City bombers had been Christian, he would have attacked Rome? I don't think so.

Bonus awkwardness points: Tancredo still isn't sure why there was a fuss about these remarks.

Some of us LIKE to be the evil we deplore, Part I. While the US has been struggling to assure the world that it's people are fundamentally good after an illegal war based on lies, and after the Abu Ghraib prison scandal, there are folks who think that goodness is a misplaced value. These folks apparently include a few famous commentators. Eric Zorn's Notebook: PAUL HARVEY: AH, GENOICDE AND SLAVERY, NOW THAT'S A GOOD DAY! (6/24/05) (which I found through fair.org) quotes cranky commentator Paul Harvey, who thinks we worry too much about our national image, and recalls the good ol' days:

Once upon a time, we elbowed our way onto and into this continent by giving small pox infected blankets to native Americans.

Yes, that was biological warfare!

And we used every other weapon we could get our hands on to grab this land from whomever. And we grew prosperous.

And, yes, we greased the skids with the sweat of slaves.

And so it goes with most nation states, which, feeling guilty about their savage pasts, eventually civilize themselves out of business and wind up invaded, and ultimately dominated by the lean, hungry and up and coming who are not made of sugar candy.

So, basically, he thinks that was the way to go, but that we're too NICE now.

Because Abu Ghraib and bombing Baghdad was all about "nice."

I wonder what Mr. Harvey is putting on his cereal in the morning.

Sheehan Glad Bush Didn't Meet With Her (washingtonpost.com, 8/30/05):

"I look back on it, and I am very, very, very grateful he did not meet with me, because we have sparked and galvanized the peace movement," Sheehan told The Associated Press. "If he'd met with me, then I would have gone home, and it would have ended there."

Hurricane Cindy. I haven't written about Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a soldier killed in Iraq, who became a nationwide peace celebrity by camping outside Bush's Texas ranch, and refusing to leave until either the end of August, or until he spoke with her.

Bush continued his ranch vacation, and didn't speak to her.

BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | In search of an Iraq exit strategy (news.bbc.co.uk, 8/27/05) describes the shift in American politics and opinion polls that has resulted in a bereaved mother being the symbol of a movement to withdraw troops from Iraq.

What's funny to me is that there have been many, many other bereaved mothers who joined the pro-peace side early on. They did not become media darlings. Why not? Because the media perceived the country as heading toward war, and didn't want to interrupt that momentum with dissidents. Not even millions of dissidents worldwide, but certainly not a few mourning mothers.

Timing is a funny thing.

Another contributing factor causing Riverbend to wonder why Americans believe the oddest things: When “Old News” Has Never Been Told - U.S. media produce excuses, not stories, on Downing Street Memo (fair.org, Extra! July/August 2005).

U.S. Lowers Sights On What Can Be Achieved in Iraq (washingtonpost.com, 8/14/05):

The Bush administration is significantly lowering expectations of what can be achieved in Iraq, recognizing that the United States will have to settle for far less progress than originally envisioned during the transition due to end in four months, according to U.S. officials in Washington and Baghdad.The United States no longer expects to see a model new democracy, a self-supporting oil industry or a society in which the majority of people are free from serious security or economic challenges, U.S. officials say.

Who knew.

I never reported on Riverbend's take on the Administration's speech. Baghdad Burning (7/1/05):

In Bush's Iraq, there is reconstruction, there is freedom (in spite of an occupation) and there is democracy.

"He's describing a different country," I commented to E. and the cousin.

"Yes," E. replied. "He's talking about the *other* Iraq... the one with the WMD."

Ouch.

Riverbend's commentary on the speech is quite interesting, and also quite sad: it's sad to know that there are people who believe every word the politician utters, because it's convenient.

How many more nasty revelations are needed? General admits to secret air war (timesonline.co.uk, 6/26/05):

The American general who commanded allied air forces during the Iraq war appears to have admitted in a briefing to American and British officers that coalition aircraft waged a secret air war against Iraq from the middle of 2002, nine months before the invasion began.

The US public is already a bit scandal weary: I'm not sure there's room for this one.

If nothing is successfully being rebuilt, where is all the money going? Oh. Of course. When the tsunami disaster hit southeast Asia last December, I had a sad thought. That sad thought was that the survivors of that tragedy, all those people who had lived along the coast in small villages, would never be able to rebuild their homes there. This would not happen because of safety concerns: this would happen because the disaster was an opportunity for multi-national corporations to demand choice property in exchange for a little 'assistance' in relocating people away from prime tourist beaches.

I was cynical, but I was correct. I didn't make the logical extension to other 'rebuilding' projects around the world, but I should have. Naomi Klein has. The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (thenation.com, 4/14/05):

Three months after the tsunami hit Aceh, the New York Times ran a distressing story reporting that 'almost nothing seems to have been done to begin repairs and rebuilding.' The dispatch could easily have come from Iraq, where, as the Los Angeles Times just reported, all of Bechtel's allegedly rebuilt water plants have started to break down, one more in an endless litany of reconstruction screw-ups. It could also have come from Afghanistan, where President Hamid Karzai recently blasted 'corrupt, wasteful and unaccountable' foreign contractors for 'squandering the precious resources that Afghanistan received in aid.' Or from Sri Lanka, where 600,000 people who lost their homes in the tsunami are still languishing in temporary camps. One hundred days after the giant waves hit, Herman Kumara, head of the National Fisheries Solidarity Movement in Negombo, Sri Lanka, sent out a desperate e-mail to colleagues around the world. 'The funds received for the benefit of the victims are directed to the benefit of the privileged few, not to the real victims,' he wrote. 'Our voices are not heard and not allowed to be voiced.'

But if the reconstruction industry is stunningly inept at rebuilding, that may be because rebuilding is not its primary purpose. According to Guttal, 'It's not reconstruction at all--it's about reshaping everything.' If anything, the stories of corruption and incompetence serve to mask this deeper scandal: the rise of a predatory form of disaster capitalism that uses the desperation and fear created by catastrophe to engage in radical social and economic engineering. And on this front, the reconstruction industry works so quickly and efficiently that the privatizations and land grabs are usually locked in
before the local population knows what hit them.

(Bold emphasis mine.) Klein is making a POSIWID connection - what is the purpose of the rebuilding system? Is it to rebuild things for locals, or for large entities to pocket large sums of disaster aid?

This is probably the single best article I've read on the profits of destruction. Not since I read a construction magazine article gloating about the lucrative contracts won by American countries to rebuild schools and hospitals US forces had bombed in the former Yugoslavia (!!!) have I read something this direct in connecting what I read in the paper with names of the big beneficiaries of the spoils of war.

If you read just one article about war profiteering this month, choose this one.

Elections!?! No, not that... Well, if they must. Yaaay, elections! That is my excessively short summary of what happened in Iraq earlier this year. But Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has a much more detailed report, which is worth reading in its entirety. Defeated by Democracy (www.fair.org, May/June 2005 issue of Extra!) details how the Bush Administration fought tooth and nail against elections, but eventually gave in. Here is an excerpt:

From the very start, the administration was determined to install its handpicked favorites in positions of power in Baghdad and to exclude Iraqis with broader public support. For nearly a year, it watched helplessly as that strategy gradually came unglued. Only after its preferred game-plan decisively collapsed - in the face of an armed Sunni insurgency, the popular rejection of U.S.-supported Iraqi exiles, and crucially, the threat of a massive Shiite uprising - did the Bush administration reluctantly bow to pressure from Islamists and allow a free vote.

This article is made extra-creepy by the quotes from pundits who had opposed democracy in Iraq - which they knew was unlikely to lead to a government friendly to US interests - suddenly claiming great victory for Bush in his massive concession to popular Iraqi demand.

It's fascinating. It's great to have this retrospective in one place, even with the creepy quotes. Go read this now.

When governments won't act: The Final Session of The World Tribunal on Iraq Begins in Istanbul (SF Bay Area Indymedia 6/24/05) (indybay.org) reports on citizen's groups assembling to hear testimony and decide what should be done about the crimes of war performed in Iraq.

This is symbolic, but also a very intriguing idea. What if people around the world were permitted to pass judgment on the occupation of Tibet by China? Or on the Chechan demand for a separate nation? Or on any number of current situations in which bully nations get their way unlawfully, merely because they are large? This was the idea behind the United Nations, but with the Security Council filled only with the big nations, and with the big nations willing to 'look the other way' at each others' indiscretions toward weaker countries, the system is rigged against democracy.

This is an idea worth thinking about.

Intermissions: There have been big gaps in my messages here, because so little has really changed. Am I surprised that American forces are abducting and torturing people, just like the despot they replaced? No. Am I thrilled that two of the three Iraqi groups turned out to vote for pro-fundamentalist parties who want the US out ASAP and religious-based law? No. Can I bear to read the daily death tolls? No. Is it thrilling that Americans, happy to claim the election as their sole victory, are now eager to wash their hands of the country and leave it in ruins, with a few massive military bases in place (complete with bowling alleys, apartments, movie theaters, and other things for US personnel only)?? Guess.

There are headlines enough of 'more of the same,' and so I've just been tagging those that have interested me, rather than trying to link to ALL of the major stories.

I'm tired of looking at what the warmongers achieved: war, death, ruin, hate, and hopelessness. It hurts.

*

Speaking of hurting, I finally had a chance to see the film Hotel Rwanda, about the genocide there. European colonizers chose to divide their subjects along imaginary ethnic lines, sowing division and playing favorites and encouraging intergroup exploitation. When they left (and at the time the movie is set in), the masses were able to act out their hatreds. When waves of retribution killings began, the US and other nations chose to do nothing. Millions died.

Now, the same conflict has spilled over into neighboring countries, and the US... doesn't care. The US government has been too busy denying that genocide is occurring in the Sudan to pay much attention. The US is also still pretending to be really upset about massacres Saddam Hussein engaged in during the Reagan Administration, even though at the time the US was eager to appease Iraq, and in response to the massacres only signed a UN resolution from condemning chemical weapons attacks generally, refusing to name Iraq (gwu.edu) or the specific, cruel massacres that come up so often in rhetoric now.

Also, the US doesn't seem too upset about Turkey doing bad things to Kurds: only the former Iraqi government's crimes seem worth attending to.

Having no credibility on humanitarian grounds, I'd like the phrase "humanitarian grounds" to simply stop appearing in reports on Iraq, lest the reporting be perceived as sarcasm.

Who's Paying for Our Patriotism? By Uwe E. Reinhardt (washingtonpost.com, 08/01/05) notes that very few Americans are DIRECTLY affected by the war in Iraq. It's easy to "stay the course" when others are sacrificing on your behalf -- such as all those National Guard troops who have lost their jobs (if not their lives), and whose families are hurting financially -- and when you can simply ignore their plight.

The comments about how little fundraising for military has been done by people who claim to 'support our troops' is harsh, but makes an interesting point. If "support" doesn't mean anything but buying a cheap, foreign-made sticker, OF COURSE it's easy.

Slightly misleading title: Documents Tell of Brutal Improvisation by GIs (washingtonpost.com, 08/03/05) isn't just about soldiers acting creatively to do bad things. It discusses the involvement of "OGAs" ("Other Government Agencies"), including the CIA, PLUS US-funded mercenaries, in the routine interrogation and torture of detainees, using tactics employed in multiple US-military-controlled locations.

The particular story described is of an alleged insurgent leader who turned himself in to negotiate the release of his sons, and was later beaten and suffocated to death by U.S. forces. The government attempted to classify details of the killing. Now that criminal charges are pending, those involved insist that the killing - no, too active, let's just say "death" - was unfortunate, the beating and suffocation that caused the death were completely appropriate.

As a side note: this is how they treat people who turn themselves in!! The heck with winning hearts and minds - someone should just persuade these folks not to kill people who show up to talk, even if the US doesn't like what they say.

Another sad benchmark: Seven U.S Marines killed in Iraq, toll passes 1,800 (ca.today.reuters.com, 08/02/05).

Sadr quotes Bush? BBC NEWS | Resistance in Iraq 'legitimate' (07/19/05):

'Resistance is legitimate at all levels be it religious, intellectual and so on,' Mr Sadr said, in his first interview with Western media.

'The first person who would acknowledge this is the so-called American President Bush who said 'if my country is occupied, I will fight'.'

BBC NEWS | 25,000 civilians 'killed in Iraq' (07/19/05).

The Dossier on Civilian Casualties in Iraq 2003-2005 says 37% of all non-combatant deaths were caused by US-led forces.

Insurgents are said to have caused 9% of the deaths, while post-invasion criminal violence was responsible for another 36%....

"On average, 34 ordinary Iraqis have met violent deaths every day since the invasion of March 2003," said Mr Sloboda.

"It remains a matter of the gravest concern that, nearly two-and-a-half years on, neither the US nor the UK governments have begun to systematically measure the impact of their actions in terms of human lives destroyed."

A Scholarly Look at Terror Sees Bootprints In the Sand (washingtonpost.com, 07/09/05) describes some research into certain styles of attacks by Robert A. Pape, a professor who does a bit of consulting for the military.

'Well, I was actually surprised' to discover that 'what over 95 percent of all suicide attacks around the world since 1980 until today have in common is not religion, but a clear, strategic objective: to compel a modern democracy to withdraw military forces from the territory that the terrorists view as their homeland.'

This is a worthwhile read about potential causes for terrorism. Which make a lot more sense than 'they hate us because we love freedom/fries/rock/whatever.'

It's also one of those articles with odd opposing viewpoints. Pape's analysis is on suicide bombers, and so one of his critics points out that suicide bombers can't exist in occupied country A because they don't exist in occupied country B under similar conditions. And then misses the entire sideline about U.S. military bases in places with unpopular regimes.

I'm not sure if criticism that makes no sense is intended to help or hurt. Surely there are other, more substantive, competing theories than are quoted here. 'Still, it's worth reading.

How do YOU define a terrorist act? Greenpeace Commemorates 1985 Ship Bombing (washingtonpost.com, 07/09/05). For those of you who don't recall this, back in 1985 the French government, hostile over interference and publicity from Greenpeace over their nuclear activities in the Pacific, planted bombs in the Greenpeace ship 'Rainbow Warrior,' then docked in New Zealand, killing one person. (This was a ship that I, as a small child, had enjoyed during a school field trip years earlier.) The article describes all that and more. But this is the part that caught my eye:

New Zealand branded the attack 'an act of state-sponsored terrorism' and, after years of open hostility with France, won a multimillion-dollar reparations payment and what Greenpeace has called an 'unconvincing apology.'

Pierre Lacoste, who headed France's counter-espionage agency at the time, said in an interview last week with The New Zealand Herald that the drowning of photographer Pereira was an accident that weighed heavily on his conscience. 'I would perfectly understand it if New Zealanders considered this act to be an act of terrorism, to sink a boat in a port where there are just yachtsmen, peaceful people,' he told the newspaper. 'It does not really deserve to be called that, but if it is felt in that way, that is reality,' he said.

So, Mr. Lacoste doesn't think that blowing up an unarmed, advocacy group's ship in a civilian harbor is a terrorist act?? SERIOUSLY??

If only the reporter asked Mr. Lacoste what he WOULD have met that qualification!

I think this is one of those unfortunate examples of 'terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder,' which makes the moral posturing of nations against some acts, but not others, seem so hollow.

Another tragedy, and another debate: BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | London bombs: The Iraq question:

In February of the following year the same committee reported: 'The war in Iraq has possibly made terrorist attacks against British nationals and British interests more likely in the short term.'

And it was later revealed that, before the war, the Joint Intelligence Committee had also warned that military action against Iraq might 'heighten', rather than reduce, the terrorist threat to western interests.

Sad state of affairs, supposedly reflecting 'freedom being on the march': BBC NEWS | World | Middle East | Iraq rebuilding fails to deliver (06/22/05):

In the last few days, for example, more than 40 Iraqis have been killed in bomb attacks against police trainees, and at a Baghdad restaurant.

It has become so commonplace the rest of the world hardly notices any more.

I fear that some of this indifference is caused by the brief, manufactured, pseudo-euphoria that came when many Americans justified all the suffering in Iraq with the appearance of elections there, and now feel that 'our work there is done' and we need not be concerned with either the outcome of the elections, nor the state of the nation.

Conservatives taste sour grapes: Molly Ivins has some creepy samples of war supporters, now on the defensive, insisting that they are being gloated at over the war.

I personally am willing to take out billboards which say, "We told you so. Love, The Peace Movement." But it turns out some of the war cheerleaders are making the odd suggestion that, even if the peace movement was right, those of us opposed are somehow ENJOYING the current carnage. Ms. Ivins makes a respectable response. Star-Telegram | 06/23/2005 | Memo to us: It's appalling (sanluisobispo.com and elsewhere).

Someone with a spine! Someone with a spine! A fun read: May 18, 2005 Galloway v the US Senate: transcript of statement, by Times Online (timesonline.co.uk). One of my favorite parts:

As a matter of fact, I have met Saddam Hussein exactly the same number of times as Donald Rumsfeld met him. The difference is Donald Rumsfeld met him to sell him guns and to give him maps the better to target those guns. I met him to try and bring about an end to sanctions, suffering and war, and on the second of the two occasions, I met him to try and persuade him to let Dr Hans Blix and the United Nations weapons inspectors back into the country - a rather better use of two meetings with Saddam Hussein than your own Secretary of State for Defence made of his.

WORLD VIEWS: New 'Downing Street Memo' says Bush, Blair agreed on 'regime change' in 2002; and more. (sfgate.com, 06/14/05). The sequel to the first Downing Street Memo may be as hot as the next Harry Potter book.

Now [Britain's Sunday] Times has scooped its rivals again with the news -- and the text of -- a leaked, extremely secret British Cabinet Office briefing paper dated July 23, 2002.

Prepared for Blair and his closest advisers, this newly discovered document clearly states that "since regime change was illegal, it was 'necessary to create the conditions' which would make it legal."

If you haven't already caught up on this story (I'm posting these June links in July), this is a great place to start. Mr. Gomez provides great quotes and links to many other source articles, as he does in every one of his columns.

In this particular instance, the material provided is not only about the memo and its political implications, but also from media sources remarking on U.S. media's docility in the face of this story.

Another interesting link: AfterDowningStreet.org | For a Resolution of Inquiry (afterdowningstreet.org).

A good site about Britain's now-famous, smoking-gun-like memorandum: The Downing Street Memo :: Seeking the Truth since May 13, 2005 (downingstreetmemo.com).

Trying to start trouble. WORLD VIEWS: 'Downing St. Memo' reporter says U.S., Britain goaded Saddam (sfgate.com, 06/21/05) notes this:

Now, in his latest news report in The Times, Smith has reported that 'leaked ... legal advice' to the Foreign Office (Britain's counterpart to the U.S. State Department) indicated that American and British bombing raids over southern Iraq, which began in May 2002, almost a year before the full-scale, U.S.-led attack, were illegal. (Times)

At that time, Smith says, U.S. Air Force and Royal Air Force jets 'began 'spikes of activity' designed to goad Saddam Hussein into retaliating and giving the allies a pretext for war.' The Pentagon named the bombing campaign the 'Blue Plan.'

The only silly part is the plan's name, even though it is not as ridiculous as most military names.

I love this observation about our media, and the fuss the US has made in attempting to refute an Amnesty International report about abuses at Guantanamo Bay by Adam Felber in Fanatical Apathy: Light Years Ahead (felbers.net). Of course, you should go read the whole thing, but here's a hint:

First, bear in mind that the summary on the US from the Amnesty International annual report does not contain the word “gulag.” Nor does an exhaustive specific report released a couple of weeks ago. The phrase “gulag of our times” comes from a speech made two weeks ago that refers to the reports.

That’s where our stunning advantage in spin technology began to assert itself. By the middle of last week, there wasn’t a single member of the Bush administration who wasn’t pushing his or her way towards a microphone in order to denounce Amnesty International for their ridiculous, unfounded, absurd, unfair “gulag” statement. They likened Gitmo to a gulag! Do they even know what went on at those gulags? What kind of gulag gulag says that we gulag our gulag with the gulag gulag still at gulag? Our technicians stuffed the foreign and domestic press’ ears so full of gulag that it became the story, the lead that consigned the actual report to the background.

This is the same point being discussed by Jefferson Morley in The Guantanamo Debate Comes Home (washingtonpost.com, 06/20/05)

In the U.S. media, the debate about Guantanamo often focuses on the propriety of the language used to describe the treatment of prisoners. The White House, conservative columnists and his Senate colleagues criticized Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) for saying U.S. interrogation techniques were reminiscent of Nazi Germany. The Post's Anne Applebaum, a Guantanamo critic, rebuked Amnesty International for likening the prison camp to the Soviet gulag.In the foreign media, the debate is more likely to focus on the propriety of the treatment itself.

Imagine that! Focusing on the treatment of the prisoners! What a novel idea.

When the going gets tough, inadvertently offend your allies by flushing copies of their holy books down the toilet: BBC NEWS | South Asia | Dismay at US Koran 'desecration' (05/08/05).

t r u t h o u t - Bob Herbert | Lifting the Censor's Veil on the Shame of Iraq (truthout.org, 05/05/05) describes some of the disturbing photos taken by soldiers in Iraq that we have NOT seen on the national news.

It's not necessarily something you need to read, - it is upsetting - but I found it interesting that the Abu Ghraib torture photos were such a media sensation... and then, nothing. I didn't believe that soldiers stopped taking photos, or that the only photos they had were from that one prison. And, it turns out, there are a lot more out there.

That raises some questions about the U.S. news media, and what motivates them to publicize, or not publicize, that kind of information.

t r u t h o u t - Naomi Klein | How to End the War (truthout.org, 05/07/05): is one of several articles that discusses how profitable war can be, and how that is always encouragement for those who profit to make new wars.

There are several articles which have detailed how the US government has attempted to subvert efforts at "democracy" in Iraq, with puppet governments, payola, and other tricks. This discusses the motivation for doing so:

The reality is the Bush administration has fought democracy in Iraq at every turn.

Why? Because if genuine democracy ever came to Iraq, the real goals of the war - control over oil, support for Israel, the construction of enduring military bases, the privatization of the entire economy - would all be lost. Why? Because Iraqis don't want them and they don't agree with them. They have said it over and over again - first in opinion polls, which is why the Bush administration broke its original promise to have elections within months of the invasion.

...They protested that 500,000 people had lost their jobs. They protested the fact that they were being shut out of the reconstruction of their own country, and they made it clear they didn't want permanent US bases.

That's when the administration broke its promise and appointed a CIA agent as the interim prime minister. In that period they locked in - basically shackled - Iraq's future governments to an International Monetary Fund program until 2008.

Democracy without actual FINANCIAL control for the people is a foreign capitalist corporation's dream!

[I'm compiling a large collection of clippings, but haven't been posting because... well, really, nothing has changed. It's all still terrible, and the media is still largely cheerleading. But I will post here again in the short term, to repeat this in a longer way. :-) ]